40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 108 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  12644   Tue Nov 29 11:07:37 2016 SteveUpdateLSCITMY UL glitches are back

400 days plot. Satelite amp ITMY has been swapped with ETMY

Unlabeled sat.amps are labeled. This plot only makes sense if you know the Cuh-Razy sat amp locations.

  16920   Wed Jun 15 17:03:17 2022 yutaUpdateSUSITMY ULCOIL issue solved, loose connection in sat amp box

[Anchal, Yuta]

We fixed the issue of ITMY ULCOIL not driving ITMY by replacing one of the 64pin ribbon cable in the satellite amplifier box.
We thought the coil driver and the sat amp box are OK by checking the voltage change at the output of the sat amp box by giving an offset to UL coil driver, but it was not giving a current change, probably due to too much contact resistance in the cables.
It was sneaky because it was not completely disconnected.

All the coils for our suspensions are now working!

What we did:
 - Using breakout boards, the output current of sat amp box was measured using FLUKE multimeter. It turned out that UL is not giving measurable current. We also confirmed that UR coil driver can drive UL by re-directing the current from UR coil driver to UL. This means that the UL magnet was not de-magnetized!
 - Measured the coil resistance from at the coil driver output and found that UL coil seen from there has too high resistance which cannot be measured with the multimeter, whereas UR coil was measured to be ~30 Ohms.
 - Went back to the feedthru and measured the resistance of UL coil. Upto the output of the Satellite Amp Terimator, the resistance was measured to be ~16 Ohms, but not at the input of the Satellite Amp Terimator (Attachment #1,2).
 - It turned out that #16 pin of 64pin ribbon cable in between the Satellite Amp Terimator (LIGO-D990021) and the Satellite Amp board (LIGO-D961289) at the Satellite Amp Terimator side was not good (Attachment #3).
 - Replaced the cable and confirmed that ULCOIL can kick ITMY (Attachment #4).
 - C1:SUS-ITMY_TO_COIL matrix was reverted to default values.

Next:
 - We might have to re-commission Yarm ASS again since pitch-yaw coupling have changed. -> EDIT: Checked that it works (except for ITM PIT L), including offloading offsets (writeASS_offsets.py), 18:30 local.
 - Now that LO1 LLCOIL issue is solved and LO2 stuck is solved, we should do the free swing test again to identify the resonant frequencies.
 - OSEM sensor diagonalization (input matrix), coil balancing (and F2A)

  16896   Tue Jun 7 17:26:21 2022 yutaUpdateSUSITMY ULCOIL mystery not solved

[Paco, Yuta]

We investigated the ITMY ULCOIL issue (40m/16873).
ULSEN is sensing the optic motion but ULCOIL cannot move the optic.
We confirmed that the coil input is there upto satellite amplifier output.
We also checked that ULCOIL have 3.3 mH and 16 Ohms, which are consistent with other coils.
Mystery remains...
We need to investigate ITMY ULCOIL in the next vent.

What we did:
 - Checked again that C1:SUS-ITMY_ULCOIL_OFFSET does not kick ITMY using OSEM sensor signals and oplev signals. ULSEN moves when ITMY is kicked by other coils.
 - Checked that kick gives voltage changes at coil driver and satellite amplifier output. We unplugged J1 DB25 cable from the feedthru flange and checked the signals sent to coil with oscilloscope.
 - Measured inductance (using BK PRECISION LCR meter) and resistance (using Fluke) of coils for ITMY. Below is the result. UL coil seems to be consistent with other coils. (It seems like BK PRECISION one wil give wrong resistance if the dial is set to the resistance value which is too low compared with the one you want to measure. If you want to measure 16Ω, set the dial to larger than 20Ω, not 2Ω)

Feedthru connector: ITMY1
Pin 3-15 / R = 16.3Ω / L = 3.32 mH (UL)
Pin 7-19 / R = 16.4Ω / L = 3.30 mH (UR)
Pin11-23 / R = 16.2Ω / L = 3.31 mH (LL)

Feedthru connector: ITMY2
Pin 3-15 / N/A
Pin 7-19 / R = 16.3Ω / L = 3.30 mH (SD)
Pin11-23 / R = 16.4Ω / L = 3.33 mH (LR)


Discussions:
 - UL is the only short OSEM in ITMY OSEMs.
 - ITMY have dumbells for magnets.
 - If UL magnet is off, ULSEN would not work. Something not magnetic is working for shadow sensing for UL? Dumbells?
 - ULSEN just sensing some coupling from other OSEMs?

  16903   Wed Jun 8 18:16:20 2022 yutaUpdateSUSITMY ULCOIL mystery: Coil driver swap test

To see if the ULCOIL channel of the ITMY coil driver is working or not, I swapped ITMY coil driver and ITMX coil driver by swapping DB15 cable (see Attachment #2).

With this swap, I confirmed that ITMX can be kicked with C1:SUS-ITMY_ULCOIL_OFFSET, but ITMY cannot be kicked with C1:SUS-ITMX_ULCOIL_OFFSET (see Attachment #1).

