We generally want to keep the configuration of the 40m close to that of the LIGO sites, which is why we chose BusWorks, and it is also being established as a standard in other labs on campus. Of course any suitable DAQ system can do the job, but to stay relevant we generally try to avoid patchwork solutions when possible. Did you follow Aidan's instructions to the book? I haven't set up a system myself, yet, so I cannot say how difficult this is. If it just won't work with the Raspberry Pi, you could still try using a traditional computer.
Alternatively, following Jamie's suggestions, I'm currently looking into using python for the modbus communications (there seem to be at least a few python packages that can do this), which would reportedly make the interfacing and integration a lot easier. I'll let you know when I make any progress on this.
About acquiring data: Initially I couldn't start with proper Acromag setup as the Raspberry pi had a faulty SD card slot. Then Gautam gave me a working pi on which I tried to install EPICS. I spent quite a time today but couldn't setup acromag over ethernet. But, it would be great if we have a USB DAQ card. I have found a good one here http://www.mccdaq.com/PDFs/specs/USB-200-Series-data.pdf It costs around 106$ including shipping (It comes with some free softwares for acquiring data) . Also, I know an another python based 12bit DAQ card (with an inbuilt constant current source) which is made by IUAC, Delhi and more information can be found here http://www.iuac.res.in/~elab/expeyes/Documents/eyesj-progman.pdf It costs around 60$ including shipping.
About temperature sensing: The RTD which I found on Omega's list is having a temperature resolution of 0.1 deg C. I have also asked them for the one with good resolution. Also according to their reply, they have not performed any noise characteristics study for those RTDs.
Using the ALS green beat and armlength feedback I mapped an IR resonance of the Y-Arm by stepping through a ramp of offset values.
First I optimized the IR alignment with the dither scripts while LSC kept the arm on resonance, and then transitioned the length control to ALS. The beat frequency I obtained between the Y-arm green and the PSL was about 25 MHz. Then I applied a controlled ramp signal (stepping through small offset increments applied to LSC-ALSY_OFFSET, while logging the readback from channels LSC-TRY_OUT16 and ALS-Y_FC_SERVO_INMON with an averaging time of 1s.
The plots show the acquired data with fits to and , respectively.
The fits, weighted with inverse rms uncertainty of the data points as reported by the cds system, returned HWHM = 0.6663 ± 0.0013 [offset units] and m = -0.007666 ± 0.000023 [MHz/offset unit], which gives a combined FWHM = 10,215 ± 36 Hz. The error is based purely on the fit and does not reflect uncertainties in the calibration of the phase tracker.
This yields a finesse of 388.4 ± 1.4, corresponding to a total loss (including transmissivities) of 16178 ± 58 ppm. These uncertainties include the reported accuracies of FSR and phase tracker calibration from elog 9804 and elog 11761.
The resulting loss is a little lower than that of elog 11712, which was done before the phase tracker re-calibration. Need to check for consistency.
There was only one razor blade beam dump labeled for atmospheric use left, but that's all we need. Steve is working on restocking. I placed the modified AOM mount on the PSL table near its intended location (near the AOM where it doesn't block any beams).
Things to keep in mind:
The AOM has a deflection angle of about 20 mrad, which requires about 10cm of path for a separation of 2mm of the two beams. I need to survey closer and confirm, but I hope I can fit the beam dump in before the PMC (this of course also depends on the spot size). Alternatively, the PMC hopefully isn't resonant for anything remotely relevant at 80MHz offset, in which case we can also place the beam dump in its reflection path.
So this is the plan:
Any thoughts? Based on the AOMs resting place I assumed that it is supposed to be installed before the PMC, but I'm actually not entirely sure where it was sitting before.
Subham and I have placed the AOM back into the setup right in front of the PMC.
I performed a visual inspection of ITMY in its natural habitat today. I did not get any great pictures from the HR side because it's located very towards the edge of the table towards the arm. Before that I checked the levelness of the table. East-west direction was fine, north-south was slightly off but still within the marks for 'level'.
The AR side had several speckles, a few of them located somewhat near the geometrical center of ITMY. The top of the barrel was worse of, as expected. The HR side was a little better, but there were a few pieces of dust? near near the center. Sample pictures are attached, I uploaded all the good ones to Picasa.
Clamps that mark the position of ITMY were already in place. I did not move the optic just yet, and we will have to move a cable block out of the way to bring ITMY near the opening for us to work on it. We will markt the position of that to preserve the weight distribution. Then we can probably take some better before/after pictures. Tomorrow I will be looking at ETMY.
