40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 21 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  7614   Wed Oct 24 22:20:24 2012 DenUpdateAdaptive Filteringmicrophone noise

Quote:

  We have to change the sample rate and AA filter for the mic channels before going too far with the circuit design.

 PEM model is running at 64K now. It turned out to be tricky to increase the rate:

  • BLRMS are computationally expensive and original pem model did not start at any frequency higher then 16k ( at 16k cpu meter readings were 59/60 ). Also when we go higher then 16k, front-end gives the model less resources. I guess it is assumed that this model is iop and won't need too much time. So in the end I had to delete BLRMS blocks for all channels except for GUR2Z and MIC1.
  • Foton files are modified during model compilation: lines with sampling rate and declaration of filters in the beginning of the file are changed only. Sos-representation and commands are the same. I hoped that filter commands will let me change sos-representation quickly. I've opened Foton and saved the file. However, Foton modified commands in such a way that the ratio of poles and zeros to sampling rate is preserved. I guess all filters have to be replaced or this process should be done in another way.
  • BLRMS block uses low-pass filters below 0.01 Hz, increasing the sampling rate by a factor of 32 might make calculations incorrect. I'll check it.

We should also increase cut off frequency of the low-pass filter in the microphone pre-amplifier from 2 kHz up to ~20-30 kHz.

Attachment 1: mic_64k.pdf
mic_64k.pdf mic_64k.pdf
  7621   Thu Oct 25 09:53:23 2012 AyakaUpdateAdaptive Filteringmicrophone noise

Quote:

Quote:

  We have to change the sample rate and AA filter for the mic channels before going too far with the circuit design.

 PEM model is running at 64K now. It turned out to be tricky to increase the rate:

  • BLRMS are computationally expensive and original pem model did not start at any frequency higher then 16k ( at 16k cpu meter readings were 59/60 ). Also when we go higher then 16k, front-end gives the model less resources. I guess it is assumed that this model is iop and won't need too much time. So in the end I had to delete BLRMS blocks for all channels except for GUR2Z and MIC1.
  • Foton files are modified during model compilation: lines with sampling rate and declaration of filters in the beginning of the file are changed only. Sos-representation and commands are the same. I hoped that filter commands will let me change sos-representation quickly. I've opened Foton and saved the file. However, Foton modified commands in such a way that the ratio of poles and zeros to sampling rate is preserved. I guess all filters have to be replaced or this process should be done in another way.
  • BLRMS block uses low-pass filters below 0.01 Hz, increasing the sampling rate by a factor of 32 might make calculations incorrect. I'll check it.

We should also increase cut off frequency of the low-pass filter in the microphone pre-amplifier from 2 kHz up to ~20-30 kHz.

 Thank you for changing the sample rate!
Also we have to change the Anti-Aliasing filter, as Jamie said.

Now my question is, whether S/N ratio is enough at high frequencies or not. The quality of EM172 microphone is good according to the data sheet. But as you can see in previous picture, the S/N ratio around 1kHz is not so good, though we can see some peaks, e.g. the sound that a fan will make. I have to check it later.
And, is it possible to do online adaptive noise cancellation with a high sampling rate such that computationally expensive algorithms cannot be run?

  7622   Thu Oct 25 10:03:38 2012 ranaUpdateAdaptive Filteringmicrophone noise

  That's no good - we need BLRMS channels for many PEM channels, not just two. And the channel names should have the same name as they had in the past so that we can look at long term BLRMS trends.

I suggest:

  1. Have a separate model for Mics and Magnetometers. This model should run at 32 kHz and not have low frequency poles and zeros. Still would have acoustic frequency BLRMS.
  2. Have a low frequency (f_sample = 2 kHz) model for seis an acc. Seismometers run out of poop by 100 Hz, but we want to have the ACC signal up to 800 Hz since we do have optical mount resonances up to there.
  3. Never remove or rename the BLRMS channels - this makes it too hard to keep long term trends.
  4. Do a simple noise analysis to make sure we are matching the noise of the preamps to the noise / range of the ADCs.
  5. Immediately stop using bench supplies for the power. Use ONLY fused, power lines from the 1U rack supplies.
  7623   Thu Oct 25 14:39:14 2012 DenUpdateAdaptive Filteringmicrophone noise

Quote:

  That's no good - we need BLRMS channels for many PEM channels, not just two. And the channel names should have the same name as they had in the past so that we can look at long term BLRMS trends.

I suggest:

  1. Have a separate model for Mics and Magnetometers. This model should run at 32 kHz and not have low frequency poles and zeros. Still would have acoustic frequency BLRMS.
  2. Have a low frequency (f_sample = 2 kHz) model for seis an acc. Seismometers run out of poop by 100 Hz, but we want to have the ACC signal up to 800 Hz since we do have optical mount resonances up to there.
  3. Never remove or rename the BLRMS channels - this makes it too hard to keep long term trends.
  4. Do a simple noise analysis to make sure we are matching the noise of the preamps to the noise / range of the ADCs.
  5. Immediately stop using bench supplies for the power. Use ONLY fused, power lines from the 1U rack supplies.

Ayaka, Den

 C1PEM model is back to 2K.

We created a new C1MIC model for microphones that will run at 32K. C1SUS machine is full, we have to think about rearrangement.

For now, we created DQ channels for microphones inside iop model, so we can subtract noise offline.

We provided 0-25 kHz bandwidth noise to AA board and saw the same signal in the output of ADC in the corresponding channel. So cut-off frequency is higher then 25 kHz. There is a label on the AA board that all filters are removed. What does this mean?

We've turned off AA bench power supply, prepare to use fused from 1U.

  7633   Fri Oct 26 18:25:02 2012 AyakaUpdateAdaptive FilteringMicrophone noise again

[Raji, Ayaka]

Thanks to Den, power supplies for microphone circuit are changed.
So I measured the microphone noise again by the same way as I did last time.

mic_noise.png
  solid lines: acoustic noise
 dashed lines: un-coherent noise
black line: circuit noise (microphone unconnected)

The circuit noise improves so much, but many line noises appeared.
Where do these lines (40, 80, 200 Hz...) come from?
These does not change if we changed the microphones...

Anyway, I have to change the circuit (because of the low-pass filter). I can check if the circuit I will remake will give some effects on these lines.

  7634   Fri Oct 26 19:06:14 2012 DenUpdateAdaptive FilteringMicrophone noise again

Quote:

The circuit noise improves so much, but many line noises appeared.
Where do these lines (40, 80, 200 Hz...) come from?
These does not change if we changed the microphones...

Anyway, I have to change the circuit (because of the low-pass filter). I can check if the circuit I will remake will give some effects on these lines.