This means that the issue is not the in-air electronics.
Mystery remains again...
We need to investigate ITMY ULCOIL in the next vent.


I revereted the swap and confirmed that damping loops work fine again.

  16904   Thu Jun 9 23:08:39 2022 ranaUpdateSUSITMY ULCOIL mystery: Coil driver swap test

what was the result of the inductance measurement? should be ~3.3 mH as measured from the flannge or cable that goes to the flange from sat amp.

 

  16905   Fri Jun 10 13:02:14 2022 yutaUpdateSUSITMY ULCOIL mystery: Coil driver swap test

ITMY ULCOIL was measured to have ~3.3 mH as measured from the flange. RTFE 40m/16896 .
 

Quote:

what was the result of the inductance measurement? should be ~3.3 mH as measured from the flannge or cable that goes to the flange from sat amp.

 

 

  16908   Fri Jun 10 15:04:23 2022 ranaUpdateSUSITMY ULCOIL mystery: Coil driver swap test

Its good that the inductance test passed. This means that the coil is OK. How does the inspection photo look? This is the one you guys took of the ITM OSEM that shows the position of the magnet w.r.t. the coil. Also, how does the free swinging spectra look? Either one of these might indicate a broken magnet, or a sticky EQ stop.

  16910   Fri Jun 10 21:10:01 2022 yutaUpdateSUSITMY ULCOIL mystery: Coil driver swap test

We checked the photos we have, but we didn't have the photos which show ULCOIL situation clearly.

Free swing of ITMY (and others) will be done this weekend to see the OSEM spectra and resonant frequencies.

  14627   Mon May 20 22:06:07 2019 gautamUpdateSUSITMY also kicked

For good measure:

The following optics were kicked:
ITMY
Mon May 20 22:05:01 PDT 2019
1242450319
  8172   Tue Feb 26 16:13:18 2013 BrettUpdateSUSITMY and ETMY mysterious loop gain difference of 2.5

While doing initial measurements for the new global damping infrastructure I discovered that the ETMY loop between the OSEM actuation and the OSEM sensors has a gain that is 2.5 times greater than the ITMY.  The result is that to get the same damping on both, the damping gain on the ETMY must be 2.5 times less than the ITMY. I do not know where this is coming from, but I could not find any obvious differences between the MEDM matrices and gains.

I uploaded a screenshot of measured transfer functions of the damped ITMY and ETMY sus's. Notice that the ETMY measurement is 2.5 times higher than the ITMY. The peak also has a lower Q, despite having the same damping filters running because of this mysterious gain difference. Lowering the damping gain of the ETMY loop by this 2.5 factor results in similar Q's.

  5422   Thu Sep 15 18:24:54 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY and SRM Oplev current status - comparison with ITMY

Just to find out where we are currently, I plotted the ITMY and SRM oplev spectra along with the ETMY oplev spectra. ETMY seems to be very good, so comparing with this seemed useful, so we know how much we have to improve by. The SRM power spectrum appears to be around 2 orders of magnitude higher than ETMY over pretty much the whole measurement band. The ITMY power spectrum is not so bad as the SRM above about 60Hz. Next thing to do is to check the dark noise level for the ITMY and SRM QPDs.

  5423   Thu Sep 15 18:31:27 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY and SRM Oplev current status - comparison with ITMY

Quote:

Just to find out where we are currently, I plotted the ITMY and SRM oplev spectra along with the ETMY oplev spectra. ETMY seems to be very good, so comparing with this seemed useful, so we know how much we have to improve by. The SRM power spectrum appears to be around 2 orders of magnitude higher than ETMY over pretty much the whole measurement band. The ITMY power spectrum is not so bad as the SRM above about 60Hz. Next thing to do is to check the dark noise level for the ITMY and SRM QPDs.

 The title of this post should of course have been " ... - comparison with ETMY" not " ... - comparison with ITMY"

  5418   Thu Sep 15 16:45:59 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY and SRM Oplev status

Today I worked on getting the ITMY and SRM oplevs back in working order. I aligned the SRM path back onto the QPD. I put excitations on the ITMY and SRM in pitch and yaw and observed the beam at the QPDs to check for clipping. They looked clean from clipping.

 
Measurements of the beam power at various points:
 
Straight after the laser - 7.54mW
After the BS in the SRM path - 1.59mW
After the BS in the ITMY path - 3.24mW
Incident on the SRM QPD - 0.03mW
Incident on the ITMY QPD - 0.25mW
 
Counts registered from the QPD sum channels:
 
SRM QPD SUM dark count - 1140
SRM QPD SUM bright count - 3250
 
ITMY QPD SUM dark count - 150
ITMY QDP SUM bright count - 12680
 
The power incident on the SRM QPD seems very low with respect to the ITMY QPD. Is the SRM mirror coating not very reflective for the He-Ne laser?There are some back reflections from lenses, which we should be careful of to avoid scattering.
  5501   Wed Sep 21 16:31:28 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY and SRM actuator response functions

 I divided the open loop transfer functions by the filter response and the sensor responses (previously measured calibration factors) to leave just the actuator responses. I've attached the actuator responses plotted in radians/count and phase over frequency.