I've noticed the spot that Rich means before, too. I think you only notice this when you're wearing the shoe covers, not sneakers or crocs. I didn't see any 'substance', it seems more like the floor finish (wax?) seems to be more slippery in that area than others.
I found a note on Steve's desk that R. Abbott left yesterday afternoon about an unidentified slippery substance being present on the floor by cabinet S12, along the X arm. (Steve is away this week)
Just now, I found no trace of the substance in the vicinity of that cabinent (which is one of the cabinets for clean objects). Maybe the janitor cleaned it already?
On Monday I inspected ETMY, and found nothing really remarkable. There was only little dust on the HR side, and nothing visible in the center. The AR side has some visible dust, nothing too crazy, but some of it near the center.
We ran out of illuminator juice, and short-term charging couldn't restore enough battery life to continue the work. We should be able to get some better pictures tomorrow.
Looked at ITMX. Johannes and I both saw a fairly large speck of dust near the center of the HR side. We tried to take some photos but couldn't get any with good focus
We attempted to move the ETMY suspension near the access port in preparation for the cleaning process. The plan was to move in the face restraints first to the point of almost making contact, then the ones underneath so the optic is sitting on them, followed by the top one facing down, and then bringing in the stops on the faces.
While moving in the stoppers I noticed that the far lower stopper on the HR side was barely touching the face of the optic in its resting position and was basically pushing it sideways when moved forward. It was just on the edge, so I tried to compensate minimally by moving the underneath stops a little further on the near side, trying to let it 'slide' over a little so the screw would have better contact. I must have been too generous with the adjustment, because while proceeding I noticed at some point that the stick magnets on one side of the optic were not attached anymore but laying inside the OSEMs. The side magnet was also missing, it is now sitting on the suspension jig base plate. The dumbbells all seem intact, but we'll test them before we reglue the magnets to the optic. This is extremely unfortunate, but hopefully won't take too long to fix. At the very least, as Koji put it, the cleaning will be easier with the optic out of the suspension. Still, what a bummer.
We moved ITMY from its original position to a place near the access point. We took the OSEMs off first, and noticed that the short flat head screw driver was still a little too long to properly reach the set screws for the lower OSEMs. We were able to gradually loosen them, though and thus remove the lower OSEMs as well. We had to move a cable tower out of the way, but used clamps to mark its position. After making sure the optic is held by its earthquake stops, we moved it to its cleaning location. All magnets are still attached.
[Lydia, Gautam, Koji, Johannes]
Summary of things done today:
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.
I balanced the ITMX and ETMX tables into level position today, for which I had to move quite a few of the on-table weights. I'm recording their original positions for future use here.
This table was only off in 'pitch', I moved the middle weight to a new location as shown in the pictures. I added secondf disk weight on top of the one I moved, this one has to come out again when we install ETMX.
I moved some weights around as shown in the image, but didn't have to add any. We simply have to move them back to their original location when the time comes.
While in the chambers, I also took some pictures of the ETMX window and PR2, motivated by the dirty state of SR2. We might want to consider cleaning both, specifically PR2 is relatively easily accessible and can be cleaned when we open the ITMX chamber to remove its FC and move it back into position.
[Gautam, Lydia, Johannes]
The next step is the tip tilt fine alignment of the IR into the arm, using TRY, from which we removed the ND filter for the time being.
[Gautam, Steve, Johannes]
We put on the remaining heavy doors on the chambers (ITMY, ITMX,ETMX, in this order) this morning. On the ITMY and ETMX tables we placed old OpLev steering mirrors that are clean and baked as witness plates such that may one day provide some insight into dust accumulation on optics.
With the heavy doors on we confirmed that we were still able to lock both IFO arms and used the dither scripts to optimize the alignment. Following that we centered all OpLevs and aligned the X and Y green beams.
I scripted a series of YARM DC reflectivity measurements last night alternating between locked state and unlocked state (with ETMY misaligned) for measuring the after-vent armloss. The general procedure is based on elog 11810, but I'll also give a brief summary here.
I did this back in June (but strangely never posted what I found, shame on me). What I found back then was a YARM loss of 237 ppm +/- 41 ppm and an XARM loss of 501 ppm +/- 105 ppm
Last night's data indicates a YARM loss of 143 ppm +/- 24 ppm after cleaning with first contact.
THIS IS STILL ASSUMING THAT THE MODE-MATCHING HASN'T CHANGED. We had however moved ETMY closer to ITMY during the vent by 19mm. Gautam and I had some trouble setting up the ALS to confirm the mode-matching, but we're in the process of recovering the XARM IR beat.