I do not think that 1U rack power supply influenced on the preamp noise level as there is a 12 V regulator inside. Lines that you see might be just acoustic noise produced by cpu fans. Usually, they rotate at ~2500-3000 rpm => frequency is ~40-50 Hz + harmonics. Microphones should be in an isolation box to minimize noise coming from the rack. This test was already done before and described here

I think we need to build a new box for many channels (32, for example, to match adc). The question is how many microphones do we need to locate around one stack to subtract acoustic noise. Once we know this number, we group microphones, use 1 cable with many twisted pairs for a group and suspend them in an organized way.

  7636   Mon Oct 29 08:41:22 2012 AyakaUpdateAdaptive FilteringMicrophone noise again

Quote:

Quote:

The circuit noise improves so much, but many line noises appeared.
Where do these lines (40, 80, 200 Hz...) come from?
These does not change if we changed the microphones...

Anyway, I have to change the circuit (because of the low-pass filter). I can check if the circuit I will remake will give some effects on these lines.

I do not think that 1U rack power supply influenced on the preamp noise level as there is a 12 V regulator inside. Lines that you see might be just acoustic noise produced by cpu fans. Usually, they rotate at ~2500-3000 rpm => frequency is ~40-50 Hz + harmonics. Microphones should be in an isolation box to minimize noise coming from the rack. This test was already done before and described here

I think we need to build a new box for many channels (32, for example, to match adc). The question is how many microphones do we need to locate around one stack to subtract acoustic noise. Once we know this number, we group microphones, use 1 cable with many twisted pairs for a group and suspend them in an organized way.

 I do not think they are acoustic sounds. If so, there should be coherence between three microphones because I placed three at the same place, tied together. However, there are no coherence at lines between them.

  7708   Tue Nov 13 21:05:35 2012 DenUpdateAdaptive Filteringonline and simulation

For a last few days I've been working on oaf and simulink model to simulate it. First I did online subtraction from MC when MC_L path was enabled. Inside my code I've added a sum of squares of filter coefficients so we can monitor convergence of the filter.

coeff.png     online.png

To to this I've measured path from OAF output to input without AA and AI filters. Then made a vectfit using 2 poles and zeros. Foton command

zpk( [-2.491928e+03;5.650511e-02], [-4.979872e+01;-3.278776e+00], 6.011323e+00)

mag.png    phase.png

My simulink model consists of 3 parts:

  • cavity with seismic noise at low frequencies, 1/f^2 noise at medium frequencies and white noise at high frequencies
  • this cavity is locked using feedback compensation filters that we use to lock arms
  • locked cavity with adaptive filter

Adaptive filter in the model uses online c-code. It is connected to simulink block through an S-function. Sampling frequency of the model is 10 kHz. It works fairly fast - 1 sec of simulation time is computed in 1 sec.

overview.png       af.pngsim.png  sim_coeff.png

I've tested FxLMS algorithm and MFxLMS algorithm that is faster. I plan to test 2 iir adaptive algorithms that are already coded.

  7764   Fri Nov 30 02:40:44 2012 DenUpdateAdaptive FilteringYARM

I've applied FIR adaptive filter to YARM control. Feedback signal of the closed loop was used as adaptive filter error signal and OAF OUT -> IN transfer function I assumed to be flat because of the loop high gain at low frequencies. At 100 Hz deviation was 5 dB so I've ignored it.

I've added a filter bank YARM_OAF to C1LSC model to account for downsampling from 16 kHz to 2 kHz and put low-pass filter inside.

I've used GUR 1&2 XYZ channels as witnesses. Bandpass filters 0.4-10 Hz we applied to each of them. Error signal was filters using the same bandpass filter and 16 Hz 40 dB Q=10 notch filter. As an AI filter I used 32 Hz butterworth 4 order low-pass filter. Consequently, AI, bandpass and notch filters were added to adaptive path of witness signals.

I've used an FIR filter with 4000 taps, downsampling = 16, delay = 1, tau = 0, mu = 0.01 - 0.1. Convergence time was ~3 mins.

yarm_oaf.png

  7767   Fri Nov 30 11:49:24 2012 KojiUpdateAdaptive FilteringYARM

This is interesting. I suppose you are acting on the ETMY.
Can you construct the compensation filter with actuation on the MC length?
Also can you see how the X arm is stabilized?

This may stabilize or even unstabilize the MC length, but we don't care as the MC locking is easy.

If we can help to reduce the arm motion with the MCL feedforward trained with an arm sometime before,
this means the lock acquisition will become easier. And this may still be compatible with the ALS.

Why did you notched out the 16Hz peak? It is the dominant component for the RMS and we want to eliminate it.

  7769   Fri Nov 30 22:11:50 2012 DenUpdateAdaptive FilteringARMS

Quote:

This is interesting. I suppose you are acting on the ETMY.
Can you construct the compensation filter with actuation on the MC length?
Also can you see how the X arm is stabilized?

This may stabilize or even unstabilize the MC length, but we don't care as the MC locking is easy.

If we can help to reduce the arm motion with the MCL feedforward trained with an arm sometime before,
this means the lock acquisition will become easier. And this may still be compatible with the ALS.

Why did you notched out the 16Hz peak? It is the dominant component for the RMS and we want to eliminate it.

 I actuate on ETMY for YARM and ETMX for XARM. For now I did adaptive filtering for both arms at the same time. I used the same parameters for xarm as for yarm.

I've notched 16 Hz resonance because it has high Q and I need to think more how to subtract it using FIR filter or apply IIR.

I'll try MC stabilazation method.

Attachment 1: arms_oaf.pdf
arms_oaf.pdf
  7771   Sat Dec 1 00:13:16 2012 DenUpdateAdaptive FilteringARMS and MC

Quote:

 

 I actuate on ETMY for YARM and ETMX for XARM. For now I did adaptive filtering for both arms at the same time. I used the same parameters for xarm as for yarm.

I've notched 16 Hz resonance because it has high Q and I need to think more how to subtract it using FIR filter or apply IIR.

I'll try MC stabilazation method.

 Adaptive filtering was applied to MC and X,Y arms at the same time. I used a very aggressive (8 order) butterworth filter at 6 Hz as an AI filter for MC not to inject noise to ARMS as was done before

Mu for MC was 0.2, downsample = 16, delay = 1. I was able to subtract 1 Hz. Stack subraction is not that good as for arms but this is because I used only one seismometer for MC that is under the BS. I might install accelerometers under MC2.

EDIT, JCD, 18Feb2013:  Den remembers using mu for the arms in the range of 0.01 to 0.1, although using 0.1 will give extra noise.  He said he usually starts with something small, then ramps it up to 0.04, and after it has converged brings it back down to 0.01.

