It was a bit difficult to comprehend the result.
Is it good? or bad? Have you seen the thermal effect? or not?

- Put linear lines to show the visibility of the cavity.

- Calibrate the incident power and make another plot to show the visibility (%) vs the incident power (W).

Both Rolf and Alex (at least his elbow) together visited the 40m to talk with Joe for the CDS.

40m is the true front line of the CDS development!!!

[Kiwamu, Yuta, Koji]

We went to the new metrology lab at Downs subbasement (Rm014) in order to measure the phase map of the delivered PRMs.

It's brand-new. So we had to measure the reference phase map, calibration as well as the phase map of our mirrors (3 PRMs and 1 spare SRM). It took a whole day...

Summary:

Calibration of the phase map interferometer was calculated for the data on Oct 8th, 2010.
The calibration value is 0.1905 mm/pixel.

This is slightly smaller than the assumed value in the machine that is 0.192mm/pixel.
This means that the measured radii of curvature must be scaled down with this ratio.
(i.e. RoC(new) = RoC(old) / 0.192² * 0.1905²)

Motivation:

Our tagets of the phasemap measurement are:

1. Measure the figure errors of the mirrors
2. Measure the curvature of the mirrors

The depth of the mirror figure is calibrated by the wavelength of the laser (1064nm).
However, the lateral scale of the image is not calibrated.
Although Zygo provides the initial calibration as 0.192 mm/pixel, we should measure the calibration by ourselves.

Method:

We found an aperture mask with a grid of holes with 2mm diameter and 3mm spacing (center-to-center).
Take the picture of this aperture and calibrate the pixel size. The aperture is made of stainless and makes not interference
with the reference beam. Thus we put a dummy mirror behind the aperture. (UPPER LEFT plot)

As the holes are aligned as a grid, the FFT of the aperture image shows peaks at the corresponding pitches. (UPPER MIDDLE plot)
As the aperture was slightly rotated, the grids of the peaks are also slanted.

We can obtain the spacing of the peak grids. How can we can that values precisely? I decided to make an artificial mask image.
The artificial mask (LOWER LEFT plot) has the similar FFT pattern (LOWER MIDDLE plot). The inner product of the two
FFT results (i.e. Sum[abs(fft1) x abs(fft2)]), quite a large value is obtained if the grid pitch and the aperture angle agrees between those images.
Note that the phase information was discarded. The estimated grid spacing of the artificial mask can be mathematically obtained.

Result:

The grid pitch and the angle were manually set as initial values. Then the parameters to give the local maximum was obtained by fminsearch of Matlab.
UPPER RIGHT and LOWER RIGHT plots show the scan of the evaluation function by changing the angle and the pitch. They behave quite normal.

The obtained values are

Grid pitch: 15.74 pixel
Angle: 1.935 deg

As the grid pitch is 3mm, the calibration is

3 mm / 15.74 pixel = 0.1905 mm/pixel

Discussion:

A spherical surface can be expressed as the following formula:

z = R - R Sqrt(1-r²/R²)      (note: this can be expanded as r²/(2 R)+O(r³) )

Here R is the RoC and r is the distance from the center. This means that the calibration of r quadratically changes the curvature.
We have measured the RoC of the spare SRM. We can compare the RoCs measured by this new metrology IFO and the old one,
as well as the one by Coastline optics. 

The network cables for the Martian network were moved to the new Netgear switch from the old one which had the broken fan.
The martian machines look happy so far.

Above the new switch we have the GC network switch. The two fans of it were also broken. The fans were replaced.

They are now quiet and I am quite satisfied.

From the plot, you observed the reduction of the output power only by 1% between 25deg to 45deg.
This does not agree with the reduction from 2.1W to 1.6W.
Is there any cause of this discrepancy?

- Steve is working on the storage shelf for those optics.

- PRMU002 was chosen as it has the best RoC among the three.

I have made a summary web page for the 40m upgrade optics.

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/40m_phasemap/

I made a bunch of RoC calculations along with the phase maps we measured.
Those are also accommodated under this directory structure.

Probably.... I should have used the wiki and copy/paste the resultant HTML?

I cleaned up the scattered tools, optics, and mounts of the PSL table. I gathered those stuffs at the two coners.

At the end of the work I scanned the table with an IR viewer. (This is mandatory)
I put some beam block plates to kill weak stray beams.

One thing I like to call the attention is:

I found that some beam blocks were missing at around the PBSs just after the laser source.
Those PBSs tend to reject quite a lot of beam power
--- no matter how the HWPs/QWPs are arranged.
--- even at the backward side. (remember that we have a faraday there.)

