40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 40m Log, Page 193 of 341 Not logged in
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
6543   Wed Apr 18 10:05:40 2012 JamieUpdateGeneralPower outage last night

All of the front-ends are back up and I've been able to recover local control of all of the opitcs (snapshots from saturday). Issues:

• I can't lock the PMC.  Still unclear why.
• there are no oplev signals in MC1, MC2, and MC3
• Something is wrong with PRM.  He is very noisy.  Turning on his oplev servo makes him go crazy.
• There are all sorts of problems with the oplevs in general.  Many of the optics have no oplev settings.  This is probably not related to the power outage.

On a brighter note, ETMX is damped with it's new RCG 2.5 controller!  yay!

6544   Wed Apr 18 11:46:14 2012 JenneUpdateGeneralPower outage last night

 Quote: there are no oplev signals in MC1, MC2, and MC3 Something is wrong with PRM.  He is very noisy.  Turning on his oplev servo makes him go crazy.

None of the 3 MC optics have oplevs, so there shouldn't be any oplev signals. Although MC2 has the trans QPD, which was once (still is??) going through the MC2 oplev signal path.

PRM was noisy last week too.  But turning on his oplev shouldn't make him crazy. That's not so good. Try restoring PRM (the ! near the PRM label on the IFO align screen), then checking if his oplev is ~centered.  Maybe PRM wasn't in the nominal position at the time you restored from.

6545   Wed Apr 18 11:54:31 2012 JenneUpdateGeneralPower outage last night

 Quote: None of the 3 MC optics have oplevs, so there shouldn't be any oplev signals. Although MC2 has the trans QPD, which was once (still is??) going through the MC2 oplev signal path.

Duh.  Unawake brain.  The MCs look fine.

11864   Tue Dec 8 15:57:16 2015 yutaroSummaryLSCPower recycling gain estimation from arm loss measurement

I estimated power recycling gain with the results of arm loss measurement.

From elog 11818 and 11857, round trip losses including transmittivity of ETM of Y arm and X arm (let us call them $T_\mathrm{loss,Y}$ and $T_\mathrm{loss,X}$) are 229+13.7=243 ppm and 483+13.7=495 ppm, respectively.

How I calculated:

I used the following formula.

Amplitude reflectivity of an arm cavity $r_\mathrm{FP}$

$r_\mathrm{FP}=\sqrt{1-\frac{4T_\mathrm{ITM}T_\mathrm{loss}}{T^2_\mathrm{tot}}}$   (see elog 11816)

Amplitude reflectivity of FPMI $r_\mathrm{FPMI}$

$r_\mathrm{FPMI}=\frac{1}{2}(r_\mathrm{FP,X}+r_\mathrm{FP,Y})$

With power transmittivity of PRM $T_\mathrm{PRM}$ and amplitude reflectivity of PRM $r_\mathrm{PRM}$, power recycling gain is

$\mathrm{PRG}=\frac{T_\mathrm{PRM}}{(1-r_\mathrm{PRM}r_\mathrm{FPMI})^2}$.

I assumed $T_\mathrm{ITM}\simeq T_\mathrm{tot}=\frac{2\pi}{401}=0.01566$$T_\mathrm{PRM}=0.05637$, and $r_\mathrm{PRM}=\sqrt{1-T_\mathrm{PRM}}$, and then I got

PRG = 9.8.

Since both round trip losses have relative error of ~ 4 % and PRG is proportional to inverse square of $T_\mathrm{loss}$ up to the leading order of it, relative error of PRG can be estimated as ~ 8 %, so PRG = 9.8 +/- 0.8

Discussion

According to elog 11691, which says TRX and TRY level was ~125 when DRFPMI was locked, power recycling gain was $\mathrm{PRG}=125\times T_\mathrm{PRM}=7.0$ at the last DRFPMI lock.

Measured PRG is lower than PRG estimated here, but it is natural because various causes such as mode mismatch between PRC mode and arm cavity mode, imperfect contrast of FPMI, and so on could decrease PRG, which Eric suggested to me.

If $T_\mathrm{loss,X}$ were as small as $T_\mathrm{loss,Y}$, PRG would be 16.0. PRC would be still under coupled.

11872   Fri Dec 11 09:35:44 2015 yutaroUpdateLSCPower recycling gain estimation from arm loss measurement

I took PR3 AR reflectivity and calculated PRG (PR3 is flipped and so AR surface is inside PRC).

As shown in attached figure, which shows AR specification of the LaserOptik mirror (PR3 is this mirror), AR reflectivity of PR3 is ~0.5 %. Since resonant light in PRC goes through AR surface of PR3 4 times per round trip, round trip loss due to this is ~2 %. Then I got

PRG = 7.8.

Attachment 1: LaserOptikAR.png
11873   Fri Dec 11 13:28:36 2015 KojiUpdateLSCPower recycling gain estimation from arm loss measurement

Can I ask you to make a plot of the power recycling gain as a function of the average arm loss, indicating the current loss value?

11874   Fri Dec 11 15:37:50 2015 yutaroUpdateLSCPower recycling gain estimation from arm loss measurement

Attached is the plot of relation between the average arm round trip loss and power recycling gain. 2 % loss due to PR3 AR reflection is taken into account.

Attachment 1: PRG_plot.png
7297   Tue Aug 28 17:16:54 2012 ericqUpdatePSLPower reduced!

We have now reduced the power being input to the MC from 1.25W to 10mW, and changed out the MC refl BS for a mirror.

The power was reduced via the PBS we introduced in Entry 7295.

While we were in there, we took a look at the AS beam, which was looking clipped on the monitor. Jenne felt that it appears that the clipping seems to be occurring inside the vacuum, possibly on the faraday. This will be investigated during the vent.

7298   Tue Aug 28 17:43:04 2012 JenneUpdatePSLPower reduced!

 Quote: We have now reduced the power being input to the MC from 1.25W to 10mW, and changed out the MC refl BS for a mirror.  The power was reduced via the PBS we introduced in Entry 7295. While we were in there, we took a look at the AS beam, which was looking clipped on the monitor. Jenne felt that it appears that the clipping seems to be occurring inside the vacuum, possibly on the faraday. This will be investigated during the vent.

I stopped the regular MC autolocker and told the crontab to startup the low power Mc autolocker on op340m.  Also, since we now have the new MC2 transmission setup, the power that gets to the 'regular' MC trans PD is lower, so I've lowered the lock threshold to 50 counts, from 100 counts.

7308   Wed Aug 29 17:02:41 2012 ericqUpdatePSLPower reduced!

 Quote: We have now reduced the power being input to the MC from 1.25W to 10mW, and changed out the MC refl BS for a mirror.  The power was reduced via the PBS we introduced in Entry 7295. While we were in there, we took a look at the AS beam, which was looking clipped on the monitor. Jenne felt that it appears that the clipping seems to be occurring inside the vacuum, possibly on the faraday. This will be investigated during the vent.

The power has been increased to 20mW. We got the 10mW number from the linked elog entry above. However, after venting we were having problems locking the MC. Upon investigating past elog posts, we found that 20mW was actually the power used in the past. The MC will now autolock.