Attachment 1: arms_mcl_oaf.pdf
arms_mcl_oaf.pdf
  7591   Tue Oct 23 00:41:55 2012 JenneUpdateAlignmentMC locked, spots centered

[Jenne, Raji]

We replaced the MC Refl path BS with the Y1, as usual, so that the full ~100mW goes to the REFL PD, so we don't have WFS or MC refl camera. 

The MC spots were all outside of 1mm, and some were beyond 2mm (for MC1,3, P,Y....MC2 is of course free since we have more DoFs than we need), so we touched (very, very slightly) the zigzag mirrors on the PSL table.  We realigned the MC, and now the spots are centered to my satisfaction.

MC1,2,3 Pit,    MC1,2,3 Yaw (in mm):

[0.46444020918749457, 8.2634316545130009, -0.41417975237831089, -0.89401481457980592, -0.9323196976382162, -1.543145765853893]

MC2 is way off in pitch, according to this measurement, and it's been consistently going down as we move the MC2 spot in the same direction (up on the monitor), but since we started at +15mm and are now at +8, and we've gone quite a ways, I'm not sure that we really want to go all the way to 0.  Anyhow, MC1 and MC3 are the ones which define our input pointing, so we're quitting for tonight.

We will turn on the PZTs and begin with the official vent list for dummies tomorrow.

Attachment 1: Screenshot-Figure_1.png
Screenshot-Figure_1.png
  7599   Tue Oct 23 17:30:33 2012 jamie, nic, jenne, raji, manasaUpdateAlignmentInitial attempts to fix IFO alignment

We went into the vertex today to see about fixing the alignment.  The in-air access connector is in place, and we took heavy doors off of BS, ITMY, and ETMY chambers.

We started by looking at the pointing from the PZTs.  Manasa and Raji hooked up HV power supplies to the PZTs and set them to the middle of their ranges (75 V).

We installed a target on the BS cage, and new "free standing" targets made special by Steve for the SOSs on ITMY and ETMY.

Using a free-standing aperture target we looked at the beam height before PZT2.  It was a little high, so we adjusted it with PZT1.  Once that was done we looked at the beam height at PR2, and adjusted that height with PZT1.

We then tried to use the hysteresis in PR2 to adjust the beam height at ITMY.  Pushing just a little bit at the top or bottom of PR2 would repoint the beam in pitch.  This sort of works, but it's stupid.  Using this method we got the beam more or less centered vertically at ITMY.

We moved on to ETMY with the idea that we would again use the hysteresis in PR3 to get the vertical pointing to the ETM correct.  This was a good demonstration of just how stupid the tip-tilts really are.  Just touching slightly at the top or bottom or PR3 we could completely change the pointing at ETMY, by mili-radians (~4 cm over 40m).

At this point I cried foul.  This is not an acceptable situation.  Very little stimulation to the tip-tilts can repoint the beam inside the PR cavity.

Steve says that the TT weights, which will attach to the base of the TT mirror mounts and should help keep the mirrors vertical and not hysteretic, are being baked now and should be available tomorrow.  We therefore decided to stop what we were doing today, since we'll have to just redo it all again tomorrow once the weights are installed.

 

  7600   Tue Oct 23 17:41:20 2012 ManasaUpdateAlignmentPower supply at OMC removed

Quote:

Manasa and Raji hooked up HV power supplies to the PZTs and set them to the middle of their ranges (75 V).

 [Raji, Manasa]

The high-voltage power supply from the OMC was removed to replace one of the PZT power supplies. The power supply terminals were connected to the rear connection ports as per instructions from the manual (TB1 panel: port 3 - (-)OUT and port7 - (+)OUT). They were both switched  on and set to deliver (75V) to the PZTs.

 

  7601   Tue Oct 23 18:12:18 2012 JenneUpdateAlignmentTip tilt wires - the truth

Quote:

At this point I cried foul.  This is not an acceptable situation.  Very little stimulation to the tip-tilts can repoint the beam inside the PR cavity.

Steve says that the TT weights, which will attach to the base of the TT mirror mounts and should help keep the mirrors vertical and not hysteretic, are being baked now and should be available tomorrow. 

 We also wrote down the serial numbers (top center of each TT, inscribed by hand) for what tip tilt is installed where.  I then went through the elog to determine which TT was suspended with what kind of wire (thick or thin).  Summary: all installed tip tilts have thick wire, 0.0036" diameter.

As noted in elog 3295, we had found that there was similar hysteresis whether we used the thick or the thin wire, so we had decided not to go back and re-suspend every optic.

Also, since we will redo the pitch balance tomorrow with the new hardware tomorrow, I think we should put in the new LaserOptik mirrors at the same time.  We have not yet gotten phase maps of them, but we might as well do this rebalancing once, rather than twice.

 

As-installed tip tilt list
Serial number Installed as Wire thickness Notes, elog reference
001 SR 3 0.0036" See elog 3437
002 SR 2 0.0036" See elog 3295
003 PR 2 0.0036" No elog, but inferred since there were 4 with thick wire, and #004 is the thin wire one.  Elog 3437 has notes on the 4 thick, 1 thin situation.
004 spare, dirty originally 0.0017", but looks redone with thicker wire See elog 3295
005 PR 3 0.0036" Was supposed to be spare according to elog 3437, but was installed.  See elog 3437

 

  7603   Tue Oct 23 18:21:21 2012 JenneUpdateAlignmentPower supply at OMC removed

Quote:

Quote:

Manasa and Raji hooked up HV power supplies to the PZTs and set them to the middle of their ranges (75 V).

 [Raji, Manasa]

The high-voltage power supply from the OMC was removed to replace one of the PZT power supplies. The power supply terminals were connected to the rear connection ports as per instructions from the manual (TB1 panel: port 3 - (-)OUT and port7 - (+)OUT). They were both switched  on and set to deliver (75V) to the PZTs.

 

 This means that the low voltage dual supply which was wired in series (so could supply a max of 63V = 2*31.5V) has been replaced with the OMC power supply.  This is okay since we haven't turned on the OMC PZTs in a long, long time.  This is *not* the power supply for the output pointing PZTs.  When she says "both", she means the new HV supply, as well as the HV supply that was already there, so both pitch and yaw for PZT2 are being supplied with 75V now.

  7606   Wed Oct 24 11:49:07 2012 JenneUpdateAlignmentGame plan for the day

Jamie has arranged for phase map measurements this afternoon, so I will take the 6 dichroic LaserOptik optics over to Downs at 1:15 this afternoon.