Next step: fit the actuator response with poles and zeros.

EDIT: I divided by the wrong filter function earlier - the plots there now are divided by the correct filter function

  5510   Thu Sep 22 00:00:10 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY and SRM actuator response functions - complex fitting results

Here are the results of the complex fitting. The residuals are bigger this time, but still probably small enough to be ok(?), with the possible exception of ITMY PITCH (due again I think to the data points straddling the resonance).

ITMY YAW actuator response complex fit

-- Fit completed after 282 iterations--

 Started with: Gain = 3e-05,
 Q factor = 5,
 Pole frequency = 0.6776,
 Fit results:  Gain = 1.14673e-06,
 Q factor = 12.9471,
 Pole frequency = 0.766531
 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.0688174
 
ITMY PITCH actuator response complex fit
-- Fit completed after 191 iterations--
 Started with: Gain = 3e-05,
 Q factor = 5,
 Pole frequency = 0.6776,
 Fit results:  Gain = 1.25105e-06,
 Q factor = 3.88981,
 Pole frequency = 0.706744
 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.144165
 
SRM YAW actuator response complex fit
-- Fit completed after 246 iterations--
 Started with: Gain = 3e-05,
 Q factor = 5,
 Pole frequency = 0.6776,
 Fit results:  Gain = 3.34137e-06,
 Q factor = 9.6875,
 Pole frequency = 0.854913
 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.0153646
 
SRM PITCH actuator response complex fit
-- Fit completed after 266 iterations--
 Started with: Gain = 3e-05,
 Q factor = 5,
 Pole frequency = 0.6776,
 Fit results:  Gain = 7.97529e-06,
 Q factor = 7.63888,
 Pole frequency = 0.568227
 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.0319653
  5507   Wed Sep 21 23:05:16 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY and SRM actuator response functions - fitting results

 I used an fminsearch function to fit the SRM and ITMY actuator response magnitudes. The testfunction was just that for a single second order pole, but it gave what I consider to be good fits for the following reasons:

*for 3 of the 4 fits the residuals were less than 0.5% of the summed input data points. The worst one (ITMY pitch) was about 2.7%, which I think is due to the resonance happening to be right in the middle of two data points.

*the tolerance of 1 part in 10^9 was reached quickly from not very finely tuned starting points.

The test function was: G=abs(Gp./(1+1i.*f./fp./Qp-(f./fp).^2)), where G(f) is the actuator response magnitude, Gp is the pole gain, fp is the pole frequency, and Qp is the pole Q factor.

In the end I just fitted the response magnitude. I was initially fitting the complex response function, but ran into problems which I think were cased by overall phase offsets between the data and test function. Can I canvass for opinion if fitting the magnitude is OK, or should I try again fitting the phase too?

Anyway, here are the results of the fits, and I've attached plots of each too (each one in linear and log y axis because each on its own might be misleading for fits):

EDIT - I added more points to the otherwise sparse looking fitted curves

 

ITMY PITCH actuator response fit

-- Fit completed after 190 iterations--

 Started with: Gain = 3e-06,

 Q factor = 5,

 Pole frequency = 1,

 Fit results:  Gain = 1.32047e-06,

 Q factor = 4.34542,

 Pole frequency = 0.676676

 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.0268321

 

ITMY YAW actuator response fit

-- Fit completed after 156 iterations--

 Started with: Gain = 3e-06,

 Q factor = 5,

 Pole frequency = 1,

 Fit results:  Gain = 1.14456e-06,

 Q factor = 8.49875,

 Pole frequency = 0.730028

 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.00468077

 

SRM PITCH actuator response fit

 -- Fit completed after 192 iterations--

 Started with: Gain = 3e-06,

 Q factor = 5,

 Pole frequency = 1,

 Fit results:  Gain = 7.94675e-06,

 Q factor = 7.16458,

 Pole frequency = 0.57313

 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.00301265

 

SRM YAW actuator response fit

 -- Fit completed after 156 iterations--

 Started with: Gain = 3e-06,

 Q factor = 5,

 Pole frequency = 1,

 Fit results:  Gain = 3.34179e-06,

 Q factor = 9.57601,

 Pole frequency = 0.855322

 Residual (normalised against the sum of input datapoints) = 0.000840468

  5499   Wed Sep 21 14:44:25 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY and SRM open loop transfer functions

 

 Here are the open loop transfer functions for ITMY and SRM. The various settings for the OLTFs were as follows:

Oplev filter used for all OLTFs: 300^2:0

Gains for oplev servos (for each OLTF only the 1 servo for the measured TF was on. They are all set back to 0 now):

SRM yaw gain = 1

SRM pitch gain = -1

ITMY yaw gain = -1

ITMY pitch gain = 1

measurement band = 0.2Hz to 200Hz

points = 33

swept sine magnitude envelope: amp = 2 for f > 60Hz, amp = 0.1 for f < 60Hz

Measurement points were from e.g. C1-SUS-ITMY-OLPIT-IN2 to C1-SUS-ITMY-OLPIT-IN1 to give a TF of -(loop gain).