Particularly, there was no beam block at the forward rejection side of the first PBS where we dump the high power beam.

Be careful. 

This is cool though the projector is flashing the blue screen alternately.

I gave the dual head video card (ATI RADEON something) to Yuta a month ago.
It is on the top of Zita. This would make the things more fun.

[Koji Suresh]

We found the beat at 1064nm. T(PSL)=26.59deg, T(X-end)=31.15deg.

The X-end laser was moved to the PSL table.

The beating setup was quickly constructed with mode matching based on beam profile measurements by the IR cards.
We used the 1GHz BW PD, Newfocus #1611-FS-AC.

As soon as we swept the Xtal temp of the X-end laser, we found the strong beating.

[Koji / Suresh]

We worked on the 1064 beating a bit more.

- First of all, FSS and FSS SLOW servo were disabled not to have variating Xtal temp for the PSL.

- The PSL Xtal temp (T_PSL) was scanned from 22deg-45deg while we search the Xtal temp (T_Xend) for the Xend laser to have the beat freq well low (f<30MHz).
The pumping current for each laser was I_PSL = 2.101 [A] and I_Xend = 2.000 [A]

For a certain T_PSL, we found multiple T_Xend because the freq of the laser is not a monotonic function of the Xtal temperature. (see the innolight manual).

T_Xend to give us the beating was categorized in the three sets as shown in the figure. The set on "curve2" is the steadiest one. (Use this!)
The trends were quite linear but the slope was slightly off from the unity.

- T_PSL was scanned to see the trend of the PMC output.

The PMC was sometimes locked to the mode with lower transmission (V_PMCT ~ 3.0V).
When T_PSL ~ 31deg we consistently locked the PMC at higer transmission (V_PMCT ~ 5.3V).

At the moment we decided the operating point of T_PSL = 32.25 deg, V_PMCT = 5.34, where we found the beat at T_Xend=38.28deg.

- We cleaned up the PSL table more than how it was. Returned the tools to their original places.
The X-end laser was shut down and was left on the PSL table.

NEXT:
Kiwamu can move the X-end laser to the Xend and realign it.
Then we should be able to see the green beating quite easily.

- What is the actual photocurrent for the beam1 and beam2? We don't care how much power do you have before the BS, but care how much current do you have on the PD.

- How much is the visibility? There is mismatching of the beams. i.e. The beam diameter looked quite different. Also the beams are not TEM00 but have fringes probably comes from the TT mirrors. You maybe able to measure the visibility by the DC output, making the beat freq go through df=0 slowly.

- What is the measured gain of the RF amp? Does it include the voltage division by the output/input impedance?

---------------------

 The signal level of the observed peak was -48dBm.

However I was expecting it is like -28dBm with some ideal assumptions.

There may be a 20dB unknown loss which sounds big to me.

I was assuming the parameters are like:

           A = 0.39 [A/W]   (assuming 90% quantum efficiency at 532nm)

           Z = 240 [V/A]  

           P1 = 17 uW  (measured by Newport power meter)

           P2 = 30 uW (measured by Newport power meter)

           G_RF = 23 dB

Q1. Suppose the laser beam has a certain (i.e. arbitrary) polarization state but contains only TEM00. Also suppose the PSB is perfect (reflect all S and transmit all P). What results do you expect from your expereiment?

Q2. Suppose the above condition but the PBS is not perfect (i.e. reflects most of S but also small leakage of P to the reflection port.) How are the expected results modified?

Q3. In reality, the laser may also contain some thing dirty (e.g. deporarization in the laser Xtal, higher order modes in a certain polarization but different from the TEM00's one, etc). What actually is the cause of 170mW rejection from the PBS? Can we improve the transmitted power through the PBS?

Q4. Why is the visibility for the lambda/4 with 330deg better than the one with 326deg? Yes, as I already explained to Kevin, I suppose it was caused by the lack of the data points in the wider angle ranges.

[Suresh / Koji]

The MC mirrors are aligned. Now the flashing of the resonances are visible on the MC2 CCD

although the modematching seemed pretty poor.

- The incident power was adjusted to be ~20mW by rotating HWP after the laser source.
The power before the window of the chamber was ~450mW. Where are those missing 1.5W?