Team Jamie+Nic will lead the effort to clamp down dog clamps as placement markers for all 4 in-vac passive TTs, and then pull all 4 TTs out of the chambers.  They plus Den will move the TTs to the Cleanroom, and will start to install the new pitch alignment hardware. 

When I return with the optics, we will install them in the TTs and re-balance them.  Then we can put them back in the chambers and get back to work on alignment.  

After we re-install the TTs, we will need to check the leveling of all 3 corner tables, just to be sure.

  7608   Wed Oct 24 14:19:01 2012 JenneUpdateAlignmentPhase map summary of LaserOptik mirrors

Quote:

Jamie has arranged for phase map measurements this afternoon, so I will take the 6 dichroic LaserOptik optics over to Downs at 1:15 this afternoon.

Team Jamie+Nic will lead the effort to clamp down dog clamps as placement markers for all 4 in-vac passive TTs, and then pull all 4 TTs out of the chambers.  They plus Den will move the TTs to the Cleanroom, and will start to install the new pitch alignment hardware. 

When I return with the optics, we will install them in the TTs and re-balance them.  Then we can put them back in the chambers and get back to work on alignment.  

After we re-install the TTs, we will need to check the leveling of all 3 corner tables, just to be sure.

 Raji took the optics over. They were all measured at 0 deg incidence angle, although we will use them at the angles required for the recycling folding mirrors.  Here's the summary from GariLynn:

In general all six pieces have a radius of curvature of around -700 meters.

They all fall off rapidly past 40 mm diameter.  Within the 40 mm diameter the rms is ~10 nm for most.  I can get finer analysis if you have something specific that you want to know. 
 
All data are saved in Wyko format at the following location:
Gari
  7624   Thu Oct 25 15:38:06 2012 RajiUpdateAlignmentTransmitance Measurements on LaserOptik mirror

I measured the transmitted power @1064nm on one of the LaserOptik mirrors labled SN6

Here is the data

Polarization Input Angle Input Power(mW) Output Power(mW) Transmittance (%)
p 0 6.2 2.67 48
p 0 100 52 52
p 45 6.2 0.76 12
p 45 100 1,5 1
s 0 8.2 3.15 38
s 0 100 40 0.4
s 45 8.2 0.5 6
s 45 100 0.66 0.006

The mirror is not a good reflector at 0 deg.

  7632   Fri Oct 26 16:57:30 2012 JenneUpdateAlignmentPR2 aligned, PR3 mostly aligned

[Raji, Jenne]

After lunch we began where Raji and Jamie had left things.  PR2 was unfortunately pitched down so far that it was almost hitting the table just in front of PR3.  I loosened the 4 clamp screws that hold the wire clamp assembly to the mirror holder, and tapped it back and forth until I was within hysteresis range, re-tightened, then tapped the top and bottom until we were at the correct beam height just in front of PR3.  I also had to unclamp it from the table and twist the base a tiny bit, since the beam was closer to hitting the beam tube than the optic.  Finally, however, PR2 is adjusted such that the beam hits the center of PR3.

Moving on to PR3, the pitch looked good while we were looking at the aperture placed near the face of ITMY, so we left that alone.  The beam is off in yaw though.  Several times I unclamped the tip tilt from the table, and twisted it one way or another, but every time when I tighten the dog clamps, I'm too far off in yaw.  The beam points a little too far south of the center of ITMY, so we were putting the beam a little north of the center before I clamped it, but even tightening the screws in the same order, by the same amount each time, causes a different amount of slipping/twisting/something of the TT mount, so we never end up directly in the center of the ITM.  It seems a little like a stochastic process, and we just need to do it a few more times until we get it right. 

We left it clamped to the table, but not in it's final place, and left for JClub.  On Monday morning we need to go back to it.  As long as we're pretty close to centered, we should probably also have someone at ETMY checking the centering, because we need to be centered in both ITMY and ETMY.

We have not touched the SR tip tilts, so those will obviously need some attention when we get to that point.

  7635   Sat Oct 27 23:13:12 2012 ranaUpdateAlignmentalignment strategy

 Maybe we have already discarded this idea, but why not do the alignment without the MC?

Just lock the green beam on the Yarm and then use the transmitted beam through the ITMY to line up the PRC and the PZTs? I think our estimate is that since the differential index of refraction from 532 to 1064 nm is less than 0.01, using the green should be OK. We can do the same with the Xarm and then do a final check using the MC beam.

In this way, all of the initial alignment can be done with green and require no laser Goggles (close the shutter on the PSL NPRO face).

  7641   Mon Oct 29 18:50:02 2012 JenneUpdateAlignmentPRC aligned, Yarm almost aligned

[Jamie, Jenne, Raji, with consultation from Nic, Ayaka and Manasa]

We went back and re-looked at the input alignment, and now we're "satisfied for the moment" (quote from Jamie) with the PRC alignment.  Also, by adjusting the PR folding mirrors, we are almost perfectly aligned to the Yarm.

What we did:

Set PRM DC biases to 0 for both pitch and yaw.

Aperture was attached to PRM cage, double aperture was attached to BS cage, free-standing aperture was placed in front of PR2. 

Adjusted PZT1, PZT2 such that we were centered on PZT2, and through apertures at PRM and PR2.   This was mainly for setting beam height in PRC.

Checked centering on PZT1, MMT1, MMT2, PZT2.

Adjusted PRM pitch bias and PZT2 yaw such that REFL beam was retro-reflected from PRM.

Checked that REFL beam came nicely out of Faraday.

Checked that beam was still going through center of PRM aperture, and pitch height at PR2 was good.

Moved PR2 sideways until beam hit center in yaw of PR2.

Twisted PR2 such that beam was hitting center of PR3.

Moved and twisted PR3 (many times) so that beam went through BS input and output apertures, and through center of ITMY aperture.

Found that beam was just getting through black glass aperture at ETMY, top left corner, if looking at the face of ETM from ITM.

Locked down dog clamps on PR2.

This required some re-adjustment of PR3.  Re-did making sure going through BS apertures and ITMY aperture, locked down PR3 dog clamps.

Found that we are centered in yaw at ETMY, a little high in pitch on ETMY.

Replaced all of the light doors, to take a break.  4 hours in bunny suits seemed like enough that we earned a break.

This all sounds more straighforward than it was.  There was a lot of iteration, but we finally got to a state that we were relatively happy with.

 

What we will do:

Tweak PZT2 a *tiny* bit in pitch, ~0.5 mrad, so that the beam goes through the ETMY aperture.

See if we can align EMTY and ITMY to get multiple bounces through the Yarm.

Remove ETMX heavy door, steer BS such that we're getting through the center of an aperture at ETMX.

Align ETMX and ITMX such that we get multiple bounces through the Xarm.