Next step is to divide this through by the sensor reponse (i.e. the calibration factor measured earlier) and the filter response to get just the actuator response. 

 

  5457   Mon Sep 19 12:23:30 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY and SRM oplev beam size reduced + next steps

I replaced the lenses that were there with a -150mm lens followed by a +250mm lens. This gave a significantly reduced beam size at the QPDs. With the beam analyzer up and running it should be possible to optimize this later this afternoon. Next I will remove the SRM QPD from the path and make measurements of the beam spot position movement and corresponding OSEM values for different DC mirror offsets. I will then repeat the process for ITMY.

  5487   Tue Sep 20 18:03:45 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY and SRM oplev calibrations - measured and estimated

The measured calibration factors for the oplevs are as follows:

 
SRM pitch: 666urad per count on channel C1-SUS-SRM-OLPIT-INMON
SRM yaw: 557urad per count on channel C1-SUS-SRM-OLYAW-INMON
 
ITMY pitch: 470urad per count on channel C1-SUS-ITMY-OLPIT-INMON
ITMY yaw: 491urad per count on channel C1-SUS-ITMY-OLYAW-INMON
 
Since I'm going to calibrate all the other oplevs with the rougher technique of estimating the angle from the OSEM signals directly, I thought I would check the result of such an estimation for the oplevs I have calibrated already. My method was as follows:
 
dA = change in angle
dx = change in OSEM flag position
dV = change in OSEM PD voltage
dC = change in OSEM counts
D = optic diameter
L = distance between OSEMs = D/sqrt(2)-0.002m = 0.052m
dV/dx = OSEMs volts per meter flag position change = 1700 V/m
dC/dV = OSEM counts per volt = 2^16/40 = 65536/40 counts/V
 
counts per radian = dC/dA = dV/dx  x   dC/dV   x  1/L = 1700*65536/40/0.052 = 5.3564x10^7 counts/rad
 
radians per count = dA/dC = 1.867x10^-8, or 0.019 urad/count
 
This is around a factor of 1000 smaller than what I measured earlier, reported in entry 5468. I guess this might be an issue with the whitening filter on the OSEMs, but my initial feeling was that this was only a factor of a few. If anyone can see a big obvious mistake in my above calculations please let me know!
 
 
  5488   Tue Sep 20 19:00:49 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY and SRM oplev calibrations - measured and estimated

 

Kiwamu noticed that the 1/L in the counts per radian should have just been L, which accounts for most of the discrepancy. We checked the input filters on the OSEMs, and they have 10dB of gain at DC. Accounting for this, estimates on the order of 20urad/count, which is much more reasonable!

  5494   Wed Sep 21 00:37:01 2011 ranaUpdateSUSITMY and SRM oplev calibrations - measured and estimated

I found that some of the Optical Lever Servos were ON today and injecting nonsense into the interferometer optics. I have set all of the gains = 0 to save us more headaches.

Please leave them OFF until we review the servo and noise characterization results in the elog.

  5496   Wed Sep 21 09:10:15 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY and SRM oplev calibrations - measured and estimated

Quote:

I found that some of the Optical Lever Servos were ON today and injecting nonsense into the interferometer optics. I have set all of the gains = 0 to save us more headaches.

Please leave them OFF until we review the servo and noise characterization results in the elog.

 I had previously set the gains to zero, see the first line of my entry on Monday 5468. I should have the servo and noise characterisation done today for these oplevs today, so we can review it soon.

  4878   Fri Jun 24 10:38:01 2011 steveUpdateCamerasITMY camera gets fixed

ITMY gets new Tamron M118FM50 that has improved close focusing. It is a small fixed focal length camera so the video tube cover can be put on.

The Watec LCL-902K 1/2" ccd camera was losing it power supply voltage because of bad connection. It was replaced.

  5351   Wed Sep 7 00:01:23 2011 SureshUpdateIOOITMY chamber ready for heavy doors

[Jenne, Suresh]

We did the following things in the ITMY chamber today:

1) We tried to get the ITMY stuck again by adjusting the coil gains so that it goes into the orientation where it used to get stuck.  We (reassuringly) failed to get it stuck again.  This, as we came to know later, is because kiwamu had rotated the side OSEM such that the optic does not get stuck . However the OSEM beam is at about 30 deg to the vertical and the SD is sensitive to POS motion now resulting in the poorer separation of modes as noted by Jenne earlier (5439)

2) We checked the earthquake stops and repositioned two at the bottom (towards the AR side of the optic)  which we had backed out earlier.

3) We took pics of all the OSEMS.

4) Checked to see if there are any stray beams with an IR card.  There were none.

5) I obtained the max values of the OSEMS by misaligning the optic with the coil offsets.  These values are in good agreement with those on the wiki

OSEM     UL     UR     LR     LL      SD

Max      1.80    1.53   1.68   1.96    2.10

Current  0.97   0.79    0.83   0.97   1.02

 

We can close the heavy doors tomorrow morning.