- We checked the spot on the last two steering mirrors and the incident beam on MC1.
The beam was too much off from the center of the 1st steering mirror. It was also hitting 1cm north of the MC1.
We adjusted the steering mirrors such that the incident and reflected beams are symmetrically visible at the MC1 tower.

- The MC mirrors are aligned. We first tried to use only MC2 and MC3. And then we used MC1 too as the spot on the MC2 was too high.

- We saw some TEM00 flashes but with many other modes flashing. We checked the beam diameter on the PSL table and on the MC REFL.
The latter one looked twice large as the former one. We concluded the beam is diverging.

- We closed the tank and decided to work on the mode matching tomorrow.

ELOG reverted to 2.7.5 due to editing difficulties

- /cvs/cds/caltech/elog/start-elog.csh reconfigured to launch 2.7.5

- /cvs/cds/caltech/elog/elog is linked to ./elog-2.7.5

- logbook dir of 2.8.0 was copied in the dir of 2.7.5. The old and obsolete 2.7.5 was discarded.

ELOG restarted with 2.8.0 again.

- moved elog-2.8.0/script dir to elog-2.8.0/script.orig

- copied elog-2.7.5/script to elog-2.8.0/script

- /cvs/cds/caltech/elog/start-elog.csh reconfigured to launch 2.8.0

- /cvs/cds/caltech/elog/elog is linked to ./elog-2.8.0

- logbooks on 25th and 26th were copied from 2.7.5 to 2.8.0.

ZHL-32A is a high power (well..., actually middle power) amplifier with the max output power of +29dBm (~1W!).
It seems to be overkill.
Your signal is so small so you don't need ZHL-32A, but can use small amp which we may have somewhere in the lab.

And the description:
"RF amplifier ZHL-32A has around +28dBm gain at 80MHz"
The unit is wrong.

[Suresh Koji]

The standoff glued. The incandescent lamp set for curing the epoxy.

Jenne and Suresh did the balancing job. The next job was to glue it.

They ran out of the clear epoxy, and tried to use the grey epoxy which we used on the other suspensions for the upgrade.
They found that the solution A with grey color one was dried out and grainy.

We made a test piece of the grey epoxy (mixed with the solution B) in order to see the glue is still usable or not.
After the PMA party, we found that the glue was not stiffening but brittle. We judged that the grey epoxy is no longer useful.

Steve found a pack of Vac Seal in the chemical fridge. We decided to use this one for the gluing of the standoff.

After the gluing, we set an incandescent lamp to make the glue warm. 

Finally, we wrapped the suspension tower with Al foils and turned the HEPA fans again.

[Kevin Koji]

- The PBS alignment increased the transmitted power

- The first faraday and the PMC EOM were realigned.

- The transmission of the PMC increased from ~5.4V to ~6.5V.

Thus we need to pay attention to the incident beam power on to the MC
so that it does not exceed the power of 20-40mW.

Kevin will give us the detail of the work.

Unsatisfactory.

Neglecting the digital anti-imaging filter makes the discrepancy. You must take into account your digital filter twice.

I attached the slides I made during my visit for March LVC '09. P.5 would be useful.

Um, Beautiful.

Actually, 123.5usec is almost exactly twice of 1/16384Hz.
Because of the loop, we have 1/16384Hz delay. I wonder where we do have the delay.

In order to understand the behaviour of the system can I ask you to test the following things?

1) What are the delay without IOPs with f_sampl of 16k, 32k, 64k?

2) What are the delay with IOP with f_sampl of 32k, 64k?

[Kiwamu Koji]

Today we found the green beam from the end was totally missing at the vertex.

- What we found was very weak green beam at the end. Unhappy.

- We removed the PBS. We should obtain the beam for the fiber from the rejection of the (sort of) dichroic separator although the given space is not large.

- The temperature controller was off. We turned it on again.

- We found everything was still misaligned. Aligned the crystal, aligned the Faraday for the green.

- Aligned the last two steering mirrors such that we hit the approximate center of the ETMX and the center of the ITMX.

- Made the fine alignment to have the green beam at the PSL table.

The green beam emerged from the chamber looks not so round as there is a clipping at an in-vac steering.
We will make the thorough realignment before closing the tank.

Wow! Great guys!!

Can I expect to see the spectra of the frequency counter output with and without the servo?

RA: I think the SBP-70 is a bad idea. It limits the capture range. So does the SHP-25. You should instead just use a DC-block; the SR620 should work from 1-200 MHz with no problems.