Check SRM, AS path alignment.

Check REFL out of vac alignment.

Check other pickoffs.

Check all oplevs.

Check IPPOS/IPANG

 

We have a open-sided 2" mirror mount that we are considering using for the POY pick-off mirror.  This might help us get a little more clearance in the Y-arm of the Michelson.  Problem is the mount is not steerable, so we need to determine if that's doable or not.

 

  7642   Tue Oct 30 11:51:45 2012 JenneUpdateAlignmentPRC aligned, Yarm almost aligned

[Raji, Jenne]

We tweaked PZT2, PZT1 (yaw only), and PR3 (pitch only) to get the beam ~centered on the BS aperture, the ITMY aperture, and the ETMY aperture.

After lunch I'll tweak up the MC alignment, since, although the spots are in the right places, the transmitted beam could be higher power.  This will make it easier to check our pointing, especially since the ETMY spot is larger than our aperture, but the beam is dim.

We're getting there!

  7643   Wed Oct 31 01:06:31 2012 DenUpdateAlignmentYarm

 

 Jenne, Den

We looked at beam spots on ITMY and ETMY. We switched to smaller apertures on the other side of the rulers. For ITMY beam spot was 1mm below and 1mm south (right if you look in the direction ITMY -> ETMY) from the aperture center, for ETMY - 4 mm up and 3mm north from the aperture center. We made a correction for this using PZT 1 and 2. Now beam spots are in the middle of the apertures on ITMY and ETMY.

We tried to look at reflected beam from ETMY but it was hard to see the dependence between ETMY DC offset and reflected beam. We'll continue tomorrow.

  7644   Wed Oct 31 12:58:17 2012 RajiUpdateAlignmentTransmitance Measurements on LaserOptik mirror

Quote:

I measured the transmitted power @1064nm on one of the LaserOptik mirrors labled SN6

Here is the data

Polarization Input Angle Input Power(mW) Output Power(mW) Transmittance (%)
p 0 6.2 2.67 48
p 0 100 52 52
p 45 6.2 0.76 12
p 45 100 1,5 1
s 0 8.2 3.15 38
s 0 100 40 0.4
s 45 8.2 0.5 6
s 45 100 0.66 0.006

The mirror is not a good reflector at 0 deg.

 More data on the transmission. Measured the tranmission as a funtion of incidence angle at 1064nm

Attachment 1: Transmission-plot@1064nm.pdf
Transmission-plot@1064nm.pdf
Attachment 2: Transmission-data@1064nm.pdf
Transmission-data@1064nm.pdf
  7646   Wed Oct 31 17:11:40 2012 jamieUpdateAlignmentprogress, then setback

jamie, nic, jenne, den, raji, manasa

We were doing pretty well with alignment, until I apparently fucked things up.

We were approaching the arm alignment on two fronts, looking for retro-reflection from both the ITMs and the ETMs.

Nic and Raji were looking for the reflected beam off of ETMY, at the ETMY chamber.  We put an AWG sine excitation into ETMY pitch and yaw.  Nic eventually found the reflected beam, and they adjusted ETMY for retro-reflection.

Meanwhile, Jenne and I adjusted ITMY to get the MICH Y arm beam retro-reflecting to BS.

Jenne and I then moved to the X arm.  We adjusted BS to center on ITMX, then we moved to ETMX to center the beam there.  We didn't both looking for the ETMX reflected beam.  We then went back to BS and adjusted ITMX to get the MICH X arm beam retro-reflected to the BS.

At this point we were fairly confident that we had the PRC, MICH, and X and Y arm alignment ok.

We then moved on the signal recycling cavity.  Having removed and reinstalled the SRC tip-tilts, and realigning everything else, they were not in the correct spot.  The beam was off-center in yaw on SR3, and the SR3 reflected beam was hitting low and to the right on SR2.  I went to loosen SR3 so that I could adjust it's position and yaw, and that when things went wrong.

Apparently I hit something BS table and completely lost the input pointing.  I was completely perplexed until I found that the PZT2 mount looked strange.  The upper adjustment screw appeared to have no range.  Looking closer I realized that we somehow lost the gimble ball between the screw and the mount.  Apparently I somehow hit PZT2 hard enough to separate from the mirror mount from the frame which caused the gimble ball to drop out.  The gimble ball probably got lost in a table hole, so we found a similar mount from which we stole a replacement ball.

However, after putting PZT2 back together things didn't come back to the right place.  We were somehow high going through PRM, so we couldn't retro-reflect from ITMY without completely clipping on the PRM/BS apertures.  wtf.

Jenne looked at some trends and we saw a big jump in the BS/PRM osems.  Clearly I must have hit the table/PZT2 pretty hard, enough to actually kick the table.  I'm completely perplexed how I could have hit it so hard and not really realized it.

Anyway, we stopped at this point, to keep me from punching a hole in the wall.  We will re-asses the situation in the morning.  Hopefully the BS table will have relaxed back to it's original position by then.

  7647   Wed Oct 31 17:18:34 2012 JenneUpdateAlignmentprogress, then setback - trend of BS table shift

Here is a two hour set of second trends of 2 sensors per mirror, for BS, PRM, ITMY and MC1.  You can see about an hour ago there was a big change in the BS and PRM suspensions, but not in the ITMY and MC1 suspensions.  This corresponds as best we can tell with the time that Jamie was figuring out and then fixing PZT2's mount.  You can see that the table takes some time to relax back to it's original position.  Also, interestingly, after we put the doors on ~10 or 20 minutes ago, things change a little bit on all tables. This is a little disconcerting, although it's not a huge change.

Attachment 1: PRM_BS_table_bumped_ITMY_MC1_no_big_change_2hoursBack.png
PRM_BS_table_bumped_ITMY_MC1_no_big_change_2hoursBack.png
  7648   Wed Oct 31 17:33:39 2012 KojiUpdateAlignmentTransmitance Measurements on LaserOptik mirror

...Looks like the coating is out of spec at any angle for 1064nm. E11200219-v2

  7649   Wed Oct 31 17:36:39 2012 jamieUpdateAlignmentprogress, then setback - trend of BS table shift

Quote:

Here is a two hour set of second trends of 2 sensors per mirror, for BS, PRM, ITMY and MC1.  You can see about an hour ago there was a big change in the BS and PRM suspensions, but not in the ITMY and MC1 suspensions.  This corresponds as best we can tell with the time that Jamie was figuring out and then fixing PZT2's mount.  You can see that the table takes some time to relax back to it's original position.  Also, interestingly, after we put the doors on ~10 or 20 minutes ago, things change a little bit on all tables. This is a little disconcerting, although it's not a huge change.

 what's going on with those jumps on MC1?  It's smaller, but noticeable, and looks like around the same time.    Did the MC table jump as well?

more looking tomorrow.