  16868   Fri May 20 20:03:48 2022 PacoUpdateBHDITMY chamber work finished - LO and AS overlapped

[Paco, Anchal, Yuta]

Today, in short we:

  • Recovered alignment of arm cavities, PRC (only ITMX aligned), and then altogether with SRM and PRM aligned to maximize all DCPD levels (AS, POP, REFL, TRX, TRY), but SRC was not flashing and the SRM yaw alignment slider was around its max value, so after recording beam positions on cameras Anchal went into the BS chamber and helped steer the SRC alignment using a combination of SRM, SR2 and AS1. After this every beam was nominally aligned except for LO and AS, which remained to be mode matched.
  • Mode matched LO3-LO4 by hand -- cheeky -- from the ITMY chamber, the final separation between these two mirrors grew by almost 3 inches with respect to the design (!!!) but the LO and AS beams came out nicely. The canonical path used for the steering was LO path, and then we overlapped the beams with the help of a gige basler camera and a couple of DCPDs (Thorlabs).
  • Yuta and Paco started running final checks in preparation for Monday (pumpdown). We aligned the IFO, but noted that using Restore/Misalign sometimes results in hysteresis.. so it is not very reliable for fine alignment modes. Then we optimized DC levels, centered all oplevs, and tweaked Green input alignment on XARM and YARM. The XARM was maximized, but in YARM we could still not get high TEM-00 flashing ...
    • Unfortunately, we discovered a slight clipping of the GTRY beam through PR3 which could mean the current alignment (pointing) is not hitting PR3 center optimally.
  • Attached are the screenshot of current aligned state after the work tonight, with oplevs centered, and the OSEM sensor values.

  16899   Tue Jun 7 19:40:45 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSITMY changed output matrix to disable use of UL coil

Since UL coil actuation is lost, we modified the output matrix of ITMY to use only UR, LR and LL face coils for POS, PIT and YAW actuation. The output matrix was changed to following:

  POS PIT YAW SIDE
UL 0 0 0 0
UR 1 1 0 0
LL 1 0 1 0
LR 0 -1 -1 0
SIDE 0 0 0 1

 

 

 

 

 

After this change, the damping was still working as good as before. I took PIT to POS/PIT/YAW and YAW to POS/PIT/YAW coupling measurements by exciting C1:SUS-ITMY_ASCPIT[YAW]_EXC and seeing effect at C1:SUS-ITMY_SUS[POS/PIT/YAW]_IN1 when the damping loops were off. Attached are the results. We were able to reduce PIT to YAW and YAW to PIT coupling by 10 dB by this simple change in output matrix. More coil balancing or off-diagonal termsmight help more and should be attempted if required. The coupling to POS did not change much.

Note that attachment 1 shows transfer functions from excitation point to the DOF sensing inputs while attachment two looks at ratio of C1:SUS-ITMY_SUS[POS/PIT]_IN1 to C1:SUS-ITMY_SUSYAW_IN1 which is the actual quantity of interest. I didn't repeat the PIT measurement due to lack of time.

Also note that all such measurements are being recorded in our new measurements git repo. We'll populate this repo with diaggui template+data files as we do measurements.

  5562   Wed Sep 28 07:36:41 2011 steveUpdateSUSITMY damping restored

ITMY suspention damping restored

  1188   Mon Dec 8 17:50:21 2008 YoichiUpdateSUSITMY drift
The suspension drift monitor shows that the ITMY alignment was shifted after the earthquake.
Looks like only the UL sensor had a step at the earthquake (see the attachment 1).
So it is probably an electronics problem.
I pushed in the cable between the rack and the ITMY satellite amplifier, but no change observed.
Actually, the ITMY-UL sensor looks like it has been dead before the earthquake.
The second attachment shows a long-term trend of the UL sensor.
The sensor output had been around zero since Nov. 17th.
When I disabled the output of the UL sensor, the sus-drift-mon fields turned green.
So I think the drift-mon's reference values are wrong, and currently the ITMY is in a good alignment.

I also attached the free-swing measurements of the ITMY taken on Aug. 18th and today.
There is no notable change in the resonant frequencies.
  16563   Mon Jan 10 15:45:55 2022 PacoUpdateElectronicsITMY feedthroughs and in-vac cables installed - part I

The ITMY 10" flange with 10 DSUB-25 feedthroughs has been installed with the cables connected at the in-vac side.  This is the first of two flanges, and includes 5 cables ordered vertically in stacks of 3 & 2 for [[OMC-DCPDs, OMC-QPDs, OMC-PZTs/Pico]] and [[SRM1, SRM2]] respectively from right to left. During installation, two 12-point silver plated bolts were stripped, so Chub had to replace them.

  16569   Tue Jan 11 10:23:18 2022 PacoUpdateElectronicsITMY feedthroughs and in-vac cables installed - part II

[Paco, Chub]

The ITMY 10" flange with 4 DSUB-25 feedthroughs has been installed with the cables connected at the in-vac side. This is the second of two flanges, and includes 4 cables ordered vertically in stacks of 2 & 2 for [[AS1-1, AS1-2, AS4-1, AS4-2]] respectively. No major incidents during this one, except maybe a note that all the bolts were extremely dirty and covered with gunk, so we gave a quick swipe with wet cloths before reinstalling them.

