AS4 satellite amplifier D1002818 / D080276 troubleshoot

I dug into the circuit to see what/where things were wrong.

- UL saturation issue: The open light voltage at the TIA output (I-V out) was 10.4V. It seemed that the photocurrent of 86uA was simply a little too much for the transimpedance gain of 121kOhm. So the R18 was replaced to 100kOhm. This made the I-V out to be 8.6V and the ADC input count to be 28200 (Attachment 1). This modification was done on the unit S2100742 CH1 (LEFT CH1)

- Non responding LL issue: Now moved on to LL (LEFT CH2). The basic circuit test didn't reveal any problem. So the DSUB25 cables were swapped at the vacuum feedthru flange. The result is shown in Attachment 2. LL OSEM issue was moved to the 2nd ch of the right channel of the sat amp (CH6). This is means that the problem is somewhere in the vacuum chamber (including the vacuum feedthru). We need to check the in-vacuum cable and the OSEM. We can test the OSEM by swapping the position of the OSEM connector between LL and UL (for example).

It was indeed the issue of the top OSEM plate not being in the right place horizontally. But the issue was more non-trivial. I believe because of the wedge in thick optics, there is a YAW offset in the optic in the free hanging position. I had to readjust the OSEM plate 4 times to be able to get full dark to bright range in both upper OSEMs. After doing that, I tuned the four OSEMs somewhat near the halfway point and once I was sure I'm inside the sensitive region in all face OSEMs, I switched on POS, PIT, and YAW damping. Then I was able to finely tune the positions of both upper OSEMs.

However, on reaching to lower right OSEM, I found again the same issue. I had to stop to go to the 40m meeting, I'll continue this work in the afternoon. But OSEM plate adjustment in the horizontal direction, particularly for thick optics is required to be done before transporting them. I achieved the best position by turning the OSEM 90 degrees and using the OSEM LED/PD plates to determine the position. This was the final successful trial I did in adjusting the plate position horizontally.

[Paco, Tega, Anchal]

Today, we started work on AS4 SOS by checking the OSEM and cable. Swapping the connection preserved the failure (no counts) so we swapped the long OSEM for a short one that we knew was working instead, and this solved the issue. We proceeded to swap in a "yellow label", long OSEM in place and then noticed the top plate had issues with the OSEM threads. We took out the bolt and inspected its thread, and even borrowed the screw from PR2 plate but saw the same effect. Even using a silver plated setscrew such as the SD OSEM one resulted in trouble... Then, we decided to not keep trying weird things, and took our sweet time to remove the UL, UR OSEMs, top earthquake stops, and top plate carefully in-situ. Then, we continued the surgery by installing a new top plate which we borrowed from the clean room (the only difference is the OSEM aperture barrels are teflon (?) rather than stainless. The operation was a success, and we moved on to OSEM installation.

After reaching a good place with the OSEM installation, where most sensors were at 50% brightness level and we were happy with the damping action (!!), we fixed all EQ stops and proceeded to push the SOS to its nominal placement. Then upong releasing the EQ stops, we found out that the sensor readings were shifted.

Is this the correct status? Please directly update this entry.

LO1 [Glued] [Suspended] [Balanced] [Placed In Vacuum] [OSEM Tuned] [Damped]
LO2 [Glued] [Suspended] [Balanced] [Placed In Vacuum] [OSEM Tuned] [Damped]
AS1 [Glued] [Suspended] [Balanced] [Placed In Vacuum] [OSEM Tuned] [Damped]
AS4 [Glued] [Suspended] [Balanced] [Placed In Vacuum] [OSEM Tuned] [Damped]
PR2 [Glued] [Suspended] [Balanced] [Placed In Vacuum] [OSEM Tuned] [Damped]
PR3 [Glued] [Suspended] [Balanced] [Placed In Vacuum] [OSEM Tuned] [Damped]
SR2 [Glued] [Suspended] [Balanced] [Placed In Vacuum] [OSEM Tuned] [Damped]

Last updated: Fri Jan 28 10:34:19 2022

I have further updated my calculation. Please find the results in the attached pdf.

Following is the description of calculations done:

Arm cavity reflection:

Reflection fro arm cavity is calculated as simple FP cavity reflection formula while absorbing all round trip cavity scattering losses (between 50 ppm to 200 ppm) into the ETM transmission loss.

So effective reflection of ETM is calculated as

The magnitude and phase of this reflection is plotted in page 1 with respect to different round trip loss and deviation of cavity length from resonance. Note that the arm round trip loss does not affect the sign of the reflection from cavity, at least in the range of values taken here.

PRC Gain

The Michelson in PRFPMI is assumed to be perfectly aligned so that one end of PRC cavity is taken as the arm cavity reflection calculated above at resonance. The other end of the cavity is calculated as a single mirror of effective transmission that of PRM, 2 times PR2 and 2 times PR3. Then effective reflectivity of PRM is calculated as:

Note, that field transmission of PRM is calculated with original PRM power transmission value, so that the PR2, PR3 transmission losses do not increase field transmission of PRM in our calculations. Then the field gain is calculated inside the PRC using the following:

From this, the power recycling cavity gain is calculated as:

The variation of PRC Gain is showed on page 2 wrt arm cavity round trip losses and PR2 transmission. Note that gain value of 40 is calculated for any PR2 transmission below 1000 ppm. The black verticle lines show the optics whose transmission was measured. If V6-704 is used, PRC Gain would vary between 15 and 10 depending on the arm cavity losses. With pre-2010 ITM, PRC Gain would vary between 30 and 15.

LO Power

LO power when PRFPMI is locked is calculated by assuming 1 W of input power to IMC. IMC is assumed to let pass 10% of the power (). This power is then multiplied by PRC Gain and transmitted through the PR2 to calculate the LO power.

Page 3 shows the result of this calculation. Note for V6-704, LO power would be between 35mW and 15 mW, for pre-2010 ITM, it would be between 15 mW and 5 mW depending on the arm cavity losses.

The power available during alignment is simply given by:

If we remove PRM from the input path, we would have sufficient light to work with for both relevant optics.

I have attached the notebook used to do these calculations. Please let me know if you find any mistake in this calculation.

Today I suspended AS1. Anchal helped me with the initial hanging of the optics. Attachments 1,2 show the roll balance and side magnet height. Attachment 3 shows the motion spectra.

The major peaks are at 668mHz, 821mHz, 985mHz.

For some reason, I was not able to balance the pitch with 2 counterweights as I did with the rest of the thin optics (and AS1 before). Inserting the weights all the way was not enough to bring the reflection up to the iris aperture that was used for preliminary balancing. I was able to do so with a single counterweight (attachment 4). I'm afraid something is wrong here but couldn't find anything obvious. It is also worth noting that the yaw resonance 668mHz is different from the 755mHz we got in all the other optics. Maybe one or more of the wires are not clamped correctly on the side blocks?

The OSEMs were pushed into the OSEM plate and the plates were adjusted such that the magnets are at the center of the face OSEMs. The wires were clamped and cut from the winches. The SOS is ready for installation.

Also, I added a link to the OSEM assignments spreadsheet to the suspension wiki.

I uploaded some pictures of the PEEK EQ stops, both on the thick and thin optics, to the Google Photos account.

IMC is not such lossy. IMC output is supposed to be ~1W.

The critical coupling condition is G_PRC = 1/T_PRM = 17.7. If we really have L_arm = 50ppm, we will be very close to the critical coupling. Maybe we are OK if we have such condition as our testing time would be much longer in PRMI than PRFPMI at the first phase. If the arm loss turned out to be higher, we'll be saved by falling to undercoupling.
When the PRC is close to the critical coupling (like 50ppm case), we roughly have Tprc x 2 and Tarm to be almost equal. So each beam will have 1/3 of the input power i.e. ~300mW. That's probably too much even for the two OMCs (i.e. 4 DCPDs). That's OK. We can reduce the input power by 3~5.