7310   Wed Aug 29 17:35:34 2012 KojiUpdatePSLPower reduced!

The biggest reason why we could not lock the MC was that the beam was not properly hitting the MC REFL diode.

Now the MC REFL DC is about ~0.1 and 1.2 when the MC is and is not locked.

We increased the power according to the quantitative analysis of the intracavity power in this earlier entry

Autolocker script for the low power MC was modified so that the initial VCO gain is 3 in stead of 10.
The 2 steps of super boost were also enabled again.

4838   Mon Jun 20 10:45:43 2011 JamieUpdateCDSPower restored to 1X1/1X2 racks. IOO binary output module installed.

All power has been restored to the 1X1 and 1X2 racks.  The modecleaner is locked again.

I have also hooked up the binary output module in 1X2, which was never actually powered.  This controls the whitening filters for MC WFS.  Still needs to be tested.

5148   Tue Aug 9 02:27:54 2011 Ishwita , ManuelUpdatePEMPower spectra and Coherence of Guralps and STS2

We did offline wiener filtering on 3rd August (Elog entry) using only Guralps' channels X and Y.

Here we report the Power spectrum of the 3 seismometers (Guralp1, Guralp2, STS1) during that time.

and also the coherence between the data from different channels of the 3 seismometers.

We see that the STS is less correlated with the two Guralps. We think it is due to the wrong alignment of the STS with the interferometer's axes.

We are going to align the STS and move the seismometers closer to the stacks of the X arm.

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

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

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

5514   Thu Sep 22 10:43:50 2011 PaulUpdateSUSPower spectrum with different filter gains

I thought it might be informative before trying to optimise the filter design to see how the current one performs with different gain settings. I've plotted the power spectra for ITMY yaw with filter gains of 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4.

All of the higher gains seem to perform better than the 0 gain, so can I deduce from this that so far the oplev control loop isn't adding excess noise at these frequencies?

Attachment 1: ITMY_YAW_closed_vs_open_noise.pdf
14481   Sun Mar 17 13:35:39 2019 AnjaliUpdateALSPower splitter characterization

We characterized the power splitter ( Minicircuit- ZAPD-2-252-S+). The schematic of the measurement setup is shown in attachment #1. The network/spectrum/impedance analyzer (Agilent 4395A) was used in the network analyzer mode for the characterisation. The RF output is enabled in the network analyser mode. We used an other spliiter (Power splitter #1) to splitt the RF power such that one part goes to the network analzer and the other part goes to the power spliiter (Power splitter #2) . We are characterising power splitter #2 in this test. The characterisation results and comparison with the data sheet values are shown in Attachment # 2-4.

Attachment #2 : Comparison of total loss in port 1 and 2

Attachment #3 : Comparison of amplitude unbalance

Attachment #4 : Comparison of phase unbalance

• From the data sheet: the splitter is wideband, 5 to 2500 MHz, useable from 0.5 to 3000 MHz. We performd the measurement from 1 MHz to 500 MHz (limited by the band width of the network analyzer).
• It can be seen from attachment #2 and #4 that there is a sudden increase below ~11 MHz. The reason for this is not clear to me
• The mesured total loss value for port 1 and port 2 are slightly higher than that specified in the data sheet.From the data sheet, the maximum loss in port 1 and port 2 in the range at 450 MHz are 3.51 dB and 3.49 dB respectively. The measured values are 3.61 dB and 3.59 dB respectively for port 1 and port 2, which is higher than the values mentioed in the data sheet. It can also be seen from attachment #1 (b) that the expected trend in total loss with frequency is that the loss is decreasing with increase in frequency and we are observing the opposite trend in the frequency range 11-500 MHz.
• From the data sheet, the maximum amplitude balance in the 5 MHz-500 MHz range is 0.02 dB and the measured maximum value is 0.03 dB
• Similary for the phase unbalance, the maximum value specified by the data sheet in the 5 MHz- 500 MHz range is 0.12 degree and the measurement shows a phase unbalance upto 0.7 degree in this frequency range
• So the observations shows that the measured values are slighty higher than that specified in the data sheet values.
Attachment 1: Measurement_setup.pdf
Attachment 2: Total_loss.pdf
Attachment 3: Amplitude_unbalance.pdf
Attachment 4: Phase_unbalance.pdf
5658   Wed Oct 12 19:58:32 2011 KatrinUpdateGreen LockingPower splitter is unbalanced

The mini circuit power splitter ZFRSC-42S+ used at the YARM has no balanced output as it should have according to the data sheet.

@ 0.05MHz  the amplitude unbalance should be 0.03 dB

A quick measurement shows that there is a LO amplitude dependent unbalance:

 LO amplitude input (Vpp) unbalanced output (dB) 1.3 3.66 1.4 4.08 1.5 4.28 1.6 4.36

So my question is, shall I replace the power splitter just in case it is further degrading?

16417   Wed Oct 20 11:48:27 2021 AnchalSummaryCDSPower supple configured correctly.

This was horrible! That's my bad, I should have checked the configuration before assuming that it is right.

I fixed the power supply configuration. Now the strip has two rails of +/- 18V and the GND is referenced to power supply earth GND.

Ian should redo the tests.

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

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

[Raji, Manasa]

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

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

Quote:

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

[Raji, Manasa]

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

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

1480   Tue Apr 14 02:59:02 2009 YoichiUpdateLockingPower up until 26
Yoichi, Peter,

With careful adjustments of the common mode gains, we were able to go up to arm power = 26, sort of robustly (more 50% chance).
At this arm power level, the common mode loop shape still looks good. But the interferometer loses lock easily.
I have to check other DOFs, but the interferometer does not stay locked long enough.
Today, lock losses of the IFO were associated with the lock loss of the PMC whereas the FSS stayed locked.
Probably the AO path got large kicks, which could not be handled by the PMC PZT.

The cause for the IFO lock loss is under investigation.
12539   Fri Oct 7 20:25:14 2016 KojiUpdateCDSPower-cycled c1psl and c1iool0

Found the MC autolocker kept failing, It turned out that c1iool0 and c1psl went bad and did not accept the epics commands.

Went to the rack and power cycled them. Burt resotred with the snapshot files at 5:07 today.

The PMC lock was restored, IMC was locked, WFS turned on, and WFS output offloaded to the bias sliders.

The PMC seemed highly misaligned, but I didn't bother myself to touch it this time.