  12456   Wed Aug 31 18:07:43 2016 JohannesUpdateSUSITMY free swinging

[Lydia, Gautam, Koji, Johannes]

Summary of things done today:

  • Rebalanced ITMY table
    • After waiting until today to see if the table would relax into a level position, engaged the earthquake stops for SRM and moved the large counterweight by ~4 inches. The table is now level to within ~0.1 mrad in direction of the access port
    • Since the relaxing seems to take some time, we will open ITMX and ETMX chamber tomorrow and level the tables with additional weights, so the springs can get used to 'levelness' again
  • Cleaned ITMY, SRM and SR2 optics
    • Koji drag-wiped all three optics and cleaned the table in general where accessible. He was able to remove the sliver discussed in elog https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/12455
    • We measured the particle count in the chamber and found it to be 4000 for 0.3 microns and 660 for 0.5 microns.
  • We pulled out stops on ETMY ITMY and roughly centered the OSEMs half-way, using photos of the previous OSEM rotation as a reference point for their orientation. We foudn that the green beam is hitting ITMY almost centered and that the reflection doesn't seem to steer off too much, but were not yet able to see any returned light on the ETMY cameras.

Unless we get lucky and get the green light to flash in the cavity by playing with the mirror alignment, we will open the ETMY chamber tomorrow. On one hand we can look for the reflected green light in the chamber, or alternatively the IR beam transmitted by ITMY. This way we can obtain estimates for the OSEM biasing and perform the final centering of the OSEMs. We will then also address the bounce mode minimization in ITMY and check if the previous orientations still hold.

  14506   Mon Apr 1 22:33:00 2019 gautamUpdateCDSITMY freed

While Anjali is working on the 1um MZ setup, the pesky ITMY was liberated from the OSEMs. The "algorithm" :

  • Apply a large (-30000 cts) offset to the side coil using the fast system.
  • Approach the zero of the YAW DoF from -2.00V, PIT from +10V (you'll have to jiggle the offsets until the optic is free swinging, and then step the bias down by 0.1). At this point I had the damping off.
  • Once the PIT bias slider reaches -4V, I engaged all damping loops, and brought the optic to its nominal bias position under damping. 

While doing this work, I noticed several errors corresponding to EPICS channel conflicts. Turns out the c1susaux2 EPICS server was left running, and the MEDM screens (and possibly several scripts) were confused. There has to be some other way of testing the new crate, on an isolated network or something - please do not leave the modbus service running as it potentially interferes with normal IFO operation. For good measure, I stopped the process and shut down the machine since I saw nothing in the elog about any running tests.

Quote:

ITMY became stuck during this process

  14508   Tue Apr 2 15:02:53 2019 JonUpdateCDSITMY freed

blushI renamed all channels on c1susaux2 from "C1:SUS-..." to "C1:SUS2-..." to avoid contention. When the new system is ready to install, those channel names can be reverted with a quick search-and-replace edit.

Quote:

While doing this work, I noticed several errors corresponding to EPICS channel conflicts. Turns out the c1susaux2 EPICS server was left running, and the MEDM screens (and possibly several scripts) were confused. There has to be some other way of testing the new crate, on an isolated network or something - please do not leave the modbus service running as it potentially interferes with normal IFO operation. For good measure, I stopped the process and shut down the machine since I saw nothing in the elog about any running tests.

  14443   Fri Feb 8 02:00:34 2019 gautamUpdateSUSITMY has tendency of getting stuck

As it turns out, now ITMY has a tendency to get stuck. I found it MUCH more difficult to release the optic using the bias jiggling technique, it took me ~ 2 hours. Best to avoid c1susaux reboots, and if it has to be done, take precautions that were listed for ITMX - better yet, let's swap out the new Acromag chassis ASAP. I will do the arm locking tests tomorrow.

  14623   Mon May 20 11:33:46 2019 gautamUpdateSUSITMY inspection

With Chub providing illumination via the camera viewport, I was able to take photos of ITMY this morning. All the magnets look well clear of the OSEMs, with the possible exception of UR. I will adjust the position of this OSEM slightly. To test if this fix is effective, I will then cycle the bias voltage to the ITM between 0 and the maximum allowed, and check if the optic gets stuck.

  12455   Tue Aug 30 20:26:36 2016 gautamUpdateSUSITMY installed

[gautam, johannes, lydia]

Today we installed ITMY into position in the chamber.