I was wondering whether I should take AS1 down to redo the wire clamping on the side blocks. I decided to take the OpLev spectrum again to be more certain. Attachments 1,2,3 show 3 spectra taken at different times.

They all show the same peaks 744mHz, 810mHz, 1Hz. So I think something went wrong with yesterday's measurement. I will not take AS1 down for now. We still need to apply some glue to the counterweight.

[Paco]

Turns out, the shifting was likely due to the table level. Because I didn't take care the first time to "zero" the level of the table as I tuned the OSEMs, the installation was b o g u s. So today I took time to,

a) Shift AS4 close to the center of the table.

b) Use the clean level tool to pick a plane of reference. To do this, I iteratively placed two counterweights (from the ETMX flow bench) in two locations in the breadboard such that I nominally balanced the table under this configuration to zome reference plane z0. The counterweight placement is of course temporary, and as soon as we make further changes such as final placement of AS4 SOS, or installation of AS1, their positions will need to change to recover z=z0.

c) Install OSEMs until I was happy with the damping. ** Here, I noticed the new suspension screens had been misconfigured (probably c1sus2 rebooted and we don't have any BURT), so quickly restored the input and output matrices.

SUSPENSION STATUS UPDATED HERE

The main issue with SR2 OSEMs, now that I think of it, was that the BS table was very inclined due to the multiple things we removed (including counterweights). Today the first I did was level the BS table by placing some counterweights in the correct positions. I placed the level in two directions right next to SR2 (clamped in its planned place), and made the bubble center.

While doing do, at one point, I was trying to reach the far South-West end of the table with the 3x heavy 6" cylindrical counterweight in my hand. The counterweight slipped off my hand and fell from the table. See the photo in attachment 1. It went to the bottommost place and is resting on its curved surface.

This counterweight needs to be removed but one can not reach it from over the table. So to remove it, we'll have to open one of the blank flanges on the South-west end of BS chamber and remove the counterweight from there. We'll ask Chub to help us on this. I'm sorry for the mistake, I'll be more careful with counterweights in the future.

Moving on, I tuned all the SR2 OSEMs. It was fairly simple today since the table was leveled. I closed the chamber with the optic free to move and damped in all degrees of freedom.

Photos: https://photos.app.goo.gl/CQ6VouSB1HX2DPqW6

SUSPENSION STATUS UPDATED HERE

The PR2 candidate V6-704/705 mirrors (Qty2) are now @Downs. Camille picked them up for the measurements.

To identify the mirrors, I labeled them (on the box) as M1 and M2. Also the HR side was checked to be the side pointed by an arrow mark on the barrel. e.g. Attachment 1 shows the HR side up

AS4 is set to go through a free swinging test at 10 pm tonight. We have used this script (Git/40m/scripts/SUS/InMatCalc/freeSwing.py) reliably in the past so we expect no issues, it has a error catching block to restore all changes at the end of the test or if something goes wrong.

To access the test, on allegra, type:

Then you can kill the script if required by Ctrl-C, it will restore all changes while exiting.

SR2 is set to go through a free swinging test at 3 am tonight. We have used this script (Git/40m/scripts/SUS/InMatCalc/freeSwing.py) reliably in the past so we expect no issues, it has a error catching block to restore all changes at the end of the test or if something goes wrong.

To access the test, on allegra, type:

Then you can kill the script if required by Ctrl-C, it will restore all changes while exiting.

The free swinging test was successful. I ran the input matrix diagonalization code (/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/SUS/InMAtCalc/sus_diagonalization.py) on theSR2 free-swinging data collected last night. The logfile and results are stored in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/SUS/InMAtCalc/SR2 directory. Attachment 1 shows the power spectral density of the DOF basis data (POS, PIT, YAW, SIDE) before and after the diagonalization. Attachment 2 shows the fitted peaks.

1.09

0.914

0.622

0.798

-0.977

1.249

0.143

-1.465

-0.359

0.378

0.552

-1.314

-0.605

1.261

0.118

0.72

0.403

0.217

0.534

3.871

The new matrix was loaded on SR2 input matrix and this resulted in no control loop oscillations at least. I'll compare the performance of the loops in future soon.