I started a script on Friday night to collect some data for a reflection armloss measurement of the XARM. Unfortunately there seemed to have been a hickup in some data transfer and some errors were produced, so we couldn't really trust the numbers.
Instead, we took a series of manual measurements today and made sure the interferometer is well behaved during the averaging process. I wrote up the math behind the measurement in the attached pdf.
The numbers we used for the calculations are the following:
While we average about 50 ppm +/-15 ppm for the XARM loss with a handful of samples, in a few instances the calculations actually yielded negative numbers, so there's a flaw in the way I'm collecting the data. There seems to be a ~3% drift in the signal level on the PO port on the order of minutes that does not show in the modecleaner transmission. The signals are somewhat small so we're closing the shutter over night to see if it could be an offset and will investigate further tomorrow. I went back and checked my data for the YARM, but that doesn't seem to be affected by it.
We let the PSL shutter closed overnight and observed the POXDC, POYDC and ASDC offsets. While POY has small fluctuations compared to the signal level, POX is worse off, and the drifts we observed live in the DC reading are in the same ballpark as the offset fluctuations. The POXDC level also unexpectedly increased suddenly without the PSL shutter being opened, which we can't explain. The data we took using POXDC cannot be trusted.
Even the ASDC occasionally shows some fluctuations, which is concerning because the change in value rivals the difference between locked and misaligned state. It turns out that the green shutters were left open, but that should not really affect the detectors in question.
We obtained loss numbers by measuring the arm reflections on the ASDC port instead. LSCoffsets was run before the data-taking run. For each arm we misaligned the respective other ITM to the point that moving it no longer had an impact on the ASDC reading. By taking a few quick data points we conclude the following numbers:
XARM: 247 ppm +/- 12 ppm
YARM: 285 ppm +/- 13 ppm
This is not in good agreement with the POYDC value. The script is currently running for the YARM for better statistics, which will take a couple hours.
ITMX is misaligned for the purpose of this measurement, with the original values saved.
GV edit 5Oct2016: Forgot to mention here that Johannes marked the spot positions on the ITMs and ETMs (as viewed on the QUAD in the control room) with a sharpie to reflect the current "well aligned" state.
The autolocker was acting up today, Gautam traced it to EPICS channels ( namely C1:IOO-MC_LOCK_ENABLE and C1:IOO-MC_AUTOLOCK_BEAT ) served by c1iool0 not being responsive and keyed the crate. This restored it nominal operation.
We're waiting on the last couple electrical components to arrive that are needed to complete the acromag chassis, but it is essentially operational. Right now it is connected to the PSL Mephisto's diagnostics port, for which only a single XT1221 A/D unit is needed. We assigned the IP address 192.168.113.121 to it. For the time being I'm running a tmux session on megatron (named "acromag") that grabs and broadcasts the epics channels, with Lydia's original channel definitions. Since the chassis is 4U tall, there's not really any place in the rack for it, so we might want to move it to the X-end before we start shuffling rack components around. Once we finalize its location we can proceed with adding the channels to the frames.
For the eventual gradual replacement of the slow machines, we need to put some thought into the connectors we want in the chassis. If we want to replicate the VME crate connectors we probably need to make our own PCB boards for them, as there don't seem to be panel-mount screw terminal blocks readily available for DIN 41612 connectors. Furthermore, if we want to add whitening/AA filters, the chassis may actually be large enough to accomodate them, and arranging things on the inside is quite flexible. There are a few things to be considered when moving forward, for example how many XT units we can practically fit in the chassis (space availability, heat generation, and power requirements) and thus how many channels/connectors we can support with each.
Steve: 1X3 has plenty of room
Looking back at elog 12528, the uncertainty in the armloss number from the individual quantities in the equation for can be written as:
Making some generous assumption about the individual uncertainties and filling in typical values we get in our measurements, results in the following uncertainty budget:
In my recent round of measurements I had a 2.5% uncertainty in the ASDC reading, which completely dominates the armloss assessment.
The most recent numbers are 57 ppm for the YARM and 21 ppm for the XARM, but both with an uncertainty of near 150 ppm, so while these numbers fit well with Gautam's estimate of the average armloss via PRG, it's not really a confirmation.
I set the whitening gain in ASDC to 24 dB and ran LSC offsets, and now I'm getting a relative uncertainty in measured reflected power of .22%, which would be sufficient for ~25ppm accuracy according to the above formula. I'm going to start a series of measurements tonight when I leave, should be done in ~2 hours (10 pm) the latest.