  7651   Thu Nov 1 01:51:37 2012 ranaUpdateAlignmentprogress, then setback - trend of BS table shift

  But these jumps in the OSEMs are all at the level of 10-20 microns. Seems like that wouldn't be enough to account for anything; 20 microns / (pend length) ~ 50-60 microradians.

  7652   Thu Nov 1 08:48:42 2012 steveUpdateAlignmentprogress, then setback - trend of BS table shift

Quote:

  But these jumps in the OSEMs are all at the level of 10-20 microns. Seems like that wouldn't be enough to account for anything; 20 microns / (pend length) ~ 50-60 microradians.

 BS table and suspensions are fine.

Attachment 1: alignmentstrugle2d.png
alignmentstrugle2d.png
Attachment 2: alignmentstrugle2da.png
alignmentstrugle2da.png
Attachment 3: befpd09252012.png
befpd09252012.png
  7653   Thu Nov 1 10:13:53 2012 jamieUpdateAlignmentTransmitance Measurements on LaserOptik mirror

Quote:

...Looks like the coating is out of spec at any angle for 1064nm. E11200219-v2

The coating should have very low 1064nm p transmission at 45 degrees, which the plot seems to indicate that it does.  That's really the only part of the spec that this measurement is saying anything about.    What makes you say it's out of spec?

  7654   Thu Nov 1 10:19:11 2012 jamieUpdateAlignmentTransmitance Measurements on LaserOptik mirror

Quote:

Quote:

...Looks like the coating is out of spec at any angle for 1064nm. E11200219-v2

The coating should have very low 1064nm p transmission at 45 degrees, which the plot seems to indicate that it does.  That's really the only part of the spec that this measurement is saying anything about.    What makes you say it's out of spec?

Ok, yes, sorry, the data itself does indicate that the transmission is way too high at 45 degrees for 1064 p.

  7655   Thu Nov 1 10:58:49 2012 jamieUpdateAlignmentprogress, then setback - trend of BS table shift

Here's a plot of the BS, PRM, and MC1 suspension shadow sensor trends over the last 24 hours.  I tried to put everything on the same Y scale:

foo.png

There definitely was some shift in the BS table that is visible in the BS and PRM that seems to be settling back now.  The MC1 is there for reference to show that it didn't really move.

  7657   Thu Nov 1 19:26:09 2012 jamieUpdateAlignmentaligned, this time without the crying

Jamie, Jenne, Nic, Manasa, Raji, Ayaka, Den

We basically walked through the entire alignment again, starting from the Faraday.  We weren't that far off, so we didn't have to do anything too major.  Here's basically the procedure we used:

  • Using PZT 1 and 2 we directed the beam through the PRM aperture and through an aperture in front of PR2.  We also got good retro-reflection from PRM (with PRM free-hanging).  This completely determined our input pointing, and once it was done we DID NOT TOUCH the PZT mirrors any more.
  • The beam was fortunately still centered on PR2, so we didn't touch PR2.
  • Using PR3 we direct the beam through the BS aperture, through the ITMY aperture, and to the ETMY aperture.  This was accomplished by loosening PR3 and twisting it to adjust yaw, moving it forward/backwards to adjust the beam translation, and tapping the mirror mount to affect the hysteresis to adjust pitch.  Surprisingly this worked, and we were able to get the beam cleanly through the BS and Y arm apertures.  Reclamped PR3.
  • Adjusted ITMY biases (MEDM) to get Michelson Y arm retro-reflecting to BS.
  • Adjusting BS biases (MEDM) we directed the beam through the ITMX and ETMX apertures.
  • Adjusted ITMX biases (MEDM) to get Michelson X arm retro-reflecting to BS.

At this point things were looking good and we had Michelson fringes at AS.  Time to align SRC.  This is where things went awry yesterday.  Proceeded more carefully this time:

  • Loosened SR3 to adjust yaw pointing towards SRM.  We were pretty far off at SRM, but we could get mostly there with just a little bit of adjustment of SR3.  Got beam centered in yaw on SR2.
  • Loosened and adjusted SR2 to get beam centered in yaw on SRM.
  • Once we were centered on SR3, SR2, and SRM reclamped SR2/SR3.
  • Pitch adjustment was the same stupid stupid jabbing at SR2/3 to get the hysteresis to stick at an acceptable place.**
  • Looked at retro-reflection from SRM.  We were off in yaw.  We decided to adjust SRM pointing, rather than go through some painful SR2/3 iterative adjustment.  So unclamped SRM and adjusted him slightly in yaw to get the retro-reflection at BS.

At this point we felt good that we had the full IFO aligned.  We were then able to fairly quickly get the AS beam back out on the AS table.

We took at stab at getting the REFL beam situation figured out.  We confirmed that what we thought was REFL is indeed NOT REFL, although we're still not quite sure what we're seeing.  Since it was getting late we decided to close up and take a stab at it tomorrow, possibly after removing the access connector.

The main tasks for tomorrow:

  • Find ALL pick-off beams (POX, POY, POP) and get them out of the vacuum.  We'll use Jenne's new Suresh's old green laser pointer method to deal with POP.
  • Find all OPLEV beams and make sure they're all still centered on their optics and are coming out cleanly.
  • Center IPPOS and IPANG
  • Find REFL and get it cleanly out.
  • Do a full check of everything else to make sure there is no clipping and that everything is where we expect it to be.

Then we'll be ready to close.  I don't see us putting on heavy doors tomorrow, but we should be able to get everything mostly done so that we're ready on Monday.

** Comment: I continue to have no confidence that we're going to maintain good pointing with these crappy tip-tilt folding mirrors.

 

  7658   Thu Nov 1 19:28:48 2012 JenneUpdateAlignmentaligned, AS beam on camera

After everyone else did the hard work, I moved the AS first-on-the-table steering mirror sideways a bit so the AS beam is on the center of the mirror, then steered the beam through the center of the lens, onto the 2" 99% BS.  I also moved the camera from it's normal place (the 1% transmitted through that BS) to the AS110 PD path, as we did last vent.  We'll need to put it back before we go back to high power.

  7664   Fri Nov 2 19:59:54 2012 JenneUpdateAlignmentPOP, POX, POY, IPPOS, IPANG, REFL all coming out of vac

[Evan, Jenne, Jamie]

We used the green laser pointer technique to adjust the POP steering mirrors behind PR2 to get the POP backward beam out onto the table (rather, the mirrors were adjusted so that the green laser pointer, mounted on the POX table, was co-aligned with the beam between PR2 and PR3).