Also, we have to figure out a better solution for the DAC at the ends: we cannot steal the QPD gain slider in the long run and the 4116 DAC at the ends has all 8 channels used up. Should we get the purple box for testing or should we try to use the fast DAC in the EX IO chassis as the actuator?

[Suresh, Koji]

- Removed MCT optics in the IMC chamber

- Rotated MC1 and MC3 in clock-wise to debias the YAW bias offsets (-5V and -8V to -1.5V and -0.5V).

- Adjusted insertion of the MC1 OSEMs so as to have the outputs of about 1.0V.

- Locked to TEM00. Trying to get the beams at the center of the mirror using Yuta's A2L.

As MC2 Trans mon QPD is temporary removed for fixing, we needed a reference for the MC alignment.

I replaced the 10% pick-off in the MCREFL path to the HR mirror.
Now the MCREFL DC with MC unlock is ~2.2, while it is ~0.29 in lock.
i.e. The visibility is 87%.

This means that the MCWFS were disabled for the moment.

It didn't make sense in several points.

1. Is the Faraday aperture really 3mm? The beam has the gaussian radius of ~1.5mm. How can it be possible to go through the 3mm aperture?

2. Why the MC3-FT distance is the matter? We have the steering mirror after MC3. So we can hit the center of the Faraday.
But if we have VERTICAL TILT of the beam, we can not hit the center of the Faraday entrance and exit at the same time.
That would yield the requirement.

3. If each coil has 5% variance in the response, variance of the nodal point (measured in % of the coil imbalance) by those four coils will be somewhat better than 5%, isn't it?

1. Look at the Faraday.

2. Look at the wiki. There is the optical layout in PNG and PDF.

3. 5% (0.8mm) and 2.5%(0.4mm) sounds a big difference for the difficulty, but if you say so, it is not so different.

Actualy, if you can get to the 5% level, it is easy to get to the 1-2% level as I did last time.
The problem is we are at the 15-20% level and can not improve it.

The cause is apparent! The connectors on the cables are wrong!
Currently only 50% of the pin length goes into the connector!

[Koji / Yuta]

There were the guys who used the PENTEK 40pin connectors into the IDC 40pin connectors.
Those connectors are not compatible at all.

==> We replaced the connectors on the cables from DAC to IDC adapters to the dewhitening board for the vertex SUSs.

In addition, I found one of the Binary OUT IDC50pin connector has no clamp.

==> We put the IDC50pin clamp on it.

PENTEK connectors were inserted. The latches are not working!

the vertical pitch is different between PENTEK and IDC!

Wow! Where is the clamp???

[Koji Yuta]

We found one of the ADC cables were left unconnected. This left the MC suspensions uncontrollable through the whole afternoon.
Please keep the status updated and don't forget to revert the configuration...

Has C1PSL rebooted? Has burtrestore been forgotten? Even without elog?

We found some settings are wrong and the PMC has pretty low gain.

[Valera Yuta Kiwamu Koji]

Kiwamu burtrestored c1psl. We measured the power levels around the PMC.

With 2.1A current at the NPRO:

Pincident = 1.56W
Ptrans_main = 1.27W
Ptrans_green_path = .104W

==> Efficiency =88%

----

We limited  the MC incident power to ~50mW. This corresponds to the PMC trans of 0.65V.
(The PMC trans is 1.88V at the full power with the actual power of 132mW)

RF Transimpedance of 200Ohm means the residual impedance at the resonance (R_res) of 40,
if you consider the amplifier gain (G_amp) of 10 and the voltage division by the 50Ohm termination,
this corresponds to the thermal noise level of Sqrt(4 kB T R_res)*G_amp/2 = 4nV/rtHz at the analyzer, while you observed 35nV/rtHz.

35nV/rtHz corresponds to 7nV/rtHz for the input noise of the preamp. That sounds too big if you consider the voltage noise of opamp MAX4107 that is 0.75nV/rtHz.

What is the measurement noise level of the RF analyzer?

[Kiwamu/Koji]

- The tanks are open

Plan

[done] - Remove the PZT cable currently underlying between BS and ITMY chambers
[done] - Put this PZT cable between BS and IMC chambers. Connect it on the PZT on the IMC table (SM1)
[done]- Put the two OSEM cables between BS and ITMY chambers. Connect this cable to SRM.
  The connector for this cable at the BS side is coming from Bob's place on Wednesday. We left it disconnected for now.

- Energize all of four PZTs and check the functionality.

I checked the vacuum system and judged there is no apparent issue.

The chambers and annulus had been vented before the power failure.
So the matters are only on the TMPs.