If anybody wants to do some night work: I misaligned ITMY by a lot to get its reflection off ASDC. Approximate values are saved as a restore point. Also the whitening gain on ASDC will have to be rolled back (was at 0dB) and LSC offsets adjusted.
I powered up the existing ace100gm GigE cam with the PoE injector and tried to interface with it as described in elog 4163. After a few initial problems with IP assignment and interfacing I connected it to one of the gigabit hubs and installed the most recent pre-compiled software suite on /opt/pylon5 on optimus, after which I was able to find it with the configuration software. I named it "c1gige_bas100-1" and gave it the static IP address 192.168.113.151.
Afterwards the image acquisition worked without problems.
It may be a good idea to leave the gigecam interfacing up to a dedicated machine. I was thinking I could use Mafalda for this, and also for developing the code for framegrabbing and imager settings, but found that it was dead, burnt at the stake so to say. I guess it wasn't running anything critical, since it wasn't even connected to the network and smelled like burnt electronics. I'll get a replacement desktop for it.
I had a mistake in my script that reported the wrong error after averaging several datapoints, and because I hadn't looked at the individual numbers I didn't catch it so far. Thanks to Gautam it is no more.
The updated numbers are (with fresh, more trustworthy data):
XARM: 21 +/ 35 ppm
YARM: 69 +/- 45 ppm
This looks much better. I'm planning to take more data with the AS110 PD rather than AS55 when I get the chance, increase the averaging time, and also sigma filter the datapoints. That should get us to a good spot and cut down the uncertainty even further.
I don't like AS110 or AS55. Neither of them are designed for DC and so the DC readout chain is hokey. How about use an actual transimpedance PD with a 100-1000 Ohm resistor and a 3 mm diode? This would eliminate the alignment sensitivity and the drifts due to electronics and room lights.
I had Rich show me his approach to a chassis for the Acromag modules. The document tree for his design can be found on the DCC. Note that he's using the high densitymodel ES series, which is available as a bare board variant with pluggable screw terminals:
He can fit up to 4 of these in a 2U chassis and has outsourced the wiring from front panel Dsubs to the board connectors to an external company. At the 40m (and in West Bridge) we currently only have the rail mounted XT series
At first glance the specs are very similar. Both A/D and D/A flavors have 16-bit precision in both cases. The high density ES series with Rich's layout can achieve 128 A/D per 2U, 64 D/A per 2U, or 384 DIO per 2U. Into a 4U chassis of the type we have currently we can fit ~32 XT modules (assuming two rows), which results in very similar numbers, except for the DAC, of which we could fit more.
XT1221-000 (8 diff. channel 16-bit ADC) $495.00 $61.88/ch
XT1541-000 (8 channel 16-bit DAC and 4 discrete I/O ) $525.00 $65.63/ch
XT1120-000 (16 channel DIO) $320.00 $20.00/ch
ES2162-0010 (32 diff. channel 16-bit ADC) $2050.00 $64.06/ch
ES2172-0010 (16 channel 16-bit DAC) $1400.00 $87.50/ch
ES2113-0010 (96 channel DIO) $1100.00 $11.46/ch
It's cheaper to stick with the current XT models, but they need the bulkier 4U chassis. The good news is that actually all these models have 16 bit precision, which wasn't clear to me before. Lydia and I will work out what connectors we want on the boxes, and how many modules/channels we need where. Rich also got me in touch with Keith Thorne, who handles the analog I/O Acromag at LLO, and I will ask him for advice. From his documents on the DCC it seems that he is using yet another series: EN. The 968EN-4008 for example is a rail-mounted ADC with pluggable connections, but looses quite clearly in price per channel.
For a generic multipurpose DAQ interface box the ES series is the best approach in my opinion, because it offers a more compact design. We could for example fit 1 ADC, 2 DAC, 1 DIO in a 2U chassis for 32/32/96 channels. The combined price tag for this scenario would be ~$6k.
We connected and powered up the Acromag chassis today. It lives in 1X4 and is powered by the Sorensen +20V power supply in 1X5 via the fuse rail on the side of 1X4. For this we had to branch off the 20V path to the dewhitening and anti-image filter crate of the c1:susaux driven SOS optics. After confirming that none of the daughter modules in the crate draw from the 20V line, we added a wire leading to a new fuse we added for this unit and ran a power cable from there.