  • First, we took the F.C coat off both faces
  • A stream of ionized nitrogen was used during the peeling process. We took as much care as possible not to blow towards the SRM. 
  • F.C. films came off smoothly. But when we looked at a picture we took prior to putting the optic in place, it looks like there may be a sliver of F.C. left on the optic. There are also a few specks of dust visible on the HR face, but well away from the clear aperture (see Attachment #1). Do we want to use isopropanol + optical tissue to try and remove these?
  • After F.C removal, we moved the optic into place against its stops. Returned OSEM connector tower to approximately its original place as it was moved to facilitate shifting the ITM to the edge of the table. 
  • I cleaned up the tangled mess of OSEM connector wires. On the ITMY tower, the OSEM cables have been tied using pieces of thin copper wire so as to avoid the wires straying into the beam path. Checked that wires are in grooves on both sides.
  • Unfortunately we were not able to start on setting up a cavity today, because when we checked the leveling of the ITM, we found that it was significantly not level. This is probably because the ITM was at the edge of the table. The cage is rather heavy and the location it was put in had a large lever arm. In any case, the table is slowly relaxing back to their usual state, Steve recommended we leave it overnight.
  • Other issues:
    • the UL sensor on ITMY also seemed to show some evidence of glitchy behaviour. Looking in the Satellite box, I didn't see any obvious probelms like I did for the ETMY box (for which I am not even sure if I did a legitimate fix anyways). I guess we have to keep observing and think about doing something about this if it really is problematic.
    • SRM barrel is pretty dusty. So is SR3. Do we want to clean these? If so how? F.C. or isoprop drag wipe?

We did some quick checks with the green beam and the IR beam. With the help of the custom Iris for the suspension towers, we gauged that both beams are pretty close to the center of the test mass. So we are in a not unreasonable place to start trying to align the beam. Of course we didn't check if the beam makes it to the ETM today.


The SRM OSEM sensor problem seems to have been resolved by moving the ITM back to its place as we suspected. The values are converging, but not to their pre-vent values (attachment #2). We can adjust these if necessary I guess... Or perhaps this fixes itself once the table returns to its neutral position. This remains to be monitored.


In the never-ending B-R mode reduction saga - we found what we think is an acceptable configuration now. Spectrum attached (Attachment #3). The top two OSEMs are now nearly 90 degrees rotated, while the bottom two are nearly horizontal. Anyways I guess we just have to trust the spectra. I should also point out that the spectra change rather significantly from measurement to measurement. But I think this is good enough to push ahead, unless anyone thinks otherwise?

  12720   Sat Jan 14 22:39:30 2017 ranaSummarySUSITMY is drifting ?

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/detcharsummary/day/20170114/sus/susdrift/

ITMY is not like the others. Real or just OSEM madness?

  5458   Mon Sep 19 13:13:10 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY oplev available for use: SRM not for the moment

 I've got the bench set up for the measurement of the beam spot change with DC SRM alignment offsets. The ITMY oplev is aligned and fine to use, but the SRM one isn't until further notice (probably a couple of hours).

  5326   Tue Aug 30 14:44:06 2011 kiwamuUpdateSUSITMY released without opening chambers

The ITMY mirror was released. The OSEM readouts became healthy.

 

To see what is going on, I changed the PIT DC bias slider on ITMY from 0.8 to -1 or so, and then the optic started showing a free swinging behavior.

If there were no responses to the DC bias, I was going to let people to open the chamber to look at it closer, but fortunately it released the optic.

Then I brought the slider back to 0.8, and it looked still free swinging. Possibly the optic had been stacked on some of the OSEMS as Jamie expected.

Quote from #5320

ITMY, which is supposed to be fully free-swinging at the moment, is displaying the tell-tale signs of  being stuck to one of it's OSEMs. 

Do we have a procedure for remotely getting it unstuck?  If not, we need to open up ITMYC and unstick it before we pump.

 

  2623   Mon Feb 22 10:25:37 2010 JenneUpdateCOCITMY standoff and guiderod epoxied

This work happened on Friday, after Nodus and the elog went down....

[Jenne, Kiwamu]

The guiderod and standoff for ITMY were epoxied, and left drying over the weekend on the flow bench under a foil tent.  The flow bench was off for the weekend, so we made tents which hopefully didn't have any place for dust to get in and settle on the mirrors.

There is a small chance that there will be a problem with glue on the arm of the fixture holding the guiderod to the optic.  Kiwamu and I examined it, and hopefully it won't stick.  We'll check it out this afternoon when we start getting ready for gluing magnets onto optics this afternoon.

  5320   Mon Aug 29 18:24:11 2011 jamieUpdateSUSITMY stuck to OSEMs?

ITMY, which is supposed to be fully free-swinging at the moment, is displaying the tell-tale signs of  being stuck to one of it's OSEMs.  This is indicated by the PDMon values, one of which is zero while the others are max:

UL: 0.000
UR: 1.529
LR: 1.675
LL: 1.949
SD: 0.137

Do we have a procedure for remotely getting it unstuck?  If not, we need to open up ITMYC and unstick it before we pump.

 

  4831   Fri Jun 17 08:03:48 2011 steveUpdateSUSITMY sus damping restored

ITMY sus damping restored.

 

  5442   Fri Sep 16 22:11:21 2011 PaulUpdateSUSITMY transfer function

First of all I moved the lenses on the ITMY/SRM oplev path to get a smaller spot size on the QPDs. I couldn't get the beam analyzer to work though, so I don't know quite how successful this was. The software brought up the error "unable to connect to framegrabber" or something similar. I don't think the signal from the head was being read by the software. I will try to get the beam analyzer working soon so that we can characterize the other oplev lasers and get decent spot sizes on the QPDs. I searched the elog for posts about the analyzer, and found that it has been used recently, so maybe I'm just doing something wrong in using it. 