Camille@Downs measured the surface of these M1 and M2 using Zygo.

The free swinging test was successful. I ran the input matrix diagonalization code (/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/SUS/InMAtCalc/sus_diagonalization.py) on the AS4 free-swinging data collected last night. The logfile and results are stored in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/SUS/InMAtCalc/AS4 directory. Attachment 1 shows the power spectral density of the DOF basis data (POS, PIT, YAW, SIDE) before and after the diagonalization. Attachment 2 shows the fitted peaks.

0.844

0.707

0.115

0.253

-1.646

0.122

0.262

-1.319

-1.459

0.214

1.087

-0.901

-0.874

1.114

0.016

0.622

0.934

0.357

0.045

3.822

The new matrix was loaded on AS4 input matrix and this resulted in no control loop oscillations at least. I'll compare the performance of the loops in future soon.

I think our suspension input matrix diagonalization is not so robust usually because we only choose a inverting matrix which gives the best separation for a single suspension alignment.

i.e. we have seen in the past that adjusting the bias for the alignment makes the matrix inversion not work well. Sometime people turn OFF the alignment bias before making the ringdown and that makes the whole measurement invalid.

This is because the sensitivity of the OSEMs to longitudinal and/or transverse motion is significantly different for different alignment.

I wonder if there's a way we can choose a better matrix by putting in random gain errors on the shadow sensor signals and then finding the matrix which gives the best diag under an ensemble of gain errors.

I picked up the PR2 mirrors (labeled M1, M2) from Anchel's table and took them to the cleanroom. By inspection, I spotted some dust particles on M1. I wasn't able to remove them with clean air so I decided to use M2 which looked much cleaner. I wasn't able to discern any wedge angle on the optic. I inserted the optic into a thin optic adapter. The optic is thicker than I expected so I use long screws for the mirror clamping. I expect that the pitch balance will shift towards the front of the mirror so I assembled only 1 counterweight for now. The side blocks with wires in them were installed.

I engraved the SOS and installed the winches on it. Paco came in and helped me to hang the optic. Looking at the wire hanging angle I realize that 1 counterweight at the front is not enough. I install a second counterweight at the back and observe that I can cross the balancing point.

I locked the EQ stops. Suspension work continues tomorrow...

I placed LO2 in its planned position in BS chamber, inserted the OSEMs, and tuned their position to halfway brightness. At the end of the work, I was able to damp the optic successfully. The full open (full brightness) OSEM ADC counts are:

UL 25743.  -> 12876
UR 27384. -> 13692
LL 25550. -> 12775
LR 27395 -> 13697
SD 28947 -> 14473

Today's OSEM tuning was relatively unhappening. I have only following two remarks:

• BS table was 3 SOS near the East end and PRM is parked in the center, thus the table is very unevenly balanced. I had to use all available counter weights to make it flat near the LO2 suspension.
• The side OSEM for LO2 is not exactly centered (probably due to table imbalance). I was able to balance the table to a point though that the side OSEM was responsive to full range and I was able to damp the optic.

Free swinging test set to trigger

LO2 is set to go through a free swinging test at 10 pm tonight. We have used this script (Git/40m/scripts/SUS/InMatCalc/freeSwing.py) reliably in the past so we expect no issues, it has a error catching block to restore all changes at the end of the test or if something goes wrong.

To access the test, on allegra, type:

Then you can kill the script if required by Ctrl-C, it will restore all changes while exiting.

Photos: https://photos.app.goo.gl/Ff3yGBprj9xgPbnLA

SUSPENSION STATUS UPDATED HERE

I agree. That's an interesting idea. But does that mean that there is an always working inverse matrix solution or that any solution will be vulnerable to the alignment biases.

I think we can also calculate the matrix rotation required as a function of dc biases and do that rotation in the simulimk model.