The diagnostic connector of the PSL laser is now connected to the unit and a tmux session was created on megatron that interfaces with the chassis and broadcasts the EPICS channels. We need to watch out in the coming days for epics freezes/outages, as in the past these seemed to occur around the same times we were toying with the Acromags.
We set up the chassis in 1X7 today. Steve is ordering a longer 25 pin cable to reach. Until then the PSL diagnostic channels will not be usable.
Current Acromag chassis status:
I found out that Acromag offers DIN rail mounting kits for the open boards, so we can actually fit both XT series and ES/EN series in the same boxes, depending on the signal needs. The primary design driver will be the ES footprint, but if we find we don't need that many channels in some of the units, it's interchangable. For the wiring to the front panel - for which we will have a standard front panel express design, but may order modified ones for the custom needs of the 40m, I will contract the same company that Rich used for the wiring in his DIO box (Panel mount connectors terminating in loose wires/pre-routed plugs for Acromag units). We will either run a single DIN rail along the length of the chassis, or have two in parallel across.
Lydia and I took close looks at the breakout arrangements on the rack sides, and determined that because of the many cross-connects between non-DAQ ports it is not possible to redo and debug this in a reasonable amount of time without essentially shutting down the interferometer. So instead, we will connect the chassis directly to the slots that were previously leading to the slow machines. They come in two different flavors: The ADC modules have 64 pins, while the DIO and DAC ones have 50. There are a couple things we can do:
Based on Rich's design I will get started on a parts list and wiring diagrams to send out to the cable company.
I was talking with Larry yesterday, and he suggested the rack-mounted supermicro machines SYS-5017A-EP (~$400) or SYS-5018A-FTN4 (~$600) that he uses for moving data around in LIGO. They have ≥2 gigabit ethernet ports and can thus function as modbus gateways, conveniently placed in the rack close to the slow DAQ/DIO chassis and running some local ubuntu or other distro (I think Aidan uses CentOS in the PSL lab). These only have atom processors, which would be sufficient for the slow machine replacement, but there are many more powerful models with sometimes subtle differences. If we motion towards a more complete GigECam coverage in the lab it could be better to kill two birds with one stone and get something a little faster that can do the video capture/processing, since these machines will be distributed more or less strategically around the lab. Just a thought, as I have currently no clear idea what resources are required for this or how much we're throwing at this GigECam upgrade.
I've attached a schematic for how we will connect the Acromag mosules to the slow channel I/O curently going to c1auxex. The following changes are made:
As stated in elog 12618, using an oscilloscope to average the reflected powers and thus circumventing all filtering yielded much better results than before:
XARM: 21 +/- 35 ppm
YARM: 69 +/- 45 ppm
We can probably decrease the measurement uncertainty further by using a larger photodiode that is more suited for DC measurements. It will be placed in the AS pathtemporarily. If we get below 10 ppm systematic errors will begin to matter. To get those under control I will have to re-determine the visibility in the arm cavities and the modulation indices. The numbers to match from an estimate via the power recycing gain are <= 50 ppm arm average from elog 12586. Once the measurement scheme is up and running, we can proceed to generate ETM lossmaps. ITM will still be tricky but let's see what we can do.
Following Yutaro's approach, we can move the beams on the optcs in a deterministic way by several mm on the ETMs. Moving the beam is achieved by introducing offsets into the ASS auto alignment. As an example, the Yaw dither for ETMY is shown:
Each of the 8 test mass rotational degrees of freedom is driven by a particular frequency, and 2 signals are digitally demodulated in the real-time system: The arm transmission ("T") and the LSC arm length feedback signal to the ETM (L). The T signal feeds back to the input pointing, aka Tip Tilts and BS. This maximizes the transmission for a given test mass orientation. The L feedback controls the beam position on the mirrors in the arms. It minimizes the coupling of the dither to the length feedback, which is achieved when the beam goes through the axis of the rotational motion. This is where we introduce the offset:
The signal C1:ASS-YARM_ETM_YAW_L_DEMOD_I_OFFSET (for this example) moves the locking point of the dither-to-length coupling and thus moves the beam around on the ETM. This is true for the PIT and YAW of all test masses except ITMX. In the current configuration the TTs optimize the alignment into the YARM, and for the X we only have the BS, which is why the beam spot on ITMX cannot be independently controlled as-is. We could, however, for the sake of this measurement, temporarily temporarily give TT authority to the XARM feedback to control the ITMX beam position. I imagine something like dither-aligning with ASS the normal way, and then run a customized script in which the XARM is treated as the YARM, feecback to the BS is cut, and the YAW signals are inverted due to the reflection on BS.
