40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 142 of 339  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Typeup Category Subject
  5158   Tue Aug 9 16:40:12 2011 steveUpdateGeneralclean room coat counts

I measured the particles coming off of new- unused clean room coat. Tyvek, Convertors, Allegiance #9393 measured  10 counts of 0.3 micron at 1 minute and 0 count at 7 minute.

The 0.5 micron size  measured 0 at both times. Jenne's used coat measured 20 counts of 0.3 micron  and 0 counts for 0.5 micron at 1 minute. ( counts / cf- min)

The HEPA tent background is consistently 0 when it's CP STAT 100 curtains are closed.

Attachment 1: P1080155.JPG
P1080155.JPG
  5159   Tue Aug 9 16:54:47 2011 steveUpdateVACscratch on vac door

Jenne found a big scratch on the north vac door of ITMY. Fortunately it does not reach the inner annulos 0 -ring seal.

This is precisely what we have to avoid to preserve our vacuum system!

 

Attachment 1: P1080152.JPG
P1080152.JPG
  5161   Wed Aug 10 00:11:39 2011 jamieUpdateSUScheck of input diagnolization of ETMX after OSEM tweaking

Suresh and I tweaked the OSEM angles in ETMX yesterday.  Last night the ETMs were left free swinging, and today I ran Rana's peakFit scripts on ETMX to check the input diagnolization:

ETMX.png

It's well inverted, but the matrix elements are not great:

       pit       yaw       pos       side      butt
UL    0.3466    0.4685    1.6092    0.3107    1.0428
UR    0.2630   -1.5315    1.7894   -0.0706   -1.1859
LR   -1.7370   -1.5681    0.3908   -0.0964    0.9392
LL   -1.6534    0.4319    0.2106    0.2849   -0.8320
SD    1.0834   -2.6676   -0.9920    1.0000   -0.1101

The magnets are all pretty well centered in the OSEMS, and we worked at rotating the OSEMS such that the bounce mode was minimized.

Rana and Koji are working on ETMY now.  Maybe they'll come up with a better procedure.

  5162   Wed Aug 10 00:21:10 2011 jamieUpdateCDSupdates to peakFit scripts

I updated the peakFit routines to make them a bit more user friendly:

  • modified so that any subset of optics can be processed at a time, instead of just all
  • broke out tweakable fit parameters into a separate parameters.m file
  • added a README that describes use

These changes were committed to the 40m svn.

  5163   Wed Aug 10 01:40:40 2011 KojiUpdateSUSETMY exploration

[Rana Koji Jenne Jamie]

- The situation of the ETMY suspension is improved.
- The damping servos except for Pitch are now functional.
- We intentionally turned off the damping servos for the matrix measurements.


- Opened the light door of the ETMY chamber.

- We set up the CDS SUS lockin:

        Excite UL/UR/LL/LR equally [by setting the output matrix (1, 1, 1, 1, 0)] at 3.12Hz with 2000 cnts
        Put the OSEM PD outputs into lockin one by one. For the image rejection, 0.1Hz 4th order LPF has been used though we like to use a faster settling LPF.

- Found only UL was responding to the excitation. After fitzing with the cables and connectors, it was found that the DAC card was loose from the bus.
  By pushing the card the responses have been back. [Note we had the reboot of c1iscey almost at the same time.]

- Checked the response in the I channel of the lockin.
        UL -8ish / UR +7ish / LR +5ish / LL +2ish

- Tweaked LL sensor to get better response ==> in vain. Decided to move the lower OSEM plate for the better positioning of the LR/LL.
- Got reasonable (+5ish) response for LL.

- Confirmed that the POS/YAW/SIDE damping works with positive gains. PITCH did not work with the negative gain (but that could be a good sign.)

- Let the suspension freely swinging for a while (~30min). Checked the side/pos separation. They are not perfect but seemed diagonalizable.

- Closed the light door.

- Jenne will make a better kick/free-swing test later.

  5164   Wed Aug 10 02:29:38 2011 JenneUpdateSUSETMY exploration

Quote:

- Jenne will make a better kick/free-swing test later.

 02:27am, ran the new freeswinging-ifo.csh script.  It's just a copy of freeswinging-all.csh, but it doesn't include the MC mirrors, since Suresh and Kiwamu are still working.  

Now we have copies of the script for -all, -mc, -ifo to cover the various sections of the suspended interferometer.

  5165   Wed Aug 10 02:40:40 2011 JennyUpdatePSLDither freq for PZT chosen: 2.418 MHz

I've finished using the network analyzer to characterize find a dither frequency for driving the PZT to use in my PDH locking. I found a region in which the amplitude response of the PZT is low: The dip is centered at 2.418 MHz. Changing the NPRO laser temperature by 100mK has no significant effect on the transfer function in that region. I will post plots tomorrow.

I'm finished with the network analyzer. It is unplugged, and the cart is still near the PSL table. (I'll roll it back tomorrow when it won't disturb interferometer locking).

I closed the shutter on the NPRO at the end of the night.

Tomorrow I plan to put together the fast locking setup. I'll drive the PZT at 2.418 MHz. More details to come tomorrow.

  5166   Wed Aug 10 07:59:33 2011 steveUpdateSUSthis is too dam nice

Quote:

Suresh and I tweaked the OSEM angles in ETMX yesterday.  Last night the ETMs were left free swinging, and today I ran Rana's peakFit scripts on ETMX to check the input diagnolization:

ETMX.png

It's well inverted, but the matrix elements are not great:

       pit       yaw       pos       side      butt
UL    0.3466    0.4685    1.6092    0.3107    1.0428
UR    0.2630   -1.5315    1.7894   -0.0706   -1.1859
LR   -1.7370   -1.5681    0.3908   -0.0964    0.9392
LL   -1.6534    0.4319    0.2106    0.2849   -0.8320
SD    1.0834   -2.6676   -0.9920    1.0000   -0.1101

The magnets are all pretty well centered in the OSEMS, and we worked at rotating the OSEMS such that the bounce mode was minimized.

Rana and Koji are working on ETMY now.  Maybe they'll come up with a better procedure.

 

  5167   Wed Aug 10 11:22:55 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC A2L alignment

[Kiwamu, Suresh]

We attempted to minimise the A2L coupling in the MC mirrors (centering the beam spot on the actuation node on each optic).  While it was easy to minimise the coupling in the pitch for all the three optics and yaw of MC2, the yaw alignment of MC1 and MC3 proved to be difficult.  For one the adjustment required was quite large, so much so that PSL alignment into the MC is often lost during this adujstment.  We had to align the PSL coupling several times in order to proceed.   And the MC settles into a new position when the MC-PSL servo loop was disturbed by random denizens in the lab.  Requiring us to start over again.

Kiwamu wrote a script to measure the MC(optic)(Pitch/yaw) -> Lockin(#1 to #6) matrix.  Inverting this matrix gave us the linear combination of the offsets to put on the MC# PIT/YAW  inorder to minimise a specific Lockin output.  However the cross couplings were not completely eliminated.  This made it very hard to predict what a given set of offsets were going to do to the Lockin outputs.

Net result:  the spots are centered in vertical direction (pitch) but not in the horizontal (yaw)

Day time tasks have started so I am quitting now.

  5168   Wed Aug 10 12:28:22 2011 Ishwita , ManuelUpdatePEMAA board gain

We used a function generator, an oscilloscope and the Data Viewer to check the gain of the new AA board (used for the seismometers). Putting a sine wave of 0.3V (using a function generator) to the AA board, we could see about 500 counts in the Data Viewer. The calibration of the ADC is 214 counts/volt, so the AA board gives to the ADC an output of 0.03V. This proves that the AA board has a gain of 0.1. Guralp1 and STS1 (Bacardi), both have a gain of 10 now, that balance the AAboard gain of 0.1. If we consider the gain of AA board in our calibrated power spectrum plot of seismic signals from Guralp1 and STS1 (Bacardi), we get the following plot:

pw_gur1_sts1_aug10.png

  5171   Wed Aug 10 13:52:23 2011 Manuel , IshwitaUpdatePEMMoving Seismometers

We turned off the power of the seismometers and moved the Guralp1 close to the STS. Both are now situated below the center of the mode cleaner vacuum tube.

We oriented the X axis of the STS & Guralp1 along the X axis of the interferometer. Then we turned on the power again, but the STS channels don't give any signal. We think this is, because we didn't push the auto zero button.

  5172   Wed Aug 10 14:27:39 2011 Ishwita , ManuelUpdatePEMCalibration of Guralp and STS2

ADC: 216counts = 4V Hence, calibration of ADC is 214counts/V.

Gain of the AA board, g1 = 0.1


GURALP

Sensitivity = 800 V/ms-1

214 counts/V x 800  V/ms-1 = 13107200 counts/ms-1 -----> 7.6294e-08 ms-1/count

Gain, g2 = 10

Calibration = 7.6294e-08 ms-1/count x g1 x g2 = 7.6294e-08 ms-1/count


 STS

Sensitivity = 1500 V/ms-1

214 counts/V x 1500  V/ms-1 = 24576000 counts/ms-1 -----> 4.069e-08 ms-1/count

Gain of the STS electronic breakout box, g3 = 10

Calibration = 4.069e-08 ms-1/count x g1 x g3 = 4.069e-08 ms-1/count

  5173   Wed Aug 10 14:30:55 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOORe: MC A2L alignment

I modified a set of the automated MC locking scripts which are dedicated for the low power MC.

Currently there are three scripts like the usual MC locking scripts:

(1)mcup_low_power, (2) mcdown_low_power and (3) autolockMCmain40_low_power.

I ran those scripts on op340m as usual and so far they are running very well. The lock acquisition is quite repeatable.

I hope theses scripts always bring the lock condition to the same one and hence the LOCKIN signals don't change by every lock.

 

- To run the script

  log into op340m and run autolockMCmain40m_low_power

Quote from #5167

And the MC settles into a new position when the MC-PSL servo loop was disturbed by random denizens in the lab.  Requiring us to start over again.

 

  5174   Wed Aug 10 14:35:39 2011 ranaUpdatePEMCalibration of Guralp and STS2

I'm pretty sure that don't have any ADC's with this gain. It should be +/- 10V for 16 bits. 

  5175   Wed Aug 10 15:17:39 2011 Ishwita, ManuelUpdatePEMCalibration of Guralp and STS2

Quote:

I'm pretty sure that don't have any ADC's with this gain. It should be +/- 10V for 16 bits. 

Jenne told us that the ADC was +/- 2V for 16 bits so our calibration is wrong. Since, the ADC is +/- 10V for 16 bits we need to change our calibration and now we can also use the purple STS breakout box.

  5176   Wed Aug 10 15:39:33 2011 jamieUpdateSUScurrent SUS input diagonalization overview

Below is the overview of all the core IFO suspension input diagonalizatidons.

Summary: ITMY, PRM, BS are really bad (in that order) and are our top priorities.

UPDATE:

I had originally put the condition number of the calculated input matrix (M) in the last column.  However, after some discussion we decided that this is not in fact what we want to look at.  The condition number of a matrix is unity if the matrix is completely diagonal.  However, even our ideal input matrix is not diagonal, so the "best" condition number for the input matrix is unclear.

What instead we do know is that the matrix, B, that describes the difference between the calculated input matrix, M, and the ideal input matrix, M0: should be diagonal (identity, in fact):

M = M0 B

B should be diagonal (identity, in fact), and it's condition number should ideally be 1.  So now we calculate B-1, since it can be calculated from the pre-inverted input matrix:

B-1 = M-1 * M0

From that we calculate cond(B) == cond(B-1).

cond(B) is our new measure of the "badness" of the OSEMS.

new summary: ITMY, PRM, BS are really bad (in that order) and are our top priorities.

 

TM    INPUT MATRIX (M)
 cond(M) cond(B)
 PRM PRM.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL   -2.000  -2.000  -2.000  -0.345   2.097 
UR   -0.375  -0.227  -0.312  -0.060   0.247 
LR    1.060   1.075   0.971   0.143  -0.984 
LL   -0.565  -0.698  -0.717  -0.141   0.672 
SD    1.513   1.485   1.498   1.000  -1.590
 75.569 106.756
 SRM SRM.png  

      pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.791   1.060   1.114  -0.133   1.026 
UR    1.022  -0.940   1.052  -0.061  -1.027 
LR   -0.978  -0.987   0.886  -0.031   0.903 
LL   -1.209   1.013   0.948  -0.103  -1.043 
SD    0.286   0.105   1.249   1.000   0.030

 2.6501 3.90776
 BS  BS.png  

      pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    1.420   0.818  -0.069   0.352   1.038 
UR    0.276  -1.182   1.931  -0.217  -0.905 
LR   -1.724  -0.274   1.940  -0.254   0.862 
LL   -0.580   1.726  -0.060   0.315  -1.194 
SD    0.560   0.171  -3.535   1.000   0.075 

9.8152 7.28516
ITMX ITMX.png       pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.437   1.015   1.050  -0.065   0.714 
UR    0.827  -0.985   1.129  -0.221  -0.957 
LR   -1.173  -1.205   0.950  -0.281   1.245 
LL   -1.563   0.795   0.871  -0.125  -1.084 
SD   -0.581  -0.851   2.573   1.000  -0.171 
 4.08172 4.69811
 ITMY  ITMY.png  

      pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.905  -0.884  -0.873   0.197   0.891 
UR   -1.095   1.088   1.127  -0.252  -1.115 
LR   -0.012  -0.028   0.002   0.001   0.030 
LL    1.988  -2.000  -1.998   0.451   1.964 
SD    4.542  -4.608  -4.621   1.000   4.517 

 801.453 774.901
 ETMX  ETMX.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.344   0.475   1.601   0.314   1.043 
UR    0.283  -1.525   1.786  -0.071  -1.181 
LR   -1.717  -1.569   0.399  -0.102   0.938 
LL   -1.656   0.431   0.214   0.283  -0.837 
SD    0.995  -2.632  -0.999   1.000  -0.110 
 4.26181 4.33518
 ETMY  ETMY.png        pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL   -0.212   1.272   1.401  -0.127   0.941 
UR    0.835  -0.728   1.534  -0.101  -1.054 
LR   -0.953  -1.183   0.599  -0.066   0.827 
LL   -2.000   0.817   0.466  -0.092  -1.177 
SD   -0.172   0.438   2.238   1.000  -0.008 
 4.04847 4.33725

 

  5177   Wed Aug 10 18:25:45 2011 JenneUpdateSUSETMY mini-update

[Jenne, Jamie]

ETMY is now in its new nominal position, according to the rails that Kiwamu put in the other day.  OSEM voltages are all centered, and the magnets looked pretty well centered in the OSEM bores.  We're taking data for some free swinging spectra, to check the decoupling. 

Next up: Align Y-green to the arm, then move on to fixing the other optics that Jamie pointed out.

  5179   Wed Aug 10 20:40:17 2011 JennyUpdatePSLPDH locking: got an error signal

I ended up choosing a different dither frequency for driving the NPRO PZT: 230 kHz, because the phase modulation response in that region is higher according to other data taken on an NPRO laser (see this entry). At 230 there is a dip in the AM response of the PZT.

I am driving the PZT at 230 kHz and 13 dBm using a function generator. I am then monitoring the RF output of a PD that is detecting light reflected off the cavity. (The dither frequency was below the RF cutoff frequency of the PD, but it was appearing in the "DC output", so I am actually taking the "DC output" of the PD, which has my RF signal in it, blocking the real DC part of it with a DC block, and then mixing the signal with the 230kHz sine wave being sent to the PZT.

I am monitoring the mixer output on an oscilloscope, as well as the transmission through the cavity. I am sweeping the laser temperature using a lock in as a function generator sending out a sine wave at 0.2 V and 5 mHz. When there is a peak in the transmission, the error signal coming from the mixer passes through zero.

My next step is to find or build a low pass filter with a pole somewhere less than 100 kHz to cut out the unwanted higher frequency signal so that I have a demodulated error signal that I can use to lock the laser to the cavity.

 

  5181   Thu Aug 11 02:16:57 2011 JenneUpdateGreen LockingY-green aligned and flashing

[Jenne, with ample supervision by Kiwamu and Suresh]

Y-green was aligned, and is now flashing.  The ETMY trans camera was very helpful for this alignment.  I didn't end up needing to use a foil aperture. 

Kiwamu and Suresh had just closed up the IOO doors, so we don't know yet where it's hitting on the PSL table (if the beam is making it that far).  Tomorrow we'll look at ITMY to see if the green beam is centered there, and if it's coming out to the PSL table.

  5182   Thu Aug 11 04:45:07 2011 SureshUpdateIOOAligning the 1064nm beam with the in-vacuum pzt's

[Kiwamu, Suresh]

We worked on the beam path from MC to BS this evening. 

After the beam spots on MC1 and MC3 were close to the actuation nodes (<1mm away) we checked the beam position on the Faraday Isolator (FI) to make sure that it is passing through both the input and output apertures without clipping.  The beam is slightly displaced (by about half a beam diameter) downwards at the input of the FI.  The picture below is a screen shot from the MC1 monitor while Kiwamu held an IR card in front of the FI.

FI_input_spot.jpg

 

We then proceeded to check the beam position on various optical elements downstream.  But first we levelled the BS table and checked to see if the reflection from PJ1 (1st Piezo) is landing on the MMT1 properly.  It was and we did not make any adjustment to PJ1.  However the reflection from MMT1 was not centered on MMT2.  We adjusted the MMT1 to center the beam on it.  We then adjusted MMT2 to center the beam on PJ2.  At this point we noticed that the spot on IPPO (pick off window)  was off towards the right edge.  When we centered the beam on this it missed the center of the PRM.  In order to decide what needs to be moved, we adjusted PJ2 such that the beam hits the PR2, bounces back to PR3, and becomes co-incident with the green beam from X-arm on the BS.  Under this condition the beam is not in the center of PRM and nor is it centered on IPPO.  In fact it is being clipped at the edge of the IPPO. 

It is clear that both IPPO and the PRM need to be moved.  To be sure that the beam is centered on PR2 we plan to open the ITMX chamber tomorrow.

  5184   Thu Aug 11 08:29:28 2011 steveUpdateComputersdataviewer at Rosalba

I'm having this problem with DTV every morning at Rosalba only. It wants to start with a negative GPS time and it can not connect to the frame builder.

Normally after a few time of starting it, it will work.

Attachment 1: gpsfmb.png
gpsfmb.png
  5185   Thu Aug 11 09:39:25 2011 Ishwita, ManuelUpdatePEMCalibration of Guralp and STS2

Quote:

Quote:

I'm pretty sure that don't have any ADC's with this gain. It should be +/- 10V for 16 bits. 

Jenne told us that the ADC was +/- 2V for 16 bits so our calibration is wrong. Since, the ADC is +/- 10V for 16 bits we need to change our calibration and now we can also use the purple STS breakout box.

 New calibration for Guralp:

ADC: 216counts = 20V Hence, calibration of ADC is (215x0.1) counts/V.


GURALP

Sensitivity = 800 V/ms-1

(215 x 0.1) counts/V x 800  V/ms-1 = 2621440 counts/ms-1 ----->  3.8147e-07 ms-1/count

Calibration = 3.8147e-07 ms-1/count


Using the above calibration we obtain the following plot:

pw_gurs_aug11.png

When we compare this plot with the old plot (see here) we see that in our calibration, we have got a factor of 10 less than the old plot. We do not know the gain of the Guralp. If we assume this missing 10 factor to be the gain of Guralp then we can get the same calibration as the old plot. But is it correct to do so?

  5186   Thu Aug 11 10:56:08 2011 Ishwita, ManuelUpdatePEMMoving Seismometers

Quote:

We turned off the power of the seismometers and moved the Guralp1 close to the STS. Both are now situated below the center of the mode cleaner vacuum tube.

We oriented the X axis of the STS & Guralp1 along the X axis of the interferometer. Then we turned on the power again, but the STS channels don't give any signal. We think this is, because we didn't push the auto zero button.

 After pressing the auto-zero button (a lot of times) of the STS breakout box & aligning the bubble in the STS, we could finally get data from STS (Bacardi). So, now STS2 (Bacardi - Serial NR. 100151) is working!

  5187   Thu Aug 11 11:50:56 2011 Manuel , IshwitaUpdatePEMCalibration of Guralp and STS2

 

 We just checked with a function generator the calibration of the ADC. We set a square wave with amplitude 1V. We measured the voltage with the oscilloscope and we found on the data viewer that one volt is 3208 counts. That's what we expected (+/- 10V for 16bits) but now we are more sure.

 

  5189   Thu Aug 11 12:54:06 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOMC spot positions

The spot positions on the MC mirrors were adjusted by steering the MC mirrors, resulting in 1 mm off-centering on each optic.

DONE.

 

(Requirement cleared)

One of the requirements in aligning the MC mirrors is the differential spot positions in MC1 and MC3.

It determines the beam angle after the beam exists from MC, and if it's bigger than 3 mm then the beam will be possibly clipped by the Faraday (#4674).

The measured differential spot positions on MC1 and MC3 are : PIT = 0.17 mm and YAW = 1.9 mm, so they are fine.

 

(Measurement and Results)

 Suresh and I aligned the MC cavity's eigen axis by using MCASS and steering the MC mirrors.

Most of the alignment was done manually by changing the DC biases

because we failed to invert the output matrix and hence unable to activate the MCASS servo (#5167).

Then I ran Valera's script to measure the amount of the off-centering (#4355), but it gave me many error messages associated with EPICS.

So a new script newsensedecenter.csh, which is based on tdsavg instead of ezcaread, was made to avoid these error messages.

 

The resultant plot is attached. The y-axis is calibrated into the amount of the off-centering in mm.

In the plot each curve experiences one bump, which is due to the intentional coil imbalance to calibrate the data from cnts to mm (#4355).

The dashed lines are the estimated amount of off-centering.

For the definition of the signs, I followed Koji's coordinate (#2864) where the UL OSEM is always in minus side.

    Feb 26 2011      May 08 2011 Aug 2 2011 [NEW!!] Aug 10 2011 (in air)
MC1 pit [mm]   1.6   1.9  1.93 -0.858
MC2 pit [mm]   6.4   9.0 9.03 -0.844
MC3 pit [mm]   1.4   2.0 2.01 -1.03
MC1 yaw [mm]   -1.5   -1.7 -1.72 -0.847
MC2 yaw [mm]   1.0   0.2 0.178 0.582
MC3 yaw [mm]   -1.3   -1.9 -1.87 -1.06

 

Quote from #5182

After the beam spots on MC1 and MC3 were close to the actuation nodes (<1mm away)

Attachment 1: MCoffcenter.png
MCoffcenter.png
  5190   Thu Aug 11 13:41:36 2011 Ishwita, ManuelUpdatePEMCoherence of Guralp1 and STS2(Bacardi, Serial NR 100151)

Following is the coherence plot obtained when Guralp1 and STS2(Bacardi, Serial NR 100151) are placed very close to each other (but they aren't touching each other):

coher_gur1_sts1_near.png

The seismometers were placed as shown in the picture below:

coherence_pic.JPG

They are placed below the center of the mode cleaner vacuum tube.

  5193   Thu Aug 11 15:31:43 2011 steveUpdateGeneralmalfunctioning crane at ETMY

Quote:

The horizontal trolley drive stopped working  at the east end this morning. It is working intermittently. In the worst case we can take the door off with the manual -Genie- lift.

I'm working with Konecrane to solve  the wormgear drive problem.

 Gear box found, it's  lead time one week at $825    The crane may be functional round August 25

  5194   Thu Aug 11 16:07:37 2011 steveUpdateSUSETMY rack cables strain releived
Attachment 1: P1080159.JPG
P1080159.JPG
Attachment 2: P1080160.JPG
P1080160.JPG
  5196   Thu Aug 11 16:15:59 2011 Ishwita, ManuelUpdatePEMCalibration of Guralp and STS2

 

Finally, we have found the correct calibration of Guralp and STS2 seismometers.

ADC: 216counts = 20V Hence, calibration of ADC is 3.2768e+03 counts/V.


 

GURALP

Sensitivity of seismometer = 800 V/ms-1

Gain of the guralp breakout box (reference elog entry) = 20

Calibration = 3.2768e+03 counts/V x 800  V/ms-1 x 20 = 52428800 counts/ms-1 -----> 1.9073e-08 ms-1/count


STS

Sensitivity = 1500 V/ms-1

Gain of the STS electronic breakout box = 10

Calibration = 3.2768e+03 counts/V x 1500  V/ms-1 x 10 = 49152000 counts/ms-1 -----> 2.0345e-08 ms-1/count

 

  5197   Thu Aug 11 16:21:16 2011 Ishwita , ManuelUpdatePEMPower spectra and Coherence of Guralps and STS2

 

 Following is the power spectrum plot (with corrected calibration [see here]) of seismometers Guralp1 and STS2(Bacardi, Serial NR 100151):

Pw_gur1_sts1_correct.png

 

 The seismometers are placed approximately below the center of the mode cleaner vacuum tube.

  5198   Thu Aug 11 18:30:40 2011 KojiUpdateSUSITMY OSEM adjustment

[Jamie, Koji]

ITMX OSEMs were adjusted so as to have the right DC numbers and the more uniform response to POS excitation.

It is waiting for the free-swinging test.

- ITMX was moved from its position to the north side of the table.

- The table was rebalanced.

- We found that the output of the LR OSEM has an excess noise compared with the other OSEMs.
We tried to swap the LR and SD OSEMs, but the SD OSEM (placed at the LR magnet) showed
the same excess noise at around 10-50Hz.

- We found that one of the EQ stops was touching the mirror. By removing this friction, all of the OSEMs
come to show similar power spectra. Good!

 - Then we started to use LOCKIN technique to measure the sensitivity of the OSEMs to the POS excitation.

Originally the response of the OSEMs was as follows
UL 3.4 UR 4.3 
LL 0    LR 2.5   

After the adjustment of the DC values, final values became as follows
UL 3.9 UR 4.4
LL 3.9  LR 3.2

- We decided to close the light door.

  5199   Thu Aug 11 19:01:45 2011 SureshUpdateSUSITMX given a kick to start it freeswing' but to no avail.

We started an ITMX freeswing run at this time

Thu Aug 11 18:58:59 PDT 2011
997149554

 But the optic did not repond to the kick.  It is possible that the earthquake stops are close to the face and/or rear of the optic and prevent it from oscillating.  We will check again and see what is up in a few hours.

 

 

  5200   Thu Aug 11 19:14:22 2011 Ishwita , ManuelUpdatePEMSeismometer STS2(Bacardi, Serial NR 100151) moved near ETMX

We moved the STS2(Bacardi, Serial NR 100151) to his new location and laid his cable from rack 1X7 to ETMX. The seismometer was below the mode cleaner vacuum tube before.

Now, (since 6:05pm PDT) its placed near the ETMX.

cable_to_etmx.pngsts2_etmx.png

 

  5201   Fri Aug 12 00:18:30 2011 Ishwita, ManuelUpdatePEMCoherence of Guralp1 and STS2(Bacardi, Serial NR 100151)

 

 We moved the seismometer STS2(Bacardi, Serial NR 100151) as we told in this Elog Entry, so the distance between Guralp1 and STS2 is 31.1m. Following is the coherence plot for this case:

coher_gur1_sts1_31m.png

then we also moved the Guralp1 under the BS and plugged it with the Guralp2 cable (at 7:35pm PDT), so now the distance between the two seismometers is 38.5m. Following is the coherence plot for this case:

coher_gur1_sts1_38.png

  5203   Fri Aug 12 03:52:51 2011 kiwamuUpdateSUSPRM OSEM adjustment

[Suresh / Kiwamu]

 We tried adjusting the OSEMs on PRM, but we didn't complete it due to a malfunction on the coils.

The UL and LL coils are not working correctly, the forces are weak.

Tomorrow we will look into the satellite box, which is one of the suspects.

 

 During the adjustment we found that the POS excitation force was unequal in each sensor.

At the beginning we thought it's because of the difference of the sensitivity in each OSEM due to the bad OSEM orientations.

However it turned out that it comes from the actual force imbalance on each coil.

We checked the force of each coil by putting an offset (-2000 cnts) in each output digital filter and looked at the OSEM signals in time series.

The UL and LL coils are too weak and the responses are almost buried in the noise of the OSEMs in time series.

We briefly checked some analog electronics and found the DAC, AI board and deWhitening board were healthy.

We were able to see the right amount of voltage from the monitor pin on the front panel of the coil driver.

So something downstream are suspicious, including the satellite box, feedthrough and coils.

- - -

Although the coil issue, it could be worth trying to check the input matrix.

  5204   Fri Aug 12 04:11:13 2011 kiwamuUpdateSUSfree swinging

Excited all optics - -
Fri Aug 12 03:34:12 PDT 2011
997180467

  5207   Fri Aug 12 15:16:56 2011 jamieUpdateSUStoday's SUS overview

Here's an update of the suspensions, after yesterdays in-vacuum work and OSEM tweaking:

  • PRM and ETMY are completely messed up.  The spectra are so bad that I'm not going to bother posting anything.   ETMY has extreme sensor voltages that indicate that it's maybe stuck to one of the OSEMS.  PRM voltages look nominal, so I have no idea what's going on there.
  • ITMY is much improved, but it could still use some work
  • SRM is a little worse than what it was yesterday, but we've done a lot of work on the ITMY table, such as moving ITMY suspension and rebalancing the table.
  • BS looks for some reason slightly better than it did yesterday
TM   M cond(B)
SRM SRM.png

      pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    0.828   1.041   1.142  -0.135   1.057 
UR    1.061  -0.959   1.081  -0.063  -1.058 
LR   -0.939  -0.956   0.858  -0.036   0.849 
LL   -1.172   1.044   0.919  -0.108  -1.035 
SD    0.196  -0.024   1.861   1.000   0.043

4.20951
ITMY  ITMY.png       pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    1.141   0.177   1.193  -0.058   0.922 
UR    0.052  -1.823   0.766  -0.031  -0.974 
LR   -1.948  -0.082   0.807  -0.013   1.147 
LL   -0.859   1.918   1.234  -0.040  -0.957 
SD   -1.916   2.178   3.558   1.000   0.635 
7.70705
BS  BS.png       pit     yaw     pos     side    butt
UL    1.589   0.694   0.182   0.302   1.042 
UR    0.157  -1.306   1.842  -0.176  -0.963 
LR   -1.843  -0.322   1.818  -0.213   0.957 
LL   -0.411   1.678   0.158   0.265  -1.038 
SD    0.754   0.298  -3.142   1.000   0.053
6.12779

 

  5209   Fri Aug 12 15:46:51 2011 JenneUpdateSUSEarthquake stop procedure

According to Rana, the following is the "new" (should always have been used, but now we're going to enforce it) earthquake stop backing-off procedure:

1. Back all EQ stops away from the optic, so that it is fully free-swinging.

2. Confirm on dataviewer that the optic is truely free-swinging.

3. One at a time, slowly move the EQ stop in until it barely touches the optic.  Watch dataviewer during this procedure - as soon as the time series of the OSEMs gets a 'kink', you've just barely touched the optic.

4. Back the EQ stop off by the calculated number of turns.  No inspections, no creativity, just math.  Each EQ stop should be between 1.5m and 2.0mm away from the optic.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 for each EQ stop.

Note: The amount that you need to turn the screws depends on what the threads are.

FACE and TOP stops are all 1/4-20, so 1.5 turns is 1.90mm

BOTTOM stops are either #4-40 or #6-32 (depending on the suspension tower).  If #4-40, 3 turns is 1.90mm.  If #6-32, 2.5 turns is 1.98mm

  5212   Fri Aug 12 16:52:49 2011 steveUpdateGeneralChamber illuminator switch

I'm looking for an ether net based  power switch for turning lights on and off for the vacuum system from MEDM screen.  This is what I found

Jamie please take a look at it.

 

 

  5215   Fri Aug 12 17:37:11 2011 JenneUpdateSUSETMY hopefully good again

[Jamie, Jenne]

We went in to have a look-see at ETMY since it looked stuck-ish.  Jamie noticed that the side magnet was pretty close to the teflon plates of the OSEM.  We rotated it a bit, and now its all better.  We also adjusted the OSEMs until their mid-ranges were happy.  The U's were a little low, and the L's were a little high, as if the optic were a bit pitched backward.  Anyhow, we checked that the table is level, and tweaked the OSEMs.  We're starting the free-swinging test now...

Excited all optics

Fri Aug 12 17:38:53 PDT 2011
997231148

  5216   Fri Aug 12 20:28:13 2011 JenneUpdateSUSETMY hopefully good again

Quote:

[Jamie, Jenne]

We went in to have a look-see at ETMY since it looked stuck-ish.  Jamie noticed that the side magnet was pretty close to the teflon plates of the OSEM.  We rotated it a bit, and now its all better.  We also adjusted the OSEMs until their mid-ranges were happy.  The U's were a little low, and the L's were a little high, as if the optic were a bit pitched backward.  Anyhow, we checked that the table is level, and tweaked the OSEMs.  We're starting the free-swinging test now...

Excited all optics

Fri Aug 12 17:38:53 PDT 2011
997231148

 Hmmm.  I'm no longer convinced that ETMY is healthy.  I think that when I gave it a kick, it's bouncing against something.  I can't fit the peaks to get the input matrix.  I guess step 1 is to try giving it a smaller kick for the free swinging spectra.  But if the owl shift folk feel like it, they might have a look-see.

  5218   Sat Aug 13 01:52:07 2011 YoichiUpdateLSCFeed forward delay
Yoichi, Koji

While I was testing the feed forward cancellation, I noticed that the
cancellation was not perfect.
The test I did was the following.
I injected the same signal to both DARM and MICH feedback filters.
This was done by injecting a signal into the excitation point of
the ASDC PD, then changing the input matrix elements so that the signal
goes to both DARM and MICH.
Then in the FFC, MICH signal was fed forward to DARM by the gain of -1.
Ideally, this should completely eliminate the DARM FB signal.
In reality, it did not.

The first PDF compares the spectrum of the injected noise (white noise,
red curve) with the spectrum of the signal after the FFC (blue curve).
At higher frequencies, the cancellation becomes poor.
It suggests that this is caused by some delay in the FFC.
I also took a transfer function from the injection point to the signal
after the FFC (second attachment).
I fitted the measured TF with a theoretical formula of
1-exp(-i*dt*f),
where dt is the time delay and f is the frequency.
The fitting is very good, and I got dt = 0.8msec ~ 13 samples for 16kHz.
13 samples is something very large.

The cause of the delay was suspected to be the shared memory communication
between different processes.
I moved all the FFC blocks to c1lsc.mdl.
Then the cancellation becomes perfect. The signal after the FFC is
completely zero, so I couldn't even make a TF measurement.

This results suggest that a large delay of 13 samples is induced
when you use shared memory to send signals round trip.
We should make simpler models, just passing signals back and forth
via shared memory, dolphin network or GE FANAC RFM to check the
delays more precisely.

For the moment, the FCC is included in the c1lsc model.
The MEDM screens were modified to account for this change.
c1ffc is stopped and removed from rtsystab.
Attachment 1: Spe1.pdf
Spe1.pdf
Attachment 2: TFFitting.png
TFFitting.png
  5219   Sat Aug 13 01:54:18 2011 kiwamuUpdateSUSPRM OSEM adjustment part II

Adjustment of the PRM OSEMs are done. The coils turned out to be healthy.

The malfunction was fixed. It was because the UL OSEM was too deeply inserted and barely touching the AR surface of the mirror.

 

(OSEM adjustment)

 + Excited POS at 6.5 Hz with an amplitude of 3000 cnts by the LOCKIN oscillator.

 + Looked at the signal of each sensor in frequency domain.

 + Maximized the excitation peak for each of the four face OSEMs by rotating them.

 + Minimized the excitation peak in the SIDE signal by rotating it.

 + Adjusted the OSEM translational position so that they are in the midpoint of the OSEM range.

 

(POS sensitivity check)

From the view point of the matrix inversion, one thing we want to have is the equally sensitive face sensors and insensitive SIDE OSEM to the POS motion.

To check the success level of today's PRM adjusment, I ran swept sine measurements to take the transfer function from POS to each sensor.

The plots below are the results.  The first figure is the one measured before the adjustment and the second plot is the one after the adjustment.

As shown in the plot, before the adjustment the sensitivity of OSEMs were very different and the SIDE OSEM is quite sensitive to the POS motion.

So PRM used be in an extremely bad situation.

After the adjustment, the plot became much better.

The four face sensors have almost the same sensitivity (within factor of 3) and the SIDE is quite insensitive to the POS motion.

before.png after.png

Quote from #5203

 We tried adjusting the OSEMs on PRM, but we didn't complete it due to a malfunction on the coils.

The UL and LL coils are not working correctly, the forces are weak.

  5220   Sat Aug 13 02:11:33 2011 kiwamuUpdateSUSfree swinging again

I am leaving all of the suspensions free swinging. They will automatically recover after 5 hours from now.