[Paco]

AS1 was installed in the ITMY chamber today. For this I moved AS4 to its nominal final placement and clamped it down with a single dog clamp. Then, I placed AS1 near the center of the table, and quickly checked AS4 could still be damped. After this, I leveled the table using a heavier/lighter counterweight pair. 

Once things were leveled, I proceeded to install AS1 OSEMs. The LL, UL, UR OSEMs had a bright level of 27000 counts, while SD and LR were at 29500, and 29900 respectively. After a while, I managed to damp all degrees of freedom around the 50% thousand count levels, and decided to stop. 

UL 27000.  -> 16000
UR 27000. -> 13800
LL 27000 -> 14600
LR 29900 -> 14900
SD 29500 -> 12900

Free swinging test set to trigger

AS1 is set to go through a free swinging test at 3 am this evening. We have used this script (Git/40m/scripts/SUS/InMatCalc/freeSwing.py) reliably in the past so we expect no issues, it has a error catching block to restore all changes at the end of the test or if something goes wrong.

To access the test, on allegra, type:

Then you can kill the script if required by Ctrl-C, it will restore all changes while exiting.

SUSPENSION STATUS UPDATED HERE

The free swinging test was successful. I ran the input matrix diagonalization code (/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/SUS/InMAtCalc/sus_diagonalization.py) on the LO2 free-swinging data collected last night. The logfile and results are stored in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/SUS/InMAtCalc/LO2 directory. Attachment 1 shows the power spectral density of the DOF basis data (POS, PIT, YAW, SIDE) before and after the diagonalization. Attachment 2 shows the fitted peaks.

0.46

1.237

1.094

0.318

0.98

1.091

0.252

-1.512

-0.672

-0.088

0.722

-1.014

-0.217

1.519

0.314

-0.747

1.523

1.737

-0.534

3.134

The new matrix was loaded on LO2 input matrix and this resulted in no control loop oscillations at least. I'll compare the performance of the loops in future soon.

For some reasonf the free swing test showed only one resonance peak (see attachment 1). This probably happened because one of the earthquake stops is touching the optic. Maybe after the table balancing, the table moved a little over its long relazation time and by the time the free swing test was performed at 3 am, one of the earthquake stops was touching the optic. We need to check this when we open the chamber next.

I noticed that our current suspension damping loops for the new SOS were railing the DAC outputs. The reason being that cts2um module has not been updated for most optics and thus teh OSEM signal (with the new Sat Amps) is about 30 times stronger. That means our usual intuition of damping gains is too high without applying correct conversion cts2um filter module. I reduced all these gains today and nothing is overflowing the c1su2 chassis now. I also added two options in the "!" (command running drop down menu) in the sus_single medm screens for opening ndscope for monitoring coil outputs or OSEM inputs of the optic whose sus screen is used.

PR2's side magnet height was adjusted and its roll was balanced (attachment 1,2). I verified that the OpLev beam is still aligned. The pitch was balanced: First, using an iris for rough adjustment. Then, with the QPD. I locked the counterweight setscrew.

I turned off the HEPAs, damped PR2, and measured the QPD spectra (attachment 3). Major peaks are at 690mHz, 953mHz, and 1.05Hz. I screwed back the lower OSEM plate. The wires were clamped to the suspension block and were cut. Winch adapter plate removed. I wanted to push OSEMs into the OSEM plates but the wiki is down so I can't tell what was the plan. This will have to wait for tomorrow. Also here like with AS1 we need to apply glue to the counterweights.

[Paco]

This morning, I went into ITMY chamber to inspect AS1 after the free swinging test failed. Indeed, as forecasted by Anchal, the top front EQ stop was slightly touching, which means AS1 was not properly installed before. I proceeded by removing it well behind any chance of touching the optic, and did the same for all the other stops, of which most were already recessed significantly. Finally, the OSEMs changed accordingly to produced a PITCHed optic (top front EQ was slightly biasing the pitch angle), so I did a reinstallation until the levels were around the 14000 count region. After damping AS1 relatively quickly, I closed the ITMY chamber.