TP1 showed the "Low Input Voltage" failure. I reset the error and the turbine was lift up and left not rotating.
TP2 and TP3 seem rotating at 50KRPM and the each lines show low pressur (~1e-7)
although I did not find the actual TP2/TP3 themselves.

What else?

v: Edit on Dec 15 10PM
v: Edit on Dec 16 10PM


JD:  We should check OSEMs for all optics *after* table leveling.  Some of them (esp. BS and ITMX) are currently close to their limits right now.

KA: Check green alignment.

Take photos of the tables.

Fix the leveling weights


Location    Optics            Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
@ITMX -     v POX             alignment
            v POP1/POP2       alignment
            v Table Leveling

@ITMY -     POY               mirror replacement (45deg->0deg) / alignment
            v SR2-TT          alignment
            v SRM Tower       alignment / EQ-stop release
            v SRM             alignment
            v SRM OSEM
            vvSRM OPLEV (X2)  install (VIS)/ alignment
            v ITMY OPLEV (X2)   install (VIS)/ alignment
            v OM1/OM2         install (DLC 45deg)/ alignment       
            v Table Leveling

@BSC -      v OM3             install (DLC 45deg/ alignment)
            v OM4(PZT)          neutralize, adjustment
            IPPOS steering    alignment
            v BS OPLEV        alignment
            v PRM OPLEV(x2)     alignment
            Beam dumps
            Table Leveling

@IMC -      v REFL              mirror replacement　(45deg->0deg)

@ETMX -     Al foil removal
            Table Leveling

@ETMY -     ETMY damping
            OSEM
            OPLEV
            Al foil removal
            Table Leveling

@OMC -      v OM5(PZT)        neutralize, adjustment

@ITM/ETM -  Mirror Wiping



Great!

I wish this board works fine at least for several days...

I helped the vacuum installation work in the evening.

- Three steering mirrors after the SRM (OM1-OM3) were installed on the table. OM1 and OM2 were aligned.
  OM3 is in-place but not aligned to the OM4 (PZT).

- The ITMY oplev setup was disintegrated. The SRM/ITMY oplev beams were prepared.

- The SRM oplev mirrors were placed on the table and aligned.

- The ITMY oplev mirrors were placed on the table but not in-place.

[Steve and Koji]

The invac OPLEV mirrros were aligned before we get to the PMA party.

The OPLEV mirrors were adjusted in accordance with the optical layout.
Surprisingly the optical layout was enough precise such that we have the healthy red beams on the optical tables.
Steve placed the apertures at the position of the returning spots while I shook the stack to check if the range of the spot motion is sufficient.

The sole thing that has been deviated from the optical layout was that the SRM returning beam had to be reroute
as the SRM has better reflectivity on the AR surface in stead of the HR one.

[Koji and Kiwamu]

We obtained two dark port beams on the AP table: OMC REFL and AS

- First, IPANG and BS were aligned so as to have the beams on the center of the ETMs.

- Then ITMX/ITMY/PRM/SRM were aligned to have fringes in a single spot anywhere.

- As we already had the dark port beam on the steering mirrors on the BS table, today the PZT mirrors were adjusted.
This work was the beam steering between the BS table to the OMC table. After some tweaking of the mirror mounts, 
the spot on the last PZT mirror was found.

As we have not touched any of the OMC optics since they were aligned well, the alignment has been adjusted by the nobs of the PZT steering mirrors.
Once the beam is on the output mode matching telescope (OMMT), the work was quite easy thanks to the beam shrinking by the OMMT.

Note that the dark port beam is slightly clipped by the green steering mirror. The steering mirror will be moved next time.

After the alignment, we indeed obtained OMC REFL and AS beams on the AP table.
The fringes were visible on the OMC REFL CCD.

We keep the dark port setup on the OMC (in-vac) and AP tables so that they can be the reference of the dark port alignment.
In principle we can align the beams onto the OMC by the two PZT mirrors.

What is left?

Our minimum success of this vent is to setup the X arm cavity which is needed for the green locking.
This setup was already realized. So we fulfilled the condition to close the tank even if the damping of
the ETMY is not achieved. (But we should try)

Tomorrow, we make a light touches to POY, Green, IPPOS, and check the table leveling, clamping, etc, in general.

JD:  We should check OSEMs for all optics *after* table leveling.  Some of them (esp. BS and ITMX) are currently close to their limits right now.