We were unable (why? I feel like it wasn't so hard last time) to see the POX beam, with a camera pointed at an IR card.  We ended up just waving a lens-free CCD camera around on the POX table where we expected POX to be, found the beam, and decided that if the beam was getting to the table, that was good enough.

We then waved the camera around on the POY table, and found the POY beam on the table.  We also moved ITMY up and down in pitch, and saw that the POY beam was moving, so we were satisfied that we had the correct beam.  We should go back and do this same check with POX, although I'm pretty sure that we already have the correct beam.  But checking is good.

We confirmed that IPPOS was coming out of the chambers.  I didn't end up touching any in-vac mirrors for IPPOS, since they all looked centered, and the beam on the table was already centered on the steering mirror on the out-of-vac table.

We got IPANG out of the chamber to the ETMY table.  IPANG has, after the pickoff window, an adjustable mirror, and then a fixed mirror on the BS table.  The beam was very close to the edge, in yaw, on that fixed mirror.  Jamie unclamped it and moved it so the beam was centered, then twisted it until I got beam back down at the end, centered on the first steering mirror down there.  Then Evan and I got the beam centered on the other steering mirror on the in-vac ETMY table, and got the mirror to ~the center of the first out-of-vac steering mirror.  Then Evan adjusted the other steering optics so the beam was hitting the QPD.

We then got the real REFL beam out of the chambers.  I still don't know what that ghost/fake beam is.  Anyhow, we moved PRM around, and saw that the real REFL beam moves, while the fake one doesn't.  We adjusted the adjustable REFL steering mirror in-vac such that the real REFL beam came out to the table.  Once on the AP table, we moved the PRM around again, just to be doubly/triply sure that we had the correct beam.  We put a beam splitter (found on the SP table) after the lens in the REFL path on the AP table, and put the camera on the reflected side of that BS.  This is because, like the AS port, the beam is too dim at the normal camera spot (which for REFL is the transmission through a Y1 mirror).

Jamie has centered IPPOS and IPPANG QPDs, so we should look at the weekend trend come Monday, to see what things look like, and how they drift, if at all.

 

On Monday, we should:

* Check the alignment, and the centering of beams on all mirrors one last time

* Remove all apertures from suspended optics (I think BS and PRM may be the only two that have them at this time)

* Check oplev paths for all mirrors

* Check all pickoffs / beams that need to come out of the vacuum

* Start putting on doors

  7665   Fri Nov 2 20:41:53 2012 JenneUpdateAlignmentAS, REFL camera shots

These don't show anything too interesting, but we're including them to show where the beams are right now on the cameras, so we can compare on Monday.

 

AS:

AS_2Nov2012.png

 

REFL:

REFL_2Nov2012.png

 

 

  7666   Fri Nov 2 21:40:04 2012 ManasaUpdateAlignmentAS, REFL camera shots

 

 To get the camera shot of AS, Y1 mirror on the path was replaced by a 99% BS and transmitted beam was directed to the camera via a 50-50 BS (ND filters were distorting the image on the camera introducing fringes).

  7667   Sat Nov 3 10:31:59 2012 ranaUpdateAlignmentPOP, POX, POY, IPPOS, IPANG, REFL all coming out of vac

  That's good, but I request two things:

1) Check that the REFL beam is coming from the HR surface and not the AR surface. The real REFL beam should have as much power as the Faraday output. And where does the AR surface reflection go?

2) Use frame grabber to get as many images of the spot positions on the mirrors as is reasonable. Don't endanger bumping the tables again, but take what images can be gotten by remote camera views.

  7668   Mon Nov 5 09:53:35 2012 JenneUpdateAlignmentAS, REFL camera shots

Today's photos:

AS:

AS_5Nov2012.png

 REFL:

REFL_5Nov2012.png

IPANG / IPPOS trends:

IPPOS_IPANG_weekend_trend.png

 

 c.f. screen caps from Friday:

Quote:

These don't show anything too interesting, but we're including them to show where the beams are right now on the cameras, so we can compare on Monday.

 

AS:

AS_2Nov2012.png

 

REFL:

REFL_2Nov2012.png

 

 

 

  7671   Mon Nov 5 19:38:52 2012 jamie, jenne, ayaka, denUpdateAlignmentmore alignment woes

Earlier this morning we thought things were looking pretty good.  IPPOS, IPANG, and the AS and REFL spots looked like they hadn't moved too much over the weekend.  Our plan was to do a quick check of things, check clearances, etc., tweak up the oplevs, and then close up.  This is when I made the ill-fated decisions to check the table levelling.

The BS table was slightly off so I moved one of the thick disk weights off of the other disk weight that it was sitting on, and on to the table next to it.  This seemed to improve things enough so I left it there.  ITMY didn't need any adjustment, and I move a couple smaller weights around on ITMX.  Meanwhile Jenne was adjusting the output PSL power back into it's nominal range (<100mW), and re-tweaking up the mode cleaner.

When we then looked at the vertex situation again it was far off in yaw.  This was clearly evident on PZT2, where the beam was no longer centered on the PZT2 mirror and was near the edge.  This was causing us to clip at the BS aperture.

We took some deep breaths and tried to figure out what we did that could have messed things up.

Jenne noticed that we had moved slightly on the PSL QPDs, so she adjusted the PSL output pointing to re-aquire the previous pointing, and realigned the MC.  This had a very small positive affect, but not nearly enough to compensate for whatever happened.

We spent some more time trying to track down what might have changed, but were unable to come up with anything conclusive.  We then decided to see if we could recover things by just adjusting the PZT input steering mirrors.  We couldn't; recentering at PRM, BS, ITMY, and ETMY was moving us off of PR3.

Jenne suggested we look at the spot positions on the MMT mirrors.  I had checked MMT1 and it looked ok, but we hadn't looked at MMT2.  When we checked MMT2 we noticed that we were also off in yaw.  This made us consider the possibility that the BS table had twisted, most likely when I was securing the moved mass.  Sure enough, when I manually twisted BS table, by grabbing it with my hand, very little force would cause the input beam to walk much of the way across PZT2, more than accounting for the offset.  The effect was also very clearly hysteretic as well; I could twist the table a little and it would stay in the new position.

At this point we had fucked things up enough that we realized that we're basically going to have to walk through the whole alignment procedure again, for the third time this vent.  We were able to recover the PRM retro-reflection a bit, but the tip-tilts have drifted in pitch (likely again because of the table levelling).  So we're going to have to walk through the whole procedure systematically again.

Lessons learned:  Many things are MUCH more sensitive than I had been assuming.  The tip-tilts are of course ridiculous, in that lightly touching the top or bottom of the mirror mount will move it by quite a lot in pitch.  The tables are also much more sensitive than I had realized.  In particular, tightening screws can twist the table hystereticly by milliradians, which can of course completely loose the pointing.  We need to be a lot more careful.