12542   Mon Oct 10 11:48:05 2016 gautamUpdateCDSPower-cycled c1susaux, realigned PMC, spots centered on WFS1 and WFS2

[Koji, Gautam]

We did the following today morning:

1. I re-aligned the PMC - transmission level on the scope on the PSL table is now ~0.72V which is around what I remember it being
2. The spot had fallen off WFS 2 - so we froze the output of the MC WFS servo, and turned the servo off. Then we went to the table to re-center the spot on the WFS. The alignment had drifted quite a bit on WFS2, and so we had to change the scale on the grid on the MEDM screen to +/-10 (from +/- 1) to find the spot and re-center it using the steering mirror immediately before the WFS. It would appear that the dark offsets are different on WFS1 and WFS2, so the "SUM" reads ~2.5 on WFS1 and ~0.3 on WFS2 when the spots are well centered
3. Coming back to the control room, we ran the WFSoffsets script and turned on the WFS servo again. Trying to run the relief servo, we were confronted by an error message that c1susaux needed to be power cycled (again). This is of course the slow machine that the ITMX suspension is controlled by, and in the past, power cycling c1susaux has resulted in the optic getting stuck. An approach that seems to work (without getting ITMX stuck)  is to do the following:
• Save the alignment of the optic, turn off Oplev servo
• Move the bias sliders on IFO align to (0,0) slowly
• Turn the watchdog for ITMX off
• Unplug the cables running from the satellite box to the vacuum feedthrough
• Power cycle the slow machine. Be aware that when the machine comes back on, the offset sliders are reset to the value in the saved file! So before plugging the cables back in, it would be advisable to set these to (0,0) again, to avoid kicking the optic while plugging the cables back in
• Plug in the cables, restore alignment and Oplev servos, check that the optic isn't stuck
4. Y green beat touch up - I tweaked the alignment of the first mirror steering the PSL green (after the beam splitter to divide PSL green for X and Y beats) to maximize the beat amplitude on a fast scope. Doing so increased the beat amplitude on the scope from about 20mVpp to ~35mVpp. A detailed power budget for the green beats is yet to be done

It is unfortunate we have to do this dance each time c1susaux has to be restarted, but I guess it is preferable to repeated unsticking of the optic, which presumably applies considerable shear force on the magnets...

After Wednesday's locking effort, Eric had set the IFO to the PRMI configuration, so that we could collect some training data for the PRC angular feedforward filters and see if the filter has changed since it was last updated. We should have plenty of usable data, so I have restored the arms now.

7381   Thu Sep 13 23:27:14 2012 JenneUpdateGeneralPre-close checklist

We need to do the following things:  Images of optics in DRMI chain, place black glass beam dumps, make sure pickoff beams get out, align IP POS/ANG.

Black glass: behind MMT1, behind IPPOSSM3, forward-going POP beam.

Images and pickoff stuff should happen at the end of each vent.

Images need to be taken of the following optics (with ruler edge at center of optic):

* PZT1

* MMT1

* MMT2

* PZT2

* PRM

* PR2

* PR3

* BS (front and back?)

* ITMX

* ITMY

* SR3

* SR2

* SRM

* OM1

* OM2

* OM3

* OM4=PZT3

* OM5=PZT4

* OMPO

* OM6

* Viewport as AS beam leaves chamber

* POYM1 (check no clipping on edge of mount)

* POXM1 (check no clipping on edge of mount)

Pickoff / aux beams:

* REFL path

* POX

* POY

* POP

* IPPOS

* IPANG

12556   Thu Oct 13 00:23:54 2016 ericqUpdateVACPre-vent prep

I have completed the following non-Steve portions of the pre-vent checklist [wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu]

• Center all oplevs, transom QPDs (and IPPOS + IPANG if they are set up)
• Align the arm cavities for IR and align the green lasers to the arms.
• Update the SUS Driftmon values
• Reconcile all SDF differences
• Reduce input power to no more than 100mW (measured at the PSL shutter) by adjusting wave plate+PBS setup on the PSL table BEFORE the PMC. (Using the WP + PBS that already exist after the laser.)
• Replace 10% BS before MC REFL PD with Y1 mirror and lock MC at low power.
• Close shutter of PSL-IR and green shutters at the ends

All shutters are closed. Ready for Steve to check nuts and begin venting!

5868   Fri Nov 11 00:18:53 2011 ZachUpdateElectronicsPrecision temperature controller

I have made a first draft of the precision temperature controller circuit, which could find use at the 40m for stabilizing EOM RFAM as well as in the Bridge labs. Please read the entry on the ATF Lab elog and give me your feedback.

9692   Wed Mar 5 16:27:51 2014 ericqUpdateLSCPreliminary Arm Loss Measurements

I measured the arm cavity losses as Kiwamu did way back in ELOG 5074.

I used the same logic as the ../scripts/LSC/armloss script, but did it manually. This meant:

1. Lock and ASS-Align both arms.
2. Misalign the ITM of the arm that I'm not measuring, to get its spot off of AS
3. Take 10 seconds of ASDC_OUT data while the arm is locked.
4. Unlock, misalign ETM of arm of interest, take another 10 seconds of ASDC_OUT
5. Relock, run ASS, goto #3

Analysis was done similar to ../scripts/LSC/armloss.m. This uses the nominal T values (.014 and 15e-6) to estimate the input power from the unlocked ASDC data, and the cavity reflectivity from the locked ASDC / input power. Then, loss is calculated by:

• Pin = ASDC(unlocked) / R1
• Rc = ASDC(locked) / Pin
• rc=sqrt(Rc), etc.
• Loss = 1 - (( 1 / r1r2)) * ( 1 - t1^2 r2 / (r1 - rc)) ^2

I did this for pairs of locked / unlocked data stretches. (Subsequent pairs maybe have slightly different things going on, but each pair was taken within a minute or so of each other)

Unfortunately, during the X Arm measurements, the MC was misbehaving with large REFL fluctuations, so I don't have confidence the results.

The Y Arm data seems fine, however.

The Y arm loss is 123.91 +/- 10.47 ppm

(Trial-to-Trial fluctuations dominate the fluctuations within each trial by far, and their standard deviation is what I report as the random error above)

This seems roughly in agreement with old values I've seen in the ELOG. I'll remeasure the x arm tomorrow during the day. Here's a plot showing the ASDC values of the Y Arm measurements.

14652   Tue Jun 4 00:17:15 2019 gautamUpdateBHDPreliminary BHD calculations

​Summary:

Attachment #1 shows the RIN and phase noise requirements for the 40m BHD for measuring Ponderomotive squeezing.

Some details:

1. The interferometer topology is not systematically optimized - I just picked values which are likely close to what we will eventually choose. Namely, $P_{\mathrm{PRM}} = 8\,\mathrm{W}$$\phi_{\mathrm{SRC}} = 0.275 ^{\circ}$$\zeta_{\mathrm{homodyne}} = 88 ^{\circ}$$\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{rt}}^{\mathrm{arm}} = 30\, \mathrm{ppm}$$G_{\mathrm{PRC}}\approx 40$. Nevertheless, I think these requirements will not change by more than 30% for changes to the interferometer config.
2. The requirements are evaluated using the following criterion: assuming that the dominant noises are (i) coil driver at mid-frequencies and (ii) quantum noise at high frequencies, what do the RIN and phase noise on the LO have to be such that the equivalent displacement noise is a factor of 10 below? I opted for a safety factor of 10, this can be relaxed.
3. An unknown is how much contrast defect light we will end up having due to the mismatch between arms. I assumed a few representative values.
4. The calculations were done analytically. This paper provides a good summary of the relations - although my RIN requirement is more stringent because of the safety factor of 10, and phase noise requirement is less stringent (despite the same safety factor) because we plan to read out at nearly the amplitude quadrature.
5. Since we are discussing the possibility of delivering the LO field using a fiber-coupled pickoff of the laser prior to RF sidebands being added, these requirements do not benefit from passive filtering from the cavity transfer functions. Consequently, the requirements are pretty challenging I think.