[Anchal, Paco]

We removed the old PR3 housed in a tip-tilt style suspension and put it on the North flow bench in the cleanroom. I put PR3 in an accessible position near the North West edge of the BS chamber and balanced the table again with many weights. The OSEM tuning was very uneventful and easy. Following are the full brightness ADC counts for the OSEMs:
UL 25693. -> 12846
UR 24905. -> 12452
LL 23298. -> 11649
LR 24991. -> 12495
SD 26357. -> 13178

I was able to damp the optic easily after the OSEM installation with no issues.

Photos: https://photos.app.goo.gl/jcAqwFJoboeUuR7F9

[Paco, Anchal, Tega]

After installing the short OSEMs into PR2, we moved it into ITMX Chamber. While Tega loaded some of the damping filters and other settings, we took time to balance the heavily tilted ITMX chamber. After running out of counterweigths, Anchal had to go into the cleanroom and bring the SOS stands, two of which had to be stacked near the edge of the breadoard. Finally, we connected the OSEMs following the canonical order

LL -> UR-> UL

LR -> SD

But found that UR was reading -14000 counts. So, we did a quick swap of the UR and UL sensors and verified that the OSEM itself is working, just in a different channel... So it's time to debug the electronics (probably PR2 Sat Amp?)...

PR2 Sat Amp preliminary investigation:

• The UR channel (CH1 or CH4, on PR2 Sat Amp)  gives negative value as soon as an OSEM is connected.
• Without anything connected, the channel reports the usual 0V output.
• With the PDA inputs of PR2 Sat Amp shorted, we again see 0V output.
• So it seems like when non-zero photodiode current goes, the circuit sees a reversal of gain polarity and the gain is roughly half in magnitude as the correct one.

• Started debugging D1002818 / S2100737 (8:30PM)
• Confirmed the issue of the negative output of the UR sensor with the dummy OSEM connected at the air side of the ITMY chamber. Both PD Out and PD Mon have negative outputs.
• The same issue remains when the dummy OSEM box is connected to the chassis with a short DB25M/F cable at the rack.
• Started debugging the setup at the workbench.
  • CH1 TIA Output=-3.0V / CH2 (in question) TIA Output =-2.7V => No Problem
  • CH1 Whitening Out=+3.0V / CH2 Whitening Out=-1.4V => Problem
  • Resolder the components around whitening CH2 => no change
  • Remove AD822 and replace with a new one => CH2 Whitening OUt = +2.7V ==> Problem solved
  • PD1~3 channels of the left and right PCBs tested with the OSEM box ==> nearly +3V/-3V differential output (All Clear)
  • Chassis closing
• Chassis restored in Rack 1Y1 and the normal output with the dummy OSEM box confirmed
• Mission Completed (9:30PM)
• Elog finished (9:40PM)
• Case closed

[Paco]

Thanks to Koji's hotfix on the PR2 SatAmp box last evening, this morning I was able to finish the OSEM installation for PR2. PR2 is now fully damped. Then, I realized that with the extreme rebalancing done in ITMX chamber, LO1 needed to be reinstalled, so I proceeded to do that. I verified all the degrees of freedom remained damped.

I think all SOS are nominally damped, so we are 90% done with suspension installation!

SUSPENSION STATUS UPDATED HERE

All green! Great work, Team!

AS1, PR2 and PR3 are set to o go through a free swinging test at 3 am. We have used this script (Git/40m/scripts/SUS/InMatCalc/freeSwing.py) reliably in the past so we expect no issues, it has a error catching block to restore all changes at the end of the test or if something goes wrong.

To access the test, on allegra, type:

Then you can kill the script if required by Ctrl-C, it will restore all changes while exiting.

I've summarized the optomechanics configuration for the in-vacuum aux small optics

It's not obvious here but the post for POP_SM4 is the stack of BA2V, Newport 9953, PLS-T238, LMR1V. The mirror is a CM254-750-E03 curved mirror. This should go on the suspension base. I hope I did not make a mistake there...

git repo: git@git.ligo.org:tega-edo/charmirrormap.git

The analysis code takes in a set of raw images, 10 in our case,  for each mirror and calculates the zernike aberration coefficients for each image, then takes their average. This average value is used to reconstruct the mirror height map.  Finally, the residual error between the reconstructed image and the raw data is calculated.

We repeat the analysis for different field of views (FoV) namely 10mm, 20mm, 30mm, 40mm and 46.5mm and save the results in the output folder of the repo.

The analysis output for a 10mm FoV aperture at the mirror center is shown in the attachement. These three images show the input data, the reconstructed mirror surface map and the residual error.

The free swinging test was successful. I ran the input matrix diagonalization code (/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/SUS/InMAtCalc/sus_diagonalization.py) on the PR2 free-swinging data collected last night. The logfile and results are stored in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/SUS/InMAtCalc/PR2 directory. Attachment 1 shows the power spectral density of the DOF basis data (POS, PIT, YAW, SIDE) before and after the diagonalization. Attachment 2 shows the fitted peaks. I chose to not type out the matrix values now. One can find them in teh repo links above.

The free swinging test was successful. I ran the input matrix diagonalization code (/opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/SUS/InMAtCalc/sus_diagonalization.py) on the PR3 free-swinging data collected last night. The logfile and results are stored in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/SUS/InMAtCalc/PR3 directory. Attachment 1 shows the power spectral density of the DOF basis data (POS, PIT, YAW, SIDE) before and after the diagonalization. Attachment 2 shows the fitted peaks. I chose to not type out the matrix values now. One can find them in teh repo links above.

We still did not get a good AS1 free swinging spectrum. It seems the Side OSEM is reporting coupling to too many DOFs and some extra resonances than we expect. So we did not upload the new input matrix calculated from this test. I'm attaching teh peak fitting (attachment 1) and the diagonalization attempt (attachment 2) to give some idea of what happened. Note how different this fre swinging spectrum looks from the other optics. Given that Yehonathan also felt that somthing might be off with this optic, we need to reevaluate if the suspension has wire not aligned in grove, or it is imbalanced or something else if touching it still.

Here is more detail of the POP_SM4 mount assembly.

It's a combination of BA2V + PLS-T238 + BA1V + TR-1.5 + LMR1V + Mirror: CM254-750-E03
Between BA1V and PLS-T238, we have to do a washer action to fix the post (8-32) with a 1/4-20 slot. Maybe we can use a 1" post shim from thorlabs/newport.
Otherwise, we should be able to fasten the other joints with silver-plated screws we already have/ordered.

I think TR-1.5 (and a shim) has not been given to Jordan for C&B. I'll take a look at these.

Asked Jordan to clean 2x 1.5" posts (0.5 dia) and a washer with 1" dia.

{Yehonathan, Anchal, Paco}

Yesterday, Anchal and Paco removed AS1 from the vacuum chamber and moved it into the cleanroom. The suspension wires were cut and the AS1 optic was put on the table.

Two things were noticed:

1. One of the wires was not sitting inside the side block groove (attachment 1)

2. One of the face magnets was grossly tilted (attachment 2). Probably due to uneven polishing of the dumbbell.

We put new wires into the side blocks making sure they sit in their grooves and we removed the tilted magnet. A different, more straight magnet was picked from the remaining spare magnets. The dumbbell and adapter were cleaned from glue residues and a batch of glue was prepared.

In the process of gluing a different magnet was knocked off. We cleaned that magnet too. The 2 magnets were glued on the adapter.

Today I came and saw that the gluing failed completely. One of the magnets was completely away from its socket and the other one wasn't glued at all.

I prepared a new batch of glue and glued the two magnets.

Yesterday, I rebuilt the OpLev setup in the cleanroom in order to suspend AS1. It took me a while to find all the necessary parts but I found them in the end.

The HeNe laser was placed on the optical table and turned on. The beam was aimed to bounce off a folding mirror to the SOS tower.

The beam's height was controlled by the HeNe laser stage and made to be 5+14/32". The beam from the folding mirror was made parallel to the table, first with an iris and then with the QPD connected to a scope.

Preparing the SOS tower for the suspension I noticed that the wire clamp is scratched on both sides from previous suspensions. I discarded that wire clamp but couldn't find the spares. Time ran out and I had to stop.

[Anchal, Paco]

Wire clamp spare was installed, furthermore AS1 was reinstalled on adapter, attached wire clamps, and cleaned using ionized air gun. Finally, we suspended it on the SOS tower and left it resting on the bottom earthquake stops; ready for balancing.

{Paco, Yehonathan}

We tried to roughly balance the adapter with two counterweights at the front, like with the other thin optics using an iris. As before, we couldn't get the beam above the iris hole no matter how much we inserted the counterweights into the adapter. We noticed that one of the side blocks is actually the one where the clearance for the wire was made on the wrong side. So there was clearance on both the up and bottom sides of the side block (see attachment 1).

Could this be the cause of the balancing issue? Running out of ideas on how to fix it we gave it a try and replaced it with a spare side block. We also found that the wire on the other side block was kinked so we replaced the wire on this one as well.

After inserting new wires into the side blocks, we hung the adapter on the winches and the beam was above the iris aperture! How could this tiny amount of missing mass make this much difference?

We were able to roughly balance the adapter.

We then tried to balance the roll of the adapter but accidentally knocked off the side magnet 😫.

We usually glue several side magnets together and they all together support the metallic plate on which the magnets are magnetically attached to. This time we had only one side magnet to glue so instead of trying to glue the magnet vertically we are trying to glue it horizontally using a flat surface and a stage to clamp it (attachments 2,3).

BTW, the HeNe was not working when we came into the cleanroom. We realized it was the old HeNe that we already determined to be broken but there was no sign on it. I attached a "BAD" sign on it and replaced it with the new HeNe. The OpLeve beam was realigned. All of this happened before all the things described above

Not sure if that small difference can cause the alignment inability. Particularly, the removed metal was just below the wire. This means that there is no misalignment effect at the first order.

Here is my idea:
You may be able to assist the alignment by adding washers on one side of the four holes to this "H" shaped parts. The holes are away from the center line, adding some weight definitely do some misalignment.

The gluing seemed to be successful. I assembled the side block with the magnet on the adapter. Paco helped me hang the adapter on the SOS tower.

The height and roll of the adapters were balanced (attachment 1,2).

The QPD was placed at the beam reflection. The beam was centered horizontally on the QPD and then measured vertically. The pitch DOF was balanced using the counterweights. The counterweight was locked. Balance was retained.

I tried to assemble the upper mirror clamp on the tower but for some reason, one of its tap holes was not able to accept screws. I gave it to Jordan for retapping. I measured the motion spectrum using the QPD connected to a scope (attachment 3).

Major peaks are at 668mHz, 942mHz, and 1029mHz.

[Paco]

Installed AS1 in vacuum, near the center of the table, and installed the OSEMs. All OSEMS are "balanced" nominally, i.e. their shadow is at the halfway point optimum, but fine tuning is required, which I will attempt tomorrow after restoring the AS1 suspension screen settings. Today, I tried damping the SIDE DOF, but didn't succeed, although there was definitely some oscillating behaviour with high (> 5) gains on the damping, so I believe this is a matter of patience. For now, all OSEMs are looking ok, the SOS is in place, and hopefully it will soon be damped. 

[Paco]

AS1 is installed, OSEMs balanced, and the optic damped successfully. We should run the free swinging test overnight to validate this re-installation.

I have made an editable draw.io diagram of the planned simplified BHD setup on the ITMY table (see attached).  10 pts = 1 inch.

This is very sketchy but easily adjustable since we are removing everything but the ITMY Oplev from that table.

- BHD beams were already mixed in the chamber. So we don't need a BS on the table. (Probably there is no BS already)

- We don't need to split each BHD beam. One PD per BHD beam is OK for now.

- Check if the BHD paths have reasonable angles from the windows so that the beams do not hit the chamber wall.

- We need the POY path. POY indeed goes to the BS table

http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/16722

http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/16716