Assuming the table hasn't moved too much we should be able to recover the alignment by just adjusting the PZTs and tweaking the pitch of the tip-tilts.  At least that's the hope.    No more touching the table.  No more leveling.  Hopefully we can get this mostly done tomorrow morning.

  7673   Tue Nov 6 16:38:37 2012 jenne, jamie, ayaka, manasaUpdateAlignmentAlignment back under control again

We had a big alignment party early this morning, and things are back to looking good.  We have been very careful not to bump or touch tables any more than necessary.  Also, we have removed the apertures from the BS and PRM, so there are no more apertures currently left in the chambers (this is good, since we won't forget).

We started over again from the PZTs, using the PRM aperture and the freestanding aperture in front of PR2, to get the height of the beam correct.  We then moved PZTs to get the beam centered on BS, ITMY, ETMY.  We had to do a little poking of PR2 (and PR3?) to get pitch correct everywhere.

We then went to ETMX to check beam pointing, and used BS to steer the beam to the center of ETMX.  We checked that the beam was centered on ITMX.

We went through and ensured that ITMX, ITMY, PRM, SRM are all retroreflecting.  We see nice MICH fringes, and we see some fringes (although still not so nice...) when we bring PRM and SRM into alignment.

We checked the AS path (with only MICH aligned), and made sure we are centered on all of the mirrors.  This included steering a little bit on the mirrors on the OMC table, in yaw.  Initially, AS was coming out of the vacuum, but hitting the side of the black beam tube.  Now it gets nicely to the table.

For both AS and REFL, we made sure there is no clipping in the OMC chamber.

I recentered the beams for AS and REFL on their respective cameras.

IPPOS was centered on the QPD.  This involved moving the first out-of-vac steering mirror sideways a small amount, since the beam was hitting the edge of the mirror.  IPANG was aligned in-vac, and has been centered on the QPD.

Right now, Manasa, Jamie and Ayaka are doing some finishing touches work, checking that POY isn't clipping on OM2, the second steering mirror after the SRM, and they'll confirm that POX comes out of the chamber nicely, and that POP is also still coming out (by putting the green laser pointer back on that table, and making sure the green beam is co-aligned with the beam from PR2-PR3.  Also on the list is checking the vertex oplevs.  Steve and Manasa did some stuff with the ETM oplevs yesterday, but haven't had a chance to write about it yet.

  7674   Tue Nov 6 17:07:04 2012 jamieUpdateAlignmentAS and REFL

AS: tmp6oTENk.png

REFL: tmplamEtZ.png

  7675   Tue Nov 6 17:22:51 2012 Manasa, JamieUpdateAlignmentAlignment- POY and oplevs

Right now, Manasa, Jamie and Ayaka are doing some finishing touches work, checking that POY isn't clipping on OM2, the second steering mirror after the SRM, and they'll confirm that POX comes out of the chamber nicely, and that POP is also still coming out (by putting the green laser pointer back on that table, and making sure the green beam is co-aligned with the beam from PR2-PR3.  Also on the list is checking the vertex oplevs.  Steve and Manasa did some stuff with the ETM oplevs yesterday, but haven't had a chance to write about it yet.

We were trying to check POY alignment using the green laser in the reverse direction (outside vacuum to in-vac) . The green laser was installed along with a steering mirror to steer it into the ITMY chamber pointing at POY.

We found that the green laser did follow the path back into the chamber perfectly; it was clipping at the edge of POY. To align it to the center of POY (get a narrower angle of incidence at the ITMY), the green laser had to be steered in at a wider angle of incidence from the table. This is now being limited by the oplev steering optics on the table. We were not able to figure out the oplev path on the table perfectly; but we think we can find a way to move the oplev steering mirrors that are now restricting the POY alignment.

The oplev optics will be moved once we confirm with Jenne or Steve.

 

[Steve, Manasa]

We aligned the ETM oplevs yesterday. We confirmed that the oplev beam hit the ETMs. We checked for centering of the beam coming back at the oplev PDs and the QPDsums matched the values they followed before the vent.

Sadly, they have to be checked once again tomorrow because the alignment was messed up all over again yesterday.

  7677   Wed Nov 7 00:10:38 2012 Jenne UpdateAlignmentAlignment- POY and oplevs. photos.
Can we have a drawing of what you did, how you confirmed your green alignment as the same as the IR (I think you had a good idea 
about the beam going to the BS...can you please write it down in detail?), and where you think the beam is clipping? Cartoon-level, 20 
to 30 minutes of work, no more. Enough to be informative, but we have other work that needs doing if we're going to put on doors 
Thursday morning (or tomorrow afternoon?).

The ETMs weren't moved today, just the beam going to the ETMs, so the oplevs there shouldn't need adjusting. Anyhow, the oplevs I'm 
more worried about are the ones which include in-vac optics at the corner, which are still on the to-do list.

So, tomorrow Steve + someone can check the vertex oplevs, while I + someone finish looking briefly at POX and POP, and at POY in 
more detail.

If at all possible, no clamping / unclamping of anything on the in-vac tables. Let's try to use things as they are if the beams are getting to 
where they need to go.  Particularly for the oplevs, I'd rather have a little bit of movement of optics on the out-of-vac tables than any 
changes happening inside.

I made a script that averages together many photos taken with the capture script that Rana found, which takes 50 pictures, one after 
another. If I average the pictures, I don't see a spot. If I add the photos together even after subtracting away a no-beam shot, the 
picture us saturated and is completely white. I'm trying to let ideas percolate in my head for how to get a useful spot. 
  7678   Wed Nov 7 07:11:10 2012 ranaUpdateAlignmentAlignment- POY and oplevs. photos.

The way to usually do image subtraction is to:

1) Turn off the room lights.

2) Take 500 images with no beam.

3) Use Mean averaging to get a reference image.

4) Same with the beam on.

5) Subtract the two averaged images. If that doesn't work, I guess its best to just take an image of the green beam on the mirrors using the new DSLR.

  7679   Wed Nov 7 09:09:02 2012 SteveUpdateAlignmentAlignment-
PRM and SRM  OSEM LL 1.5V are they misaligned?
Attachment 1: 9amNov7w.png
9amNov7w.png
  7682   Wed Nov 7 15:17:15 2012 SteveUpdateAlignmentsteering option with pico motor?
We have two ready for vacuum 1.5" mirror mounts with pico motors in our hands. 


 
Attachment 1: IMG_1795.JPG
IMG_1795.JPG
ELOG V3.1.3-