Conclusions:

1. The RIN requirement looks very challenging - we will need a shot noise limited ISS with 100 mW DC sensing light, and will likely have to relax the safety factor depending on how much contrast defect light we end up having. This actually sets some requirement on the amount of filtering we need from the OMC (next step).
2. The phase noise requirement also looks very challenging - I need to look up what is possible with the double-pass through fiber technique.

Next steps:

1. Evaluate the pointing stability requirement on the LO field (IFO output is filtered by the OMC).
2. We still need to think of a control scheme for the LO phase - likely, I think we will need a suspended optic between the fiber collimator delivering the light to the BHD setup with some kind of length actuation capability.
3. Numerical validation of this analytic study. I believe Finesse is still missing some capabilities that allow us to calculate these couplings, but I'll ask the experts to be sure.
4. Build up the requirements on the OMC cavity:
• Backscatter requirement (related = OFI isolation requirement, relative length noise between SRM and OMC, OFI and SRM). Does the OFI also have to be suspended?
• Filtering requirement
• Pointing stability requirement
• Length noise requirement
Attachment 1: LOreqs.pdf
14658   Thu Jun 6 18:49:22 2019 gautamUpdateBHDPreliminary BHD calculations

Summary:

I did some more calculations based on our discussions at the meeting yesterday. Posting preliminary results here for comments.

Details:

Attachment #1 - Schematic illustration for the scattering scenarios. For all three scenarios, we would like for the scattered field to be lower than unsqueezed vacuum (safety factor to be debated).

Attachment #2 - Requirements on a fraction $\epsilon_{\mathrm{bs}} = 10 \, \mathrm{ppm}$ of the counter-propagating resonant mode of the OMC scattering back into the antisymmetric port, as a function of RIN and phase noise on this field (y-axis) and amount of field (depends on the amount of contrast defect light which can become resonant in the counter propagating mode). I don't encode any frequency dependence here.

Attachment #3 - Requirements on the direct scatter from the arm cavity resonant field (assumed to dominate any contribution from the PRC) onto the OMC DCPDs, for some assumed phase noise (y-axis) and fraction of the field that makes it onto the OMC DCPDs. This is a pretty stringent requirement. But the probability is low (it is the product of three presumably small numbers, (i) probablity of the beam scattering out of the TEM00 mode, (ii) BRDF of the scattering surface, (iii) probability of scattering back towards the DCPDs), so maybe feasible? I didn't model any RIN on this field, which would be an additional noise term to contend with. The range of the y-axis was chosen because I think these are reasonable amplitudes for chamber wall  / other scattering surface motion at acoustic frequencies.

Attachment 1: darkPortScatter.pdf
Attachment 2: OMCbackscatter.pdf
Attachment 3: directScatter.pdf
14833   Tue Aug 6 15:52:06 2019 gautamUpdateBHDPreliminary BHD calculations

Summary:

The requirement on the phase noise on the direct backscatter from the OMC back into the SRM is that it be less than $10^{-5} \, \mathrm{rad/\sqrt{Hz}} \approx 10^{-12} \, \mathrm{m/\sqrt{Hz}}$ @ 100 Hz, for a safety factor (arbitrarily chosen) of 10 (= 20dB below unsqueezed vacuum). Assuming 5 optics between the OMC and SRM which contribute incoherently for a factor of sqrt(5), and assuming a total of 1 ppm of the LO power to be backscattered, we need the suspensions to be moving $< 5 \times 10^{-13} \, \mathrm{m/\sqrt{Hz}}$ @ 100 Hz. This seems possible to realize with single stage suspensions - I assume we get f^4 filtering from the pendulum at 100 Hz, and that there is an additional 80 dB attenuation (from the stack) of the assumed 1 micron/rtHz motion at 100 Hz, for an overall 160 dB attenutaiton, yielding 10^-14 m/rtHz at 100 Hz.

Details:

This is the same calculation as I had posted a couple of months ago (see elog that this is a reply to), except that Koji pointed out that the LO power is expected to dominate the (carrier) power incident on the OMC cavity(ies). So the more meaningful comparison to make is to have the x-axes of the plots denote the backscatter fraction, $\epsilon_{\mathrm{BS}}$ rather than the LO power. One subtlety is that because the phase of the scattered field is random, the displacement-noise induced phase noise could show up in the amplitude quadrature. I think that in these quadrature field amplitude units, the RIN and phase noise are directly comparable but I might have missed a factor of 2*pi. But in the worst case, if all the phase noise shows up in the amplitude quadrature, we end up being only ~10dB below unsqueezed vacuum (for 1 ppm backscatter).

For the requirement on the noise in the intensity quadrature - I think this is automatically satisfied because the RIN requirement on the incident LO field is in the mid 10^-9 1/rtHz regime.

Attachment 1: OMCbackscatter.pdf
8884   Fri Jul 19 23:35:31 2013 gautamConfigurationendtable upgradePreliminary Calibration of PZT

I recalibrated the QPD today as I had shifted its position a little. I then identified the linear range of the QPD and performed a preliminary calibration of the Piezo tip-tilt within this range.

Details:

-I recalibrated the QPD as I had shifted it around a little in order to see if I could move it to a position such that I could get the full dynamic range of the piezo tilt within the linear regime of the QPD. This proved difficult because there are two reflections from the mirror (seeing as it is AR coated for 532nm and I am using a red laser). At a larger separation, these diverge and the stray spot does not bother me. But it does become a problem when I move the QPD closer to the mirror (in an effort to cut down the range in which the spot on the QPD moves). In any case, I had moved the QPD till it was practically touching the mirror, and even then, could not get the spot motion over the full range of the PZTs motion to stay within the QPD's linear regime (as verified by applying a 20Vpp 1Hz sine wave to the PZT driver board and looking at the X and Y outputs from the QPD amplifier.

-So I reverted to a configuration in which the QPD was ~40cm away from the mirror (measured using a measuring tape).

-The new calibration constants are as follows (see attached plots):

X-Coordinate: -3.43 V/mm
Y-Coordinate: -3.41 V/mm

-I then determined the linear range of the QPD to be when the output was in the range [-0.5V 0.5V].

-Next, at Jenne's suggestion, I decided to do a preliminary calibration of the PZT within this linear range. I used an SR function generator to supply an input voltage to the PZT driver board's input (connected to Channel 1 of the piezo). In order to supply a DC voltage, I set a DC offset, and set the signal amplitude to 0V. I then noted the X and Y-coordinate outputs, being sure to run through the input voltages in a cyclic fashion as one would expect some hysteresis.

-I did this for both the pitch and yaw inputs, but have only superficially analysed the latter case (I will put up results for the former later).

-There is indeed some hysteresis, though the tilt seems to vary linearly with the input voltage. I have not yet included a calibration constant as I wish to perform this calibration over the entire dynamic range of the PZT.

-There is some residual coupling between the pitch and yaw motion of the tip tilt, possibly due to its imperfect orientation in the holder (I have yet to account for the QPD's tilt).

-I have not included a graphical representation here, but there is significantly more pitch to yaw coupling when my input signal is applied to the tip-tilts pitch input (Channel 2), as compared to when it is input to channel 1. It is not clear to me why this is so.

-I have to think of some smart way of calibrating the PZT over its entire range of motion, keeping the spot in the QPD's linear regime throughout. One idea is to start at one extreme (say with input voltage -10V), and then perform the calibration, re-centering the spot to 0 on the QPD each time the QPD amp output reaches the end of its linear regime. I am not sure if this will work, but it is worth a shot. The other option is to replace the red laser with a green laser (from one of the laser pointers) in the hope that multiple reflections will be avoided from the mirror. Then I will have to recalibrate the set up, and see if I can get the QPD close enough to the mirror such that the spot stays within the linear regime of the QPD. More investigation needs to be done.

Plots:

QPD Calibration Plots:

Piezo tilt vs input voltage plots:

Yaw Tilt                                                                                                                                         Pitch Tilt

12621   Wed Nov 16 17:07:12 2016 AshleyUpdateGeneralPreliminary Microphone Data

I am currently looking at the acoustic noise around both arms to see if there are any frequencies from machinery around the lab that stand out and to see what we can remove/change.

• Attachment 1 is a picture of the microphone and suspension system (bungee cords) that hangs from the cable trays to isolate it from vibrations.
• To record data, I used both the microphone (attachment 1) attach it its preamp connected to a spectrum analyzer in order get a graph of power spectral density, recording from 0-10k Hz and 10-100kHz. I started recording data at the furthest end of the x arm and worked towards the center taking measurements every couple of feet (ten rungs on the cable tray).
• The second attachment is the first 5 psd I got from the furthest end of the x arm going 10 rungs on the cable tray closer each measurement.
• Going forward, I am going to take more measurements with greater resolution at the lower frequencies from 0-200 and stepping up from there by factors of 2.

Attachment 1: first_PSD_12kHz.pdf
12738   Thu Jan 19 10:21:54 2017 AshleyUpdateGeneralPreliminary Microphone Data

Brief Summary: I am currently looking at the acoustic noise around both arms to see if there are any frequencies from machinery around the lab that stand out and to see what we can remove/change. I am using a Bluebird microphone suspended with surgical tubing from the cable trays to isolate it from vibrations. I am also using a preamp and the SR875 spectrum analyzer taking 6 sets of data every 1.5 meters (0 to 200Hz, 200Hz to 400Hz, 400z to 800Hz, 800Hz to 3200Hz, 3.2kHz to 12kHz, 12kHz to 100kHz).

·                Attachment 1 is a PSD of the first 3 measurements (from 0 to 12kHz) that I took every 1.5 meters along the x arm with the preamp and spectrum analyzer

·                Attachment 2 is a blrms color map of the first 6 sets of data I took (from 2.4m to 9.9m)

·                Attachmetn 3 is a picture of the microphone set up with the surgical tubing

Problems that occurred: settings on the preamp made the first set of data I took significantly smaller than the data I took with the 0dB button off and the last problem I had was the spectrum analyzer reading only from -50 to -50 dBVpk

Attachment 1: xend_psd.png
Attachment 2: xblrms.png
Attachment 3: IMG_3734.JPG
12826   Mon Feb 13 17:39:45 2017 AshleyUpdateGeneralPreliminary Microphone Data Update
• Problems that have occurred since my last post: All of the sudden, I was getting very strange data that was very quiet and did not match the previous input range of my last locations (see attachment). After resoldering the custom bnc connection cables with Lydia, which were in disrepair, and checking almost everything we could think of, we found that the gain dial on the preamp was turned all the down. Immediately after it was fixed, the data returned to expected values (based on neighboring locations and data taken at the last location before the problem occurred).
• Updates: Since my last post, I have created a normalized blrms color map in addition to the one I already have. Additionally, I have started working on plotting the color maps next to a labeled, to-scale drawing of the lab, but have yet to complete it.
• Attachment 1: comparison of the psds
• Attachment 2: blrms color map
• Attachment 3: normalized color map
 Quote: Brief Summary: I am currently looking at the acoustic noise around both arms to see if there are any frequencies from machinery around the lab that stand out and to see what we can remove/change. I am using a Bluebird microphone suspended with surgical tubing from the cable trays to isolate it from vibrations. I am also using a preamp and the SR875 spectrum analyzer taking 6 sets of data every 1.5 meters (0 to 200Hz, 200Hz to 400Hz, 400z to 800Hz, 800Hz to 3200Hz, 3.2kHz to 12kHz, 12kHz to 100kHz).   ·                Attachment 1 is a PSD of the first 3 measurements (from 0 to 12kHz) that I took every 1.5 meters along the x arm with the preamp and spectrum analyzer ·                Attachment 2 is a blrms color map of the first 6 sets of data I took (from 2.4m to 9.9m)  ·                Attachmetn 3 is a picture of the microphone set up with the surgical tubing  Problems that occurred: settings on the preamp made the first set of data I took significantly smaller than the data I took with the 0dB button off and the last problem I had was the spectrum analyzer reading only from -50 to -50 dBVpk

Attachment 1: figure_1.png
Attachment 2: x_and_y_blrms_03.png
Attachment 3: xblrms_median.png
11186   Tue Mar 31 22:27:43 2015 JenneUpdateModern ControlPreliminary PRMI angular Wiener results

Before locking for the evening, I wanted to try again implementing the Wiener filters that I had designed back in Jaunary (elog 10959).

The problem then was that the newer version of Quack that I was using was doing weird things to me (elog 10993).  But, tonight I used the old quack3andahalf that we used to use for Wiener-related things, and that worked (for up to order 20 filters).  Actually, the pitch z-axis Wiener filter, when I copy the command string into Foton, says "Error" in the alternate box (the lower one).  I also get this error message if I try to put in filters that were greater than order 20, and have been split into several filters.  I'm not sure what's wrong, so for tonight I'm leaving out the pitch z-axis seismometer feed forward, and only using 20th order filters for all the rest.

So, pitch has feed forward signals from the T-240's x and y axes, and yaw has feed forward signals from all 3 seismometer channels.

At first, I just had the calculated Wiener filters, and a 10Hz lowpass, but the POP beam spot on the camera was getting slowly pushed away from the starting location.  So, I added a 0.01Hz cheby1 highpass filter, and that seems to have fixed that problem.  I need to go back to the simulations though, and see if this is going to cause extra noise to be injected (because of incorrect phase in the feed forward signal) at very low frequencies.  All 5 Wiener filter banks have a gain of -1.

I'm getting a factor of 4-5ish between 2Hz and 3Hz in both pitch and yaw.  What's interesting is that despite no direct angular suppression (as measured by the QPD) at higher frequencies, both POP22 and POPDC see improvement over a much broader range of frequencies.  I'll have to think about how to predict this RIN coupling in my budgets.

The time series data for these filters was collected 2 months ago, on the 29th of January.  So, it's nice to see that they work now too (although we have already seen that length feed forward signals are good over a many-month period).

In uncalibrated units (I need to calibrate the QPD to microrad, and should probably quote the PD signals in RIN), here is the plot.  Blue trace (taken first) was with the feed forward on. Red trace (taken immediately afterward) was with feed forward off. This data is all PRMI-only, locked on REFL165 using Koji's recipe from elog 11174, including changing REFL165 phase to -14deg (from the -110 I found it at) for the no-arms case.

PRMI_31Mar2015.pdf

Attachment 1: PRMI_31Mar2015.pdf
11202   Sat Apr 4 17:54:03 2015 ranaUpdateModern ControlPreliminary PRMI angular Wiener results

This is a very cool result. I'm surprised that it can work so good. Please post what frequency dependent weighting you used on the target before running the Wiener code.

I think its important to tune it to keep the low frequencies from getting amplified by a factor of 10 (as they are in your plots). The seismometers are all just noise acting like thermometers and tilt sensors below 0.1 Hz. Temperature and tilt do not couple to our interferometer very much.

It also seems weird that you would need 20th order filters to make it work good. In any case, you can always split the SOS up into pieces before making the digital filters. For LLO, we used 3 buttons in some cases.

 Quote: Before locking for the evening, I wanted to try again implementing the Wiener filters that I had designed back in Jaunary (elog 10959).
8947   Wed Jul 31 17:02:17 2013 Alex ColeUpdateElectronicsPreliminary Photodetector Frequency Reponse Measurements

[Eric, Alex]

We used our setup from yesterday (elog #8940) to measure transimpedance measurements for AS55, REFL11, REFL33, and REFL55, using our Newport 1611 FC-AC as reference. We connected the fibers to their respective telescopes such that the beams focused on their photodetectors, using a multimeter to maximize photodetector DC output. Plots are attached. At first glance, the poles seem to be where they're supposed to be.

Note that the procedure used today is similar to what the eventual automated procedure will be. The main differences are (1) The RF Switch will be used rather than manual switching (2) NWAG4395A will be used to collect data rather than netgpibdata (3) Data will be fit using vectfit4.m and compared to some canonical set.

Attachment 1: REFL11.jpg
Attachment 2: REFL33.jpg
Attachment 3: REFL55.jpg
Attachment 4: AS55.jpg
8955   Thu Aug 1 18:55:20 2013 Alex ColeUpdateElectronicsPreliminary Photodetector Frequency Reponse Measurements

 Quote: [Eric, Alex] We used our setup from yesterday (elog #8940) to measure transimpedance measurements for AS55, REFL11, REFL33, and REFL55, using our Newport 1611 FC-AC as reference. We connected the fibers to their respective telescopes such that the beams focused on their photodetectors, using a multimeter to maximize photodetector DC output. Plots are attached. At first glance, the poles seem to be where they're supposed to be. Note that the procedure used today is similar to what the eventual automated procedure will be. The main differences are (1) The RF Switch will be used rather than manual switching (2) NWAG4395A will be used to collect data rather than netgpibdata (3) Data will be fit using vectfit4.m and compared to some canonical set.

[Alex, Eric]

Today I spent some time mounting the launcher and performing the same data collection for POX11. I think I still need to focus the launcher so the photodetector gets a good signal, but the data from today wasn't too bad.  Additionally, I worked on matlab scripts to improve PDFR data analysis.

This time I collected data from the network analyzer using NWAG4395A in the netgpibdata directory. The advantage of this is that the computer tells the network analyzer to perform the sweep as well as retrieving the data.

For analysis, I improved my implementation of vectfit4.m so that it focuses in on the particular photodetector's predicted peaks and thus ignores much of the noise, giving a better fit. The raw data is the red circles in the 2nd attachment, while the fit is the blue line. I also had the program return the frequency value of the peak. For POX11, this was 1.106e+07 Hz.

I also finagled copies of existing programs to enable one to plot multiple transfer functions on the same axes. This function is /users/alex.cole/plottwo.m. I will eventually use this to compare new data to some canonical data so that we may monitor photodetector performance over time.

The eventual plan is to generate two plots per photodetector, one of which will compare new data to the canonical set, the other of which will show the fit of the data. Both will have subplots that zoom in around regions of interest (known peaks and notches), and the plot which displays the canonical set will also have Q's of peaks and their locations.

Attachment 1: POX11.jpg
Attachment 2: POX11fit.jpg
3298   Tue Jul 27 12:02:31 2010 GopalUpdateOptic StacksPreliminary Transfer Function Measurements on MC1/MC3

I have successfully completed a preliminary transfer function measurement test on the MC1/MC3 stack in COMSOL. Using the measurement scheme described on the Wiki, I initialized a 1 N/m^2 sinusoidal perturbation on the bottom of the stack and measured the maximum displacement of the top layer. This preliminary test just calculated the responses to 1-,2-,3-,4-, and 5-Hz drives along the x-axis (pictures attached).

Currently, I am rerunning the same test but from 1-10 Hz with 0.1-Hz steps. When both x- and y-axis responses have been plotted, I can move on to repeating this entire process on the MC2 stack.

Attachment 1: MC1_MC3_FDA_1.png
Attachment 2: MC1_MC3_FDA_2.png
Attachment 3: MC1_MC3_FDA_3.png
Attachment 4: MC1_MC3_FDA_4.png
Attachment 5: MC1_MC3_FDA_5.png
15650   Thu Oct 29 09:50:12 2020 anchalSummaryCalibrationPreliminary calibration measurement taken

I went to 40m yesterday at around 2:30 pm and Koji showed me how to acquire lock in different arms and for different lasers. Finally, we took a preliminary measurement of shaking the ETMX at some discrete frequencies and looking at the beatnote frequency spectrum of X-end laser's fiber-coupled IR and Main laser's IR pick-off.

### Basic controls and measurement 101 at 40m

• I learned a few things from Koji about how to align the cavity mirrors for green laser or IR laser.
• I learned how to use ASS and how to align the green end laser to the cavity. I also found out about the window at ETMX chamber where we can directly see the cavity mode, cool stuff.
• Koji also showed me around on how to use diaggui and awggui for taking measurements with any of the channels.

### Preliminary measurement for calibration scheme

We verified that we can send discrete frequency excitation signals to ETMX actuators directly and see a corresponding peak in the spectrum of beatnote frequency between fiber-coupled X-end IR laser and main laser IR pickoff.

• I sent excitation signal at 200 Hz, 250 Hz and 270 Hz at C1:SUS-ETMX_LSC_EXC channel using awggui with an amplitude of 100 cts and gain of 2.
• I measured corresponding peaks in the beatnote spectrum using diaggui.
• Page 1 shows the ASD data for the 4 measurements taken with Hanning window and averaging of 10.
• Page 2 shows close up Spectrum data for the 4 measurements taken with flattop window and averaging of 10.
• I converted this frequency signal into displacement by using conversion factor $\nu_{FSR}/\frac{\lambda}{2}$ or $\frac{L \lambda}{c}$.

If full interferometer had been locked, we could have used the DARM error signal output to calibrate it against this measurement.

Data

Attachment 1: PreliminaryCalibrationData.pdf
5647   Tue Oct 11 00:59:55 2011 SureshUpdateIOOPreliminary locking of WFS loops

[Kiwamu, Koji, Suresh]

After correcting several errors in the WFS loops, we turned them on today and saw them working!

A while back (last week actually) I noticed that the WFS1 and WFS2  QPD segments were numbered in a different order but that their input matrices did not reflect this change.  As result the WFS pitch and yaw definitions were pretty much mixed up.  However even after clearing this up the signals still showed significant amount of cross couplings.

This problem was finally traced to the relative phase between I and Q channels of the WFS segments.  Koji suggested that I check the relative phase between all the segments to be sure.  I then repeated the procedure that Valera and I followed in our earlier elog # 5321 , and found that the phases indeed required to be adjusted.  The excitation of MCL was at 6Hz, 100mVpp, as before.   The WFS response after this was much improved i.e.  the pitch yaw cross couplings were not visible when we misalign the MC with sliders in MC_ALIGN.  And the magnitude of the response also increased since the signal was transferred from the Q to I channels.  The the phases were tweaked by hand till Q< 1% of I.  However when I repeated this measurement an hour later (I wanted to save the plots) I found that the phases had changed by a few percent!

Koji noticed that the MC_REFL camera image showed significant intensity fluctuations and advised that we try a higher frequency and lower amplitude to avoid nonlinear effects in the WFS and in the MCL to PSL lock.  So we repeated the process at 20Hz and 20mVpp, introduced at the IN2 of the MC_Servo.  The fig below shows the level to which we reduced the signal in Q.

We then checked the relative phase between various quadrants by looking at the time series in dataviewer.  WFS2 Seg4 phase had to be flipped to bring it into phase with all the rest.

After this I tried to see the WFS response to moving the MC1 and MC3 with the sliders and determined the following relations:

 Pitch WFS1 WFS2 MC1 + - MC2 - - MC3 + +

 Yaw WFS1 WFS2 MC1 + + MC2 - - MC3 + -

Disregarding the MC2 for now and assuming arbitrary gains of 1 for all elements we inverted these matrices inserted them into the WFS_servo_outmatrix.  We then found that the with a sign flip on all elements the loops were stable.  In the servo filters we had turned on only the filter modules 3 and 4.  There was no low frequency boost.   We gradually increased gain till we saw a significant suppression of the error signal at low frequencies as shown below.  There was also an associated suppression of Intensity noise at REFL_DC after a single bounce from PRM.

To see if the locks can actually realign the MC if it were manually misaligned, we turned the loops off and misaligned MC by moving MC3 pitch by 0.05 (slider position), and then turned on the loops.  The locks were reengaged successfully and the MC regained alignment as seen on the StripTool below:

We can now proceed with the fine tuning the servo filters and understand the system better:

Q1:    Does the WFS (I to Q) phase drift rapidly?  How can we prevent it?

Q2:   How is that we do not see any bounce or roll resonances on the WFS error signals?

Q3:  How do we include the MC2 QPD into the WFS Servo?

I will proceed with determination of the actual transfer coefs between the MC DoF and the WFS sensors.

15353   Tue May 26 03:26:58 2020 gautamUpdateLSCPreliminary noise budget

Summary:

This isn't meant to be a serious budget, mainly it was to force myself to write the code for generating this more easily in the future.

Details:

• DARM OLTF model from here was used to undo the loop to convert the in-loop measurement to a free-running estimate.
• The AS55 PD channels were whitened to reduce the effect of ADC noise.
• To measured channel was 'C1:LSC-DARM_IN1_DQ'.
• Some care needs to be taken when applying the conversion from counts to meters using the sensing element measured here.
• This is because the sensing matrix measurement was made using the response in the channel 'C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR_DQ'.
• Between 'C1:LSC-DARM_IN1_DQ' and 'C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR_DQ' there is a scalar gain of 1e-4, and a z:p = 20:0 filter.
• These have to be corrected for when undoing the loop, since the measurement point is 'C1:LSC-DARM_IN1_DQ'.
• The "Dark noise" trace was measured with the PSL shutter closed, but all CDS filters up to 'C1:LSC-DARM_IN1_DQ' enabled as they were when the DARM measurement was taken.
• It would be interesting to see what the budget looks like once the DARM loop gain has been turned down a bit, some low-pass filtering is enabled, and the vertex DoFs are transitioned to 1f control which is hopefully lower noise.
Attachment 1: PRFPMI_NB.pdf
12240   Mon Jul 4 10:30:37 2016 ericqUpdateGeneralPreliminary vent plans

Here are some plans / rough procedures for this week's vent. It is unlikely that I have though of everything, but this should be a reasonable starting point.

The mode cleaner still hasn't been locked in air, we may not want to touch the Y arm optics until we are able to lock to the Y arm and dither align, so we are sure to keep the input pointing from drifting away too much.

# Primary objectives:

• Re-suspend ETMX
• First contact of all arm cavity optics

# Secondary objectives:

• Install new gauges
• Replace 40mm baffles with 50mm baffles
• Check cleanliness of inner viewport surfaces

# ETMX project

• Open ETMX chamber
• Take all manner of photos of ETMX suspension in-situ
• If some kind of obvious issue is evident, fix it, proceed accordingly
• Mark suspension position
• Move suspension to edge of the table, more pictures + inspection
• Move suspension to flow bench, remove optic
• Transport optic to clean room
• Acetone soaking / standoff removal
• Re-glue side magnet
• Re-glue guide rod + standoff
• OSEM transplant from old to new suspension
• Suspend, following SOS suspension procedure
• Drive optic around, see if jumps are evident
• Clean with first contact
• Reinstall optic, align, etc.