After this I measured the transfer function for the ITMY oplev yaw. I did a swept sine excitation of the ITMY in yaw with an amplitude of 500, and recorded the OSEM yaw values and the oplev yaw values. This should show a flat response, as both the QPD and the OSEMS should have flat frequency response in the measurement band. This measurement should therefore just yield a calibration from OSEM yaw to oplev yaw. If the OSEM yaw values were already calibrated for radians, we would then immediately have a calibration from oplev yaw values to radians. However, as far as I'm aware, there is not a calibration factor available from OSEM yaw values to radians. Anyway, the TF I measured did not appear to be very flat (see attached plot). Kiwamu suggested I should check the correlation between the OSEM measurements and the oplev QPD measurements - if the correlation is less than 1 the TF is not reliable. Indeed the coherence was poor for this measurement. This was probably because at frequencies above the pendulum frequency, the excitation amplitude of 500 was not enough to cause a measurable change in the optic angle. So, the plot attached is not very useful yet, but I learned something while making it.

 

  12941   Thu Apr 13 09:48:37 2017 SteveUpdateSUSITMY-UL and ETMX sensors

Why ITMY UL can not see this earth quake? SRM and PRM are misaligned. ETMX is still not well.

We have to remember to check OSEM - magnet alignment when vented.

  12569   Wed Oct 19 08:28:11 2016 SteveUpdateSUSITMY_UL

Everybody is happy, except ITMY_UL or satalite box.

Gautam shows perfect form in the OMC chamber.

  12459   Thu Sep 1 08:30:24 2016 SteveUpdateSUSITMY_UL is sick

So if the SRM satellite box is good, than the ITMY sensor UL or vacuum cabeling from sersor to sat amp is bad.

Quote:

Koji tweaked the alignment sliders till we were able to get the Y arm locked to green in a 00 mode, GTRY ~ 0.5 which is the prevent number I have in my head. The green input pointing looks slightly off in yaw, as the spot on the ITM looks a little misaligned - I will fix this tomorrow. But it is encouraging that we can lock to the green, suggests we are not crazily off in alignment.

[Ed by KA: slider values: ETMY (P, Y) = (-3.5459,  0.7050), ITMY (P, Y) =  (0.3013, -0.2127)]

While we were locked to the green, ITMY UL coil acted up quite a bit - with a large number of clearly visible excursions. Since the damping was on, this translated to somewhat violent jerking of ITMY (though the green impressively remained locked). We need to fix this. In the interest of diagnosis, I have switched in the SRM satellite box for the ITM one, for overnight observation. It would be good to narrow this down to the electronics. Since SRM is EQ-stopped, I did not plug in any satellite box for SRM. The problem is a difficult one to diagnose, as we can't be sure if the problem is with the LED current driver stage or the PD amplifier stage (or for that matter, the LED/PD themselves), and because the glitches are so intermittent. I will see if any further information can be gleaned in this regard before embarking on some extreme measure like switching out all the 1125 OpAmps or something...

Does anyone know if we have a spare satellite box handy? 

Is the spare sat amp is bad ?

  12473   Tue Sep 6 20:30:56 2016 ranaUpdateSUSITMY_UL is sick

In the morning, Steve will start opening the north BS door so that we can enter to inspect the PRM LR OSEM.

For the ITMY, I squished together the cables which are in the 'Cable Interface Board' which lives in the rack. This thing takes the 64 pin IDC from the satellite module and converts it into 2 D-sub connectors to go to the PD whitening board and the coil driver board. Lets see if the ITMY OSEM glitches change character overnight.

  14004   Fri Jun 22 08:50:33 2018 SteveUpdateSUSITMY_UL sensor

We may lost the UL magnet or LED

  14009   Fri Jun 22 18:30:21 2018 gautamUpdateSUSITMY_UL sensor

I think if the magnet fell off, we would see high DC signal, and not 0 as we do now. I suspect satellite box or PD readout board/cabling. I am looking into this, tester box is connected to ITMY sat. box for now. I will restore the suspension later in the evening.

Suspension has now been restored. With combination of multimeter, octopus cable and tester box, the problem is consistent with being in the readout board in 1X5/1X6 or the cable routing the signals there from the sat. box.

  • Tester box hooked up to sat box ---> UL coil still shows 0 in CDS.
  • Tester box hooked up to sat box ---> Mon D-sub on sat box shows expected voltages on DMM. So tester box LEDs are being powered and seem to work.
  • Sat box re-connected to test mass ---> Mon D-sub on sat box shows expected voltages on DMM. So OSEM LEDs are being powered and seem to work.
  • Sat box remains connected to TM ---> Front panel LEMO monitor points on readout board shows 0 for UL channel, other channels are okay.
Quote:

We may lost the UL magnet or LED

 

  14034   Mon Jul 2 09:01:11 2018 SteveUpdateSUSITMY_UL sensor

This bad connection is coming back

Quote:

We may lost the UL magnet or LED

 

ELOG V3.1.3-