--
Excited all optics
Sat Aug 13 02:08:07 PDT 2011
997261703
--

FYI : I ran a combination of two scripts:   ./freeswing && ./opticshutdown

  5221   Sat Aug 13 02:31:42 2011 kiwamuUpdateSUSRe: ETMY hopefully good again

I guess the ETMY suspension is still fine. Their OSEM DC voltage and the free swinging spectra look healthy.

It could be a failure in the initial guess for fitting.

Quote from #5216

I'm no longer convinced that ETMY is healthy. I can't fit the peaks to get the input matrix.

  5228   Sun Aug 14 04:12:37 2011 JennyUpdatePSLTemperature steps and slow actuator railing

Below are some plots from dataviewer of temperature-step data taken over the past 32 hours. (They show minute trends). I am looking at the thermal coupling from the can surrounding the reference cavity on the PSL table to the cavity itself, and trying to measure the cavity temperature response via the control signal sent to heat the NPRO laser, which is locked to the cavity.

Picture_6.png

Picture_7.png

  • Top left: out-of-loop temperature sensor on can surrounding ref cav (RCTEMP)
  • Top right: control signal sent to slow drive of laser (laser heater), which is supposed to follow the cavity temperature (TMP_OUTPUT)
  • Bottom left: in-loop can temperature sensors (MINCOMEAS)
  • Bottom right: room temperature reading (RMTEMP)

 

I stepped the temperature set point from 35 to 36 deg. C for the can at 12:30am last night. Then I waited to see the cavity temperature change and the slow actuator (laser heater: TMP_OUTPUT) follow that change.

I was a bit worried about the oscillations that were occuring in the TMP_OUTPUT signal even long after this temperature step was made, but I figured that they were simply room-temperature changes propagating into the cavity, since they seemed to have a similar pattern to the room-temperature variations, and since it is clear that the out-of-loop temperature sensor on the can (RCTEMP) experiences variations, even when the in-loop sensors are recording no variation.

At 8:46pm tonight I stepped the temperature down 2 degrees to 34 deg. C. The step had a clear effect on TMP_OUTPUT. The voltage to the heater dropped and eventually railed at its lowest output. I'm worried that the loop is unstable, although I haven't ruled out other possibilities, such as that a 2 deg. C temperature step is too large for the loop. I will investigate further in the morning.

  5230   Sun Aug 14 15:37:39 2011 JennyUpdatePSLTemperature steps and slow actuator railing

Quote:

Below are some plots from dataviewer of temperature-step data taken over the past 32 hours. (They show minute trends). I am looking at the thermal coupling from the can surrounding the reference cavity on the PSL table to the cavity itself, and trying to measure the cavity temperature response via the control signal sent to heat the NPRO laser, which is locked to the cavity.

Picture_6.png

Picture_7.png

  • Top left: out-of-loop temperature sensor on can surrounding ref cav (RCTEMP)
  • Top right: control signal sent to slow drive of laser (laser heater), which is supposed to follow the cavity temperature (TMP_OUTPUT)
  • Bottom left: in-loop can temperature sensors (MINCOMEAS)
  • Bottom right: room temperature reading (RMTEMP)

 

I stepped the temperature set point from 35 to 36 deg. C for the can at 12:30am last night. Then I waited to see the cavity temperature change and the slow actuator (laser heater: TMP_OUTPUT) follow that change.

I was a bit worried about the oscillations that were occuring in the TMP_OUTPUT signal even long after this temperature step was made, but I figured that they were simply room-temperature changes propagating into the cavity, since they seemed to have a similar pattern to the room-temperature variations, and since it is clear that the out-of-loop temperature sensor on the can (RCTEMP) experiences variations, even when the in-loop sensors are recording no variation.

At 8:46pm tonight I stepped the temperature down 2 degrees to 34 deg. C. The step had a clear effect on TMP_OUTPUT. The voltage to the heater dropped and eventually railed at its lowest output. I'm worried that the loop is unstable, although I haven't ruled out other possibilities, such as that a 2 deg. C temperature step is too large for the loop. I will investigate further in the morning.

 The lock was lost when I came in around noon today to check on it. The slow actuator was still railing.

1) I got lock back for a few minutes, by varying the laser temperature set point manually. TMP_OUTPUT was still reading -30000 cts (minimum allowed) and the transmission was not as high as it had been.

2) I toggled the second filter button off. The TMP_OUTPUT started rising up to ~2000 cts. I then toggled the second filter back on, and TMP_OUTPUT jumped the positive maximum number of counts allowed.

3) I lost the lock again. I turned off the digital output to the slow actuator.

4) I have so far failed at getting the lock back. My main problem is that when the BNC cable to the slow port is plugged in, even when I'm not sending anything to that port, it makes it so that changing the temperature set point manually has almost no effect on the transmission (it looks as though changing the setpoint is not actually changing the temperature, because the monitor shows the same higher order mode even when with +-degree temperature setpoint changes).

  5232   Sun Aug 14 19:06:50 2011 JenneUpdateelogelog dead. Brought back to life

like the subject says...

  5234   Sun Aug 14 22:48:37 2011 kiwamuUpdateSUSfree swinging again

Excited all optics
Sun Aug 14 20:22:33 PDT 2011
997413768

  5235   Mon Aug 15 10:02:27 2011 kiwamuUpdateSUSBS OSEM adjustment done

[Suresh / Kiwamu]

 Adjustment of the OSEMs on BS has been done.

All the bad suspensions (#5176) has been adjusted. They are waiting for the matrix inversion test.

ELOG V3.1.3-