# Optic cleaning

For optic in [ITMX, ITMY, ETMY]: • Open chamber • Take many, many pictures • Mark suspension position • move suspension to edge, take pictures of HR surfaces • Mark OSEM orientation, remove oems • Clean AR and HR surfaces with first contact • Reinstall OSEMS at proper position, rotate to minimize bounce/roll coupling • Reinstall optic, align, etc. 14415 Wed Jan 23 23:12:44 2019 gautamUpdateSUSPrep for FC cleaning In preparation for the FC cleaning, I did the following: 1. Set up mini-cleanroom at EY - this consists of the mobile HEPA unit put up against the chamber door, with films draped around the setup. 2. After double-checking the table leveling, I EQ-stopped ETMY and moved it to the NE corner of the EY table, where it will be cleaned. 3. Checked leveling of IY table - see Attachment #1. 4. Took pictures of IY table, OSEM arrangement on ITMY. 5. EQ-stopped ITMY and SRM. 6. Removed the face OSEMs from ITMY (this required clipping off the copper wire used to hold the OSEM wires against the suspension cage). The side OSEM has not yet been removed because I left the allen key that is compatible with that particular screw inside the EY chamber. 7. To position ITMY at the edge of the IY table where we can easily clean it, we will need to move the OSEM cabling tower as we did last time. I've taken photos of its current position for now. Tomorrow, I will start with the cleaning of ETMY HR. While the FC is drying, I will position ITMY at the edge of the IY cable for cleaning (Chub will setup the mini-cleanroom at the IY table). The plan is to clean both HR surfaces and have the optics back in place by tomorrow evening. By my count, we have done everything listed in the IY and EY chambers. I'd like to minimize the time between cleaning and pumpdown, so if all goes well (Sat Box problems notwithstanding), we will check the table leveling on Friday morning, and put on the heavy doors and at least rough the main volume down to 1 torr on Friday. Attachment 1: IY_level_before.pdf 2617 Fri Feb 19 13:28:44 2010 KojiUpdateGeneralPrep for Power Supply Stop - ETMX/ETMY oplev paths renewed. The nominal gain for ETMY YAW was reversed as a steering mirror has been put. - Oplevs/QPDs cenrtered except for the MCT QPD. - SUS snapshots updated - QPD/Aligment screenshots taken 40m Wiki: Preparation for power supply stop Attachment 1: screen_shot.png 2620 Sun Feb 21 17:44:35 2010 ranaUpdateGeneralPrep for Power Supply Stop • Turned on the RAID attached to linux1 (its our /cvs/cds disk) • Turned on linux1 (it needed a keyboard and monitor in order to be happy - no fsck required) • Turned on nodus (and started ELOG) + all the control room machines • Turned on B/W monitors • Untaped fridge • Found several things OFF which were not listed in the Wiki... • Turned ON the 2 big isolation transformers (next to Steve's desk and under the printer). These supply all of the CDS racks inside. • ~75% of the power strips were OFF in the CDS racks ?? I turned on as many as I could find (except the OMC). • Switched on and keyed on all of the FE and SLOW crates in no particular order. Some of the fans sound bad, but otherwise OK. • Turned on all of the Sorensens that are labeled. • Turned ON the linear supplies close to the LSC rack. • ON the Marconis - set them according to the labels on them (probably out-dated). • After restoring power to the PSL enclosure (via the Isolation Transformer under the printer) turned the Variac ON and HEPA on full speed. • Plugged in the PSs for the video quads. Restored the Video MUX settings - looks like we forgot to save the correct settings for this guy... ### PSL 1) Turned on the chiller, then the MOPA, then the RC's Heater power supply. 2) Shutter is open, laser is lasing, PMC is locked. 3) RC temperature is slowly rising. Will probably be thermalized by tomorrow. Sun Feb 21 20:04:17 2010 Framebuilder is not mounting its RAID frames - in fact, it doesn't mount anything because the mountall command is failing on the RAID with the frames. The Jetstor RAID is also not responding to ping. Looks like the JetStor RAID which has all of our frames is still on the old 131 network, Joe. 2621 Mon Feb 22 07:25:58 2010 ranaUpdateGeneralPrep for Power Supply Stop Autoburts have not been working since the network changeover last Thursday. Last snapshot was around noon on Feb 11... It turns out this happened when the IP address got switched from 131.... to 192.... Here's the horrible little piece of perl code which was failing:command = "/usr/sbin/ifconfig -a > $temp"; system($command);

open(TEMP,$temp) || die "Cannot open file$temp\n";
$site = "undefined"; # # this is a horrible way to determine site location while ($line = <TEMP>) {
if ($line =~ /10\.1\./) {$site = "lho";
} elsif ($line =~ /10\.100\./) {$site = "llo";
} elsif ($line =~ /192\.168\./) {$site = "40m";
}
}
if ($site eq "undefined") { die "Cannot Determine Which LIGO Observatory this is\n"; I've now put in the correct numbers for the 40m...and its now working as before. I also re-remembered how the autoburt works: 1) op340m has a line in its crontab to run /cvs/cds/caltech/burt/autoburt/burt.cron (I've changed this to now run at 7 minutes after the hour instead of at the start of the hour). 2) burt.cron runs /cvs/cds/scripts/autoburt.pl (it was using a perl from 1999 to run this - I've now changed it to use the perl 5.8 from 2002 which was already in the path). 3) autoburt.pl looks through every directory in 'target' and tries to do a burt of its .req file. Oh, and it looks like Joe has fixed the bug where only op440m could ssh into op340m by editing the host.allow or host.deny file (+1 point for Joe). But he forgot to elog it (-1 point for Joe).® 2622 Mon Feb 22 09:45:34 2010 josephbUpdateGeneralPrep for Power Supply Stop  Quote: Autoburts have not been working since the network changeover last Thursday. Last snapshot was around noon on Feb 11... It turns out this happened when the IP address got switched from 131.... to 192.... Here's the horrible little piece of perl code which was failing:$command = "/usr/sbin/ifconfig -a > $temp"; system($command);    open(TEMP,$temp) || die "Cannot open file$temp\n";    $site = "undefined"; # # this is a horrible way to determine site location while ($line = ) {      if ($line =~ /10\.1\./) {$site = "lho";      } elsif ($line =~ /10\.100\./) {$site = "llo";      } elsif ($line =~ /192\.168\./) {$site = "40m";      }    }    if (\$site eq "undefined") {      die "Cannot Determine Which LIGO Observatory this is\n"; I've now put in the correct numbers for the 40m...and its now working as before. I also re-remembered how the autoburt works: 1) op340m has a line in its crontab to run /cvs/cds/caltech/burt/autoburt/burt.cron (I've changed this to now run at 7 minutes after the hour instead of at the start of the hour). 2) burt.cron runs /cvs/cds/scripts/autoburt.pl (it was using a perl from 1999 to run this - I've now changed it to use the perl 5.8 from 2002 which was already in the path). 3) autoburt.pl looks through every directory in 'target' and tries to do a burt of its .req file. Oh, and it looks like Joe has fixed the bug where only op440m could ssh into op340m by editing the host.allow or host.deny file (+1 point for Joe). But he forgot to elog it (-1 point for Joe).®

I knew there was going to be a script somewhere with a hard coded IP address.  My fault for missing it.  However, in regards to the removal of op340m's host.deny file, I did elog it here.  Item number 5.

2625   Mon Feb 22 11:42:48 2010 KojiUpdateGeneralPrep for Power Supply Stop

Turned on the power supply for the oplev lasers.
Turned on the power of the aux NPRO.
Turned on some of the Sorensen at 1X1.
Fixed the thermal output to round -4.0.
Locked PMC / MZ.

Waiting for the computers recovering.

14837   Fri Aug 9 08:59:04 2019 gautamUpdateCDSPrep for install of c1iscaux

[chub, gautam]

We scoped out the 1Y3 rack this morning to figure out what needs to be done hardware wise. We did not think about how to power the Acromag crate - the LSC rack electronics are all powered by linear supplies and not Sorensens, and the linear supplies are operating at pretty close to their maximum current-drive. The Acromag box draws ~3A of current from the 20 V supply, not sure what the current draw will be from the 15 V supply. Options:

1. Since there are sorensens in 1Y2 and 1Y1, do we really care about installing another pair of switching supplies (+20 V DC and +15 V DC) in 1Y3?
• Contingent on us having two spare Sorensens available in the lab. Chub has already located one.
2. Use the Sorensens installed already in 1Y1.
• Probably the easiest and fastest option.
• +15 V already available, we'd have to install a +20 V one (or if the +/-5 V or +12 V is unused, reconfigure for +20 V DC).
• Can argue that "this doesn't make the situation any worse than it already is"
• Will require the running of some long (~3 m) long cabling to bring the DC power to 1Y3 where it is required.
3. Get new linear supplies, and hook them up in parallel with the existing.
• Need to wait for new linear supply to arrive
• Probably expensive
• Questionable benefit to electronics noise given the uncharacterized RF pickup situation at 1Y2

I'm going with option #2 unless anyone has strong objections.

ELOG V3.1.3-