KA: Check green alignment. / Take photos of the tables. / Fix the leveling weights

Location    Optics            Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
@ITMY -     POY               mirror replacement (45deg->0deg) / alignment
@BSC -      Green steering    alignment
            IPPOS steering    alignment
            Beam dumps
            Table Leveling

@ETMX -     Al foil removal
            Table Leveling

@ETMY -     ETMY damping
            OSEM
            OPLEV
            Table Leveling

@ITM/ETM -  Mirror Wiping



Did the same.

Did it again. It seemed that Google bot came to the elog and tried to obtain "http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/robots.txt". That was the last of the log.
Bot came from the AJW's homepage. Also Google FeedFecther came to the elog.

Monday

• Place the bars on the in-vac tables to mark the positions of the test mass suspensions. (ITMX/ITMY/ETMX/ETMY)
• Check the table leveling again (ITMX/ITMY/ETMX/ETMY/BSC)
• Align the whole interferometer.
• Check the OPLEV spots by either QPDs or apertures
• Check the OSEM values (MC1/2/3, BS, PRM, SRM, ITMX, ITMY, ETMX, ETMY)
• Energize OMC PZTs.
  • We have removed the cards at the back of the HV driver.
  • Insert the card and check the connection.
  • Adjust the DC values at the middle of the range.
    -> They have an internal bias circuit to provide +75V at the outputs. (D060287).
    The actual voltages confirmed.
  • Adjust the physical knobs of the PZTs such that we can see the spots at the OMCR cam
• If everything is fine, attach the access connector.
• If still everythig is fine, put the BS heavy door.

Tuesday

- Do the following list for all of the testmass chambers.

• Check if the OSEMs and the OPLEV are still fine.
• Inspect the surface of the mirror with a laser pointer or a fiber coupled halogen light.
• Blow the mirrors by the ionization gun.
• Inspect the mirror surface again.
• Move the suspension tower close to the door.
• Make a single drag-wipe with iso
• Move the SOS tower at the original place.
• Check the OSEMs and the OPLEVs. Adjust the alignment.
• Put the heavy door.

- Start slow pumping

[Jenne Kiwamu Joe Osamu Steve Koji]

Yesterday (21st), we closed the BSC and the four testmass chambers.

We splitted the team into three.

- Wiping team (Jenne/Kiwamu)
- Suspension team (Osamu/Koji)
- Door closing team (Joe/Steve)

While the wiping team was working, the suspension team prepared the next suspension.
Once the mirror was wiped, the suspension team restored that suspension at the position of the markings on the table.

After the wipe of the first mirror, the wiping team got experienced and they were the fastest among the teams.
So the wiping team worked as the second suspension team when necessary.

All of us became the closing team after the last suspension has been restored.

We checked that we still have the Michelson fringes and the oplev pointings.

In total, the work was very efficient such that we only took four hours for the entire process.

We left the suspension marking on the optical tables because they are quite useful.

ELOG has crashed and I restarted it.

Actually the filtering is not effective so far as elog is not using apache but has its own web server inside.
So this just block the access to port 30889 (=SVN, Dokuwiki, etc).

The four IOO PZTs have been turned on in order to confirm the alignment of the IFO.

Once they are turned on, the spots (ITMX/ITMY/PRM/SRM) on the REFL CCD have been easily found.

When the X-arm was aligned to the green beam, it is easily locked to TEM00. Also some LG modes were visible.
i.e. There is some room to improve the mode matching.
The transmitted green at the PSL table is a bit too high and clipped by the first mirror on the table.

No IR flashes were found in either arms.

------------------

The below are the range and the set values of the strain gauge readback for the PZTs.
When the closed loop buttons are activated the PZTs are fixed at those values, if no one touches the set point dials.

            Min   Max   SetP | Display on the module
PZT1 Yaw    2.20  9.95  6.08 | Broken
PZT1 Pitch -0.011 8.89  4.40 | 1.58

PZT2 Yaw    0.737 9.94  5.37 | 2.17
PZT2 Pitch  0.010 9.42  4.71 | 1.89

- Previously MC TRANS was 9000~10000 when the alignment was good. This means that the MC TRANS PD is saturated if the full power is given.
==> Transimpedance must be changed again.

- Y1-45S has 4% of transmission. Definitively we like to use Y1-0 or anything else. There must be the replaced mirror.
I think Suresh replaced it. So he must remember wher it is.

- We must confirm the beam pointing on the MC mirrors with A2L.

- We must check the MCWFS path alignment and configuration.

- We should take the picture of the new PSL setup in order to update the photo on wiki.