Knowing the angle of the offset gives us a way to calculate the beam spot displacement with the cavity geometry. For best results I want to make sure our OpLev calibration is still good (laser power decay, although last time this was done was only about a year ago), which would be analogous to elog 11831.
As for ITM beam position, this scheme only works partially, because it would require the beam to steer further off its axis than in the ETM case. This is problematic because of the spacing between tip tilts and ITMs. I summarize:
I installed a DC PD (Thorlabs PDA 520) in the beam path to AS55. I placed a 2" 90/10 BS on a flip mount that picks of enough light for the PD to spit out ~8V when the port is bright. Single arm continuous signal will be ~2V. While most of the light still continues towards AS55, the displacement from the BS moves the beam off AS55, so I used the flip mount in case anyone needs to use AS55. The current configuration is UP.
When we're done with loss investigations the flip mount should be removed from the bench.
I hooked the PD up to an ethernet-enabled scope and started scripting the loss map measurement (scope can receive commands via http so we can automate the data acquisition). The scope that was present at the bench and had been used for the MC ringdown measurements had a 'scrambled' screen that I couldn't fix so I had to retrieve another scope ("scope1"). I'll try to find out what's wrong with it but we may have to send it in for repair.
I made a crude sketch for how Lydia and I envision the connector situation on the back of the vme crates to be solved. Essentially the side panels of each crate extend about 2" (52 mm) beyond the edge of the DIN connectors. This is plenty of space for a simple PCB board. The connector of choice is D-Sub. We can split the 64 used pins into 2x 37 D-Sub OR (2x25 pin + 1x15pin). The former has fewer cables, but a few excess unused leads. A quick google search showed me that it is much cheaper to get twisted pair cables for 15 and 25 pin D-Subs. From what I remember, the used pins on the DIN connectors are concentrated on the low numbers end and the high numbers end, so might not need the 'middle' connector in many cases if we decide to break it up into three. I have to check this with Lydia though.
The D-Sub connectors would be panel mounted, for which we need a narrow panel piece with dsub cutouts. We can run horizontal struts across the vme crate from side panel to side panel. This way the force upon cable (dis)connection is mostly on the panel which is attached to the struts which are attached to the crate. This will also prevent gravitational sag or cable strain from pulling on the DIN connection, and we can use twisted pair cables with backshell, screws, and strain reliefs.
I was lookng into getting started with the PCB when Altium complained that the license is expired and to renew it. This is a relatively simple board layout so some free software out there is probably enough.
After fighting with Altium for what seems like an eternity I have finished putting my vision of the vme crate backplane adapter board into an electronic format. It is dimensioned to fill the back space of the crate exactly. The connectors are panel mount and the PCB attaches to the connectors with screws, such that the whole thing will be mechanically much more stable than the current configuration. A mounting bracket will attach to horizontal struts that need to be installed in the crates, mechanical drawings to follow.
I finished designing the PCBs for the VME crate back sides (see attached). The project files live on the DCC now at https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-D1700058. I ordered a prototype quantity (9) of the PCB printed and bought the corresponding connectors, all will arrive within the next two weeks. See also attached the front panels for the Acromag DAQ chassis and Lydia's RF amplifier unit (the lone +24V slot confuses me: I don't see a ground connector?). On the Acromag panel, six (3x2) of the DB37 connectors are reserved for VME hardware, two are reserve, and I filled the remaining space with general purpose BNC connectors for whatever comes up.
Just a few remarks, since I heard from Gautam that c1susaux is next in line for upgrade.
All units have already been configured with IP addresses and settings following the scheme explained on the slow controls wiki page. I did this while powering the units in the chassis, so I'm not sure where the short is coming from. Is the power supply maybe not sourcing enough current? Powering all units at the same time takes significant current, something like >1.5 Amps if I remember correctly. These are the IPs I assigned before I left:
I used black/white twisted-pair wires for A/D, red/white for D/A, and green/white for BIO channels. I found it easiest to remove the blue terminal blocks from the Acromag units for doing the majority of the wiring, but wasn't able to finish it. I had also done the analog channel calibrations using the windows untility using multimeters and one of the precision voltage sources I had brought over from the Bridge labs, but it's probably a good idea to check it and correct if necessary. I also recommend to check that the existing wiring particularly for MC1 and MC2 is correct, as I had swapped their order in the channel assignment in the past.
While looking through the database files I noticed two glaring mistakes which I fixed: