40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 223 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authordown Type Category Subject
  2216   Mon Nov 9 15:08:29 2009 KojiOmnistructureEnvironmentTidying up BNC cables rack around the lab

Quote:

This would be a good trial once you put the label "BNC only" on the wall.

Quote:

We have thousands of miles of BNC cables in the lab but we still don't find one when we need it. I decided to solve the problem.

This morning I tried to tidy up the several cable rack the we have in the lab.

i tried to dedicate each rack to a speecific type of cables: special cables, hand made cables, BNCs, LEMOs, etc.

In particular I tryed to concentrate BNC cable of several lengths on the rack near by the ITMX chamber.

People are invited to preserve the organization.

 

 

Done! Check it out.

  2241   Wed Nov 11 17:33:54 2009 KojiUpdateABSLWorking on the AP table

Yes it did.

For long time, the crystal temperature C1:PSL-126MOPA_LTMP was 43~46deg. Now it is 34deg. Try ~10deg lower temperature.

Quote:

I wonder if the all the tinkering on the PSL laser done recently to revive the power have changed the PSL NPRO temperature and so its frequency. That could also explain why the beat doesn't show up at the same temperature of the NPRO as I used to operate it. Although I scanned the NPRO temperature +/- 2 deg and didn't see the beat.

 

  2251   Thu Nov 12 11:19:10 2009 KojiUpdatePSLAbandoned Frequency Generator

Last night there was an activity for a calibratuon work, which I helped. I can take care of the FG.

Quote:

This morning I found a frequency generator connected to something on the PSL table sitting on the blue step next to the sliding doors.

Is anyone using it? Has it been forgotten there? If that's the case, can the interested person please take care of removing it?

 

  2258   Thu Nov 12 17:15:43 2009 KojiUpdatePSLMC Trans Offset

OK. I have been keeping my eyes on the MC transmission. In deed, the MC trans has been well kept at around 7.7 since the last PSL work.
Even it was over the 8 today!

Quote:

On Rana's suggestion I checked the MC transmission QPD (C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM). I found that the readout is almost zero when the MC is unlocked.

I unlocked the Mode Cleaner turning off the LSC control and disabling the autolocker. The QPD reads 0.014. It seems that there is no offset.

I also checked with the IR card around the photodetector and I didn't see any stray beam.

 

Attachment 1: MC_TRANS.png
MC_TRANS.png
  2260   Thu Nov 12 17:42:04 2009 KojiUpdatePSLMC Trans Offset

PC_DRIVE is also improving after the last PSL work!

Quote:

OK. I have been keeping my eyes on the MC transmission. In deed, the MC trans has been well kept at around 7.7 since the last PSL work.
Even it was over the 8 today!

 

Attachment 1: PC_DRV.png
PC_DRV.png
  2269   Fri Nov 13 22:01:54 2009 KojiUpdateComputersUpdated wiki with RCG instructions/tips

I continued on the STAND ALONE debugging of the megatron codes.

- I succeeded to run c1aaa with ADC/DAC. (c1aaa is a play ground for debugging.)

  The trick was "copy DAC block from sam.mdl to aaa.mdl".
  I don't understand why this works. But it worked.
  I still have the problem of the matrices. Their medm screens are always blank. Needs more works.

- Also I don't understand why I can not run the build of c1tst when I copy the working aaa.mdl to tst.mdl.

- The problem Joe reported: "# of channels to be daqed" was solved by

make uninstall-daq-aaa
make install-daq-aaa

  This command is also useful.

daqconfig

- Now I am in the stable development loop with those commands

killaaa
make uninstall-daq-aaa
make aaa
make install-aaa
make install-daq-aaa
make install-screens-aaa
startaaa

  I have made "go_build" script under /home/controls/cds/advLigo

usage:
./go_build aaa

- Note for myself: frequently visited directories

/home/controls/cds/advLigo/src/epics/simLink (for model)
/home/controls/cds/advLigo
(to build)
/cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1aaa
(realtime code log)
/cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1aaaepics (ioc log)
/cvs/cds/caltech/medm/c1/aaa (medm screens)
/cvs/cds/caltech/chans
(filter coeffs)
/cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq (daq settings)

  2270   Sat Nov 14 06:46:48 2009 KojiUpdateComputersUpdated wiki with RCG instructions/tips

I am still working on the c1aaa code. Now it seems that C1AAA is working reasonably (...so far).

1) At a certain point I wanted clean up the system status. I have visited /etc/rc.local to add c1aaa for realtime to non-realtime task

before:
/usr/bin/setup_shmem.rtl mdp mdc tst&
after:
/usr/bin/setup_shmem.rtl mdp mdc tst aaa&

   I rebooted the system several times.

sudo /sbin/reboot

2) I found that gabage medm screens accumulated in ~/cds/advLigo/build/aaaepics/medm after many trials with several simulink models.
This directory is always copied to /cvs/cds/caltech/medm/c1/aaa at every make install-screens-aaa
This caused very confusing MEDM screens in the medm dir like C1AAA_ETMX_IN_MATRX.adl (NOT ETMY!)

I did

cd ~/cds/advLigo
make clean-aaa

to refresh aaaepics dir. The current development procedure is

killaaa
make clean-aaa
make uninstall-daq-aaa
make aaa
make install-aaa
make install-daq-aaa
make install-screens-aaa
startaaa

3) Sometimes startaaa does not start the task properly. If the task does not work, don't abandon.
Try restart the task. This may help. 

killaaa
(deep breathing several times)
startaaa

What to do next:

- MEDM works

* make more convenient custom MEDM screens so that we can easily access to the filters and switches
* retrofit the conventional SUS MEDM to the new system

- once again put/confirm the filter coeffs and the matrix elements

- configure DAQ setting so that we can observe suspension motion by dataviewer / dtt

- connect the suspension to megatron again

- test the control loop

  2278   Tue Nov 17 00:42:12 2009 KojiUpdateComputersUpdated wiki with RCG instructions/tips

Dmass, Joe, Koji


A puzzle has been solved: Dmass gave us a great tip

"The RGC code does not work unless the name of the mdl file (simulink model) matches to the model name "

The model name is written in the second line. This is automatically modified if the mdl file is saved from simulink.
But we copied the model by using "cp" command. This prevent from the TST model working!

megatron:simLink>head tst.mdl
Model {
  Name                    "tst"
  Version                 7.3
  MdlSubVersion           0

...
...
...

This explained why the AAA model worked when the DAC block has been copied from the other model.
This was not because of the ADC block but the saving model fixed the model name mismatch!


Now our current working model is "C1TST". Most of the functionalities have been implemented now:

  • The simulink model has been modified so that some of the functionalities can be accomodated, such as LSC/ASC PIT/ASC YAW.
  • Some filter names are fixed so as to inherit the previous naming conventions.
  • The SUS-ETMY epics screen was modified to fit to the new channel names, the filter topologies, and the matrices.
  • The chans file was constructed so that the conventional filter coefficients are inherited.
  • All of the gains, filter SWs, matrix elements have been set accordingly to the current ETMY settings.
  • burt snapshot has been taken: /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1tstepics/controls_1091117_024223_0.snap
    burtrb -f /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1tstepics/autoBurt.req -o controls_1091117_024223_0.snap -l /tmp/controls_1091117_024215_0.read.log -v

What to do next:

  • Revisit Oplev model so that it accomodates a power normalization functionality.
  • ETMY QPD model is also missing!
  • Clean up mdl file using subsystem grouping
  • Check consistency of the whitening/dewhitening switches.
  • Connect ADC/DAC to megatron
  • Test of the controllability
  • BTW, what is happened to BIO?
  • Implementation of the RFM card

Directories and the files:

  • The .mdl file is backed up as
    /home/controls/cds/advLigo/src/epics/simLink/tst.mdl.20091116_2100

  • The default screens built by "make" is installed in
    /cvs/cds/caltech/medm/c1/tst/
    They are continuously overridden by the further building of the models.

  • The custom-built medm screens are stored in
    /cvs/cds/caltech/medm/c1/tst/CustomAdls/

    The backup is
    /cvs/cds/caltech/medm/c1/tst/CustomAdls/CustomAdls.111609_2300/

  • The custom-built chans file is
    /cvs/cds/caltech/chans/C1TST.txt

    The backup is
    /cvs/cds/caltech/chans/C1TST.111609

  • burt snap shot file
    /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1tstepics/controls_1091117_024223_0.snap
  2280   Tue Nov 17 11:09:43 2009 KojiConfigurationSUSETMY suspension conencted to megatron ADC/DAC

I have connected ETMY sus electronics to megatron ADC/DAC.
We continue this state until 15:00 of today. (Restored 13:00)

  2281   Tue Nov 17 13:39:37 2009 KojiConfigurationSUSETMY suspension conencted to megatron ADC/DAC

0) Now the connection for the ETMY suspension was restored in a usual state. It damps well.

1) I thought it would be nice to have dataviewer and DTT working.
   So far, I could not figure out how to run daqd and tpman.
   - I tried to configure
    /cvs/cds/caltech/target/fb/daqdrc
    /cvs/cds/caltech/target/fb/master
    /cvs/cds/caltech/chans/daq/C1TST.ini
(via daqconfig)

   - I also looked at
    /cvs/cds/caltech/targetgds/param/tpchn_C1.par
   but I don't understand how it works. The entries have dcuids of 13 and 14 although C1TST has dcuid of 10.
   The file is unmodified.

   I will try it later when I got a help of the experts.

2) Anyway, I went ahead. I tried to excite suspension by putting some offset.

It seems to have no DAC output. I checked the timing signal. It seems that looks wrong clock.

   I looked at DAC output by putting 5000,10000,15000,20000,25000cnt to UL/UR/LR/LL/SD coils.
   I could not find any voltage out of the DAC in any channels.

   Then, I checked the timing signal. This clock seems to have wrong frequency.
   What we are using now is a clock with +/-4V@4MHz. (Differential)
   Maybe 4194304Hz (=2^22Hz)?

   I went to 1Y3 and checked the timing signal for 16K. This was +/-4V@16kHz. (Diffrential)

   The possible solution would be
   - bring a function generator at the end and try to input a single end 4V clock.
   - stretch a cable from 1Y3 to 1Y9. (2pin lemo)

Quote:

I have connected ETMY sus electronics to megatron ADC/DAC.
We continue this state until 15:00 of today.

 

  2282   Tue Nov 17 15:23:06 2009 KojiConfigurationSUSETMY suspension conencted to megatron ADC/DAC

OK. Now, Timing/ADC/DAC are working. It's almost there.

1) As a temporaly clock, I put a function generator at the back side of the ETMY.
Set it to the rectangular +/-4V@16384Hz. Connect it to D060064 PCIX Timing Interface Board in the IO Chasis.
That is a line receiver to feed the TTL signal into ADCs/DACs.

I confirmed the actual sampling clock is supplied to the ADC/DAC boards by looking at the SMB output of the D060064.

2) Restarted the realtime code.

3) I looked at DAC output by putting 5000,10000,15000,20000,25000cnt to UL/UR/LR/LL/SD coils again.
Yes! I could see the DAC channels are putting DC voltages.

4) Then I connected DAC CH0 to ADC CH0 using SCSI breaking up boards.
Yes! I could see the coil output switching change the ADC counts!

Now, we are ready to see the suspension damped. Check it out.

  2285   Tue Nov 17 21:10:30 2009 KojiConfigurationSUSETMY suspension conencted to megatron ADC/DAC

Koji, Rana

The megatron DAC was temporaly connected to the suspension electronics for the DAC test. We went down to ETMY as we could not excite the mirror.

The DAC is putting correct voltages to the channels. However, the anti imaging filter test output does not show any signal.
This means something wrong is there in the DAC I/F box or the cables to the AI circuit. We will check those things tomorrow.

The ETMY was restored to the usual configuration.

  2295   Wed Nov 18 22:38:17 2009 KojiUpdateElectronicsmulti-resonant EOM --- EOM characterization ---

How can I get those values from the figure?

Quote:

But indeed it has lead inductance of 12nH, resistance of 0.74[Ohm], and parasitic capacitance of 5.5pF. 

 

  2318   Mon Nov 23 21:36:38 2009 KojiUpdateIOOAligned PMC/RC

I aligned the beam goes to PMC. It increased the MC Trans from 8.25 to 8.30.

I also aligned the beam goes to RC.
When I touched the FSS box (wrong: this was the VCO driver) that was close to one of the steering mirror, suddenly the RC trans increased.
It is now 9.8. I am afraid that it gets saturated. I could not reproduce the phenomenon. This could be caused by a bad contact?
Note that I didn't see there is any loose optic.

Attachment 1: 091123_PSL.png
091123_PSL.png
  2320   Tue Nov 24 10:36:21 2009 KojiUpdateLSCMeasured MC length

What I meant was the VCO driver, not the FSS box.

As for the frequency, all written numbers were the Marconi displays.
The number on the frequency counter was also recorded, and so will be added to the previous entry shortly... 

Quote:

I propose that from now on, we indicate in the elog what frequencies we're referring to. In this case, I guess its the front panel readback and not the frequency counter -- what is the frequency counter readback? And is everything still locked to the 10 MHz from the GPS locked Rubidium clock?

Plus, what FSS Box? The TTFSS servo box? Or the VCO driver? As far as I know, the RC trans PD doesn't go through the FSS boxes, and so its a real change. I guess that a bad contact in the FSS could have made a huge locking offset.

 

  2336   Wed Nov 25 16:44:52 2009 KojiUpdatePSLMeasured MC length--FSS trend

I checked C1:PSL-FSS_VCODETPWR. The attached is the 4 months trend of the FSS RCTRANS / RFPDDC(=FSS REFL) / VCODETPWR / VCOMODLEVEL.

Although VCO modulation level setting was mostly constnt, VCODETPWR, which presumably represents the RF level, changes time by time.
It coincides with the recent reduction of the RCTRANS/RFPDDC. Actually, my touch restored the VCO to the previous more stable state.
One can see that this is not only a single occation, but it happened before too. (In the middle of Aug.)

This could be explained by the bad contact of some cable or connector.

Nevertheless we need more careful investigation:

1. Understand what VCODETPWR is exactly.
2. Investigate relationship between VCOMODLEVEL / VCODETPWR / AOM deflection efficiency / RCTRANSPD
3. Confirm the frequency matching between the VCO and AOM.

Quote:

but the increase in both the RCtrans and the RCrefl is consistent with my theory that the power going to the RC has increased ; its not just an increase in the visibility.

We should scan the AOM/VCO to make sure the frequency is matched to the resonance to within 0.5 dB.

 

Attachment 1: 091125_FSS.png
091125_FSS.png
  2341   Thu Nov 26 02:08:34 2009 KojiUpdateElectronicsMulti-resonant EOM --- Q-factor ----

The key point of the story is:
"The recipe to exploit maximum benefit from a resonant EOM"
- Make a resonant EOM circuit. Measure the impedance Z at the resonance.
- This Z determines the optimum turn ratio n of the step-up transformer.
 
(n2 = Z/Rin where Rin is 50Ohm in our case.)
- This n gives the maximum gain Gmax (= n/2) that can be obtained with the step up transformer.
  And, the impedance matching is also satisfied in this condition.

OK: The larger Z, the better. The higher Q, the Z larger, thus the better.
(Although the relationship between Z and Q were not described in the original post.)

So, how can we make the Q higher? What is the recipe for the resonant circuit?
=> Choose the components with smaller loss (resistance). The details will be provided by Kiwamu soon??? 


When I was young (3 months ago), I thought...

  • Hey! Let's increase the Q of an EOM! It will increase the modulation!
  • Hey! Let's use the step-up transformer with n as high as possible! It will increase the modulation!
  • Hey! Take the impedance matching! It will increase the modulation!

I was just too thoughtless. In reality, they are closely related each other.

A high Q resonant circuit has a high residual resistance at the resonant frequency. As far as the impedance is higher than the equivalent output impedance of the driving circuit (i.e. Z>Rin n2), we get the benefit of increasing the turn ratio of the transformer. In other words, "the performance of the resonant EOM is limited by the turn ratio of the transformer." (give us more turns!)

OK. So can we increase the turn ratio infinitely? No. Once Rin n2 gets larger than Z, you no longer get the benefit of the impedance transforming. The output impedance of the signal source yields too much voltage drop.

There is an optimum point for n. That is the above recipe. 

So, a low Q resonant EOM has a destiny to be useless. But high Q EOM still needs to be optimized. As far as we use a transformer with a low turn ratio, it only shows ordinary performance.

 

 

  2343   Sat Nov 28 20:27:12 2009 KojiUpdatePSLFSS oscillation: Total gain reduced

I stopped by the 40m for some reason and found that the MC trans was 7.5.
This was caused by an oscillation of FSS, which seemed to be started by itself.

The oscillation stopped by reducing the FSS total gain to +9dB (from +11dB).
This is not a permanent fix (i.e. autolocker will restore the gain).
If it seems necessary to reduce the FSS gain always, we change the MC autolocker script.

Attachment 1: 091128_PSL.png
091128_PSL.png
  2354   Sat Dec 5 01:40:11 2009 KojiUpdateoplevsOplevs centered, IP_POS and IP_ANG centered

We restarted daqd and it did restored the problem
http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Computer_Restart_Procedures#fb40m
Then restart the 'daqd' process:'telnet fb40m 8087', type "shutdown" at the prompt. The framebuilder will restart itself in ~20s.

 

It did not related to the problem, but we also cleaned the processes related to dtt, dataviewer by pkill

After that the alignment scripts started to work again. As a result, we got some misalignment of the oplevs.
I am going to come on Sunday
- Align the optics
- Align the oplevs again
- Take snapshots for the suspensions
- Align the IP_POS, IP_ANG
- Align the aux laser for the absolute length
- Align PSL table QPDs, and MCT QPD

  2358   Sat Dec 5 18:23:48 2009 KojiUpdateoplevsOplevs centered, IP_POS and IP_ANG centered

NOTE: HEPA is on at its full.

[[[OK]]] Align the suspended optics (by Rob)
[[[OK]]]
Align the oplevs again
[[[OK]]] Take snapshots for the suspensions/QPDs/IO QPDs/PZT strain gauges
[[[OK]]] Align the IP_POS, IP_ANG
[[[OK]]] Align the PSL table QPDs, the MC WFS QPDs, and the MCT QPD
[[[OK]]] Align the aux laser for the absolute length 


Alignment of the aux laser

o Go to only ITMX mode:
Save the alignment of the mirrors. Activate X-arm mode. Misalign ITMY and ETMX.

o Inject the aux beam:
Open the shutter of the aux NPRO. Turn the injection flipper on.

o Look at the faraday output:
There are several spots but only one was the right one. Confirm the alignment to the thorlabs PD. Connect the oscilloscope to the PD out with a 50Ohm termination.
Thanks to the Alberto's adjustment, the beat was already there at around 10MHz. After the PD adjustment, the DC was about 600mV, the beat amplitude was about 50mVpp.

o Adjust the aux beam alignment:
Adjust the alignment of the aux beam by the steering mirrors before the farady isolator. These only change the alignment of the aux beam independently from the IFO beam.
After the alignment, the beat amplitude of 100mVpp was obtained.

o Closing
Close the shutter of the NPRO. Turn off the flipper mirror. Restore the full alignment of the IFO.

Attachment 1: Screenshot_091205_1830.png
Screenshot_091205_1830.png
  2360   Mon Dec 7 09:38:05 2009 KojiUpdateVACVent started

Steve, Jenne, Koji

The PSL was blocked by the shutter and the manual block.
We started venting
at 9:30

09:30  25 torr
10:30 180 torr
11:00 230 torr

12:00 380 torr

13:00 520 torr
14:30 680 torr - Finish. It is already over pressured.

  2366   Tue Dec 8 13:03:26 2009 KojiUpdateCOCETMY drag wiped

Jenne, Kiwamu, Alberto, Steve, Bob, Koji

We wiped ETMY after recovery of the computer system. We take the lunch and resume at 14:00 for ITMX.
Detailed reports will follow.

  2369   Wed Dec 9 00:23:28 2009 KojiUpdateSUSfree swinging spectra of ETMY and ITMX

Where is the plot for the trend?
It can be either something very important or just a daydream of you.
We can't say anything before we see the data.

We like to see it if you think this is interesting.

... Just a naive guess: Is it just because the seismic level got quiet in the night?

 

P.S.

You looks consistently confused some words like damping, Q, and peak height.

  • Q is defined by the transfer function of the system (= pendulum).
     
  • Damping (either active or passive) makes the Q lower.
     
  • The peak height of the resonance in the spectrum dy is determined by the disturbance dx and the transfer function H (=y/x).

dy = H dx

As the damping makes the Q lower, the peak height also gets lowered by the damping.
But if the disturbance gets smaller, the peak height can become small even without any change of the damping and the Q.

Quote:

By the way I found a trend, which can be seen in all of the data taken today and yesterday.

The resonances of pitch and yaw around 0.5Hz look like being damped, because their height from the floor become lower than the past.

I don't know what goes on, but it is interesting because you can see the trend in all of the data.

 

  2373   Wed Dec 9 18:01:06 2009 KojiUpdateCOCWiping finished

[Kiwamu, Jenne, Alberto, Steve, Bob, Koji]

We finished wiping of four test masses without any trouble. ITMY looked little bit dusty, but not as much as ITMX did.
We confirmed the surface of the ITMX again as we worked at vertex a lot today. It still looked clean.

We closed the light doors. The suspensions are left free tonight in order to check their behavior.
Tomorrow morning from 9AM, we will replace the door to the heavy ones.

  2375   Thu Dec 10 00:46:15 2009 KojiUpdateSUSRe: free swinging spectra of ETMY and ITMX

Well, I get the point now. It could be either seismic or change in the suspension Q.

The pendulum memorizes its own state for a period of ~ Q T_pend. (T_pend is the period of the pendulum)
If the pendulum Q is very high (>104), once the pendulum is excited, the effect of the excitation can last many hours.

On the other hand, in our current case, we turned on the damping once, and then turned off the damping.
Again it takes ~Q T_pend to be excited. 

In those cases, the peak height is not yet before in equilibrium, and can be higher or lower than expected. 

So, my suggestion is:
Track the peak height along the long time scale (~10hrs) and compare between the previous one and the current one.
This may indicate whether it is equilibrium or not, and where the equilibrium is.

Quote:

If such variation of the peak heights is cased by the seismic activity, it means the seismic level change by several 10 times. It sounds large to me.

 

  2381   Thu Dec 10 09:56:32 2009 KojiUpdatePSLRCPID settings not saved

Note: The set point C1:PSL-FSS_RCPID_SETPOINT is 37.0 on C1PSL_FSS_RCPID.adl.

Now the temp is recovering with its full speed. At some point we have to restore the value of the FSS SLOW DC as the temp change drag it up.

Quote:

Koji, Jenne, Rob

We found that the RCPID servo "setpoint" was not in the relevant saverestore.req file, and so when c1psl got rebooted earlier this week, this setting was left at zero.  Thus, the RC got a bit chilly over the last few days.  This channel has been added. 

Also, RCPID channels have been added (manually) to conlog_channels. 

 

Attachment 1: RC_TEMP.png
RC_TEMP.png
  2395   Fri Dec 11 09:30:09 2009 KojiConfigurationLSC166 LO Disconnected

They must not be dBm, must be dB

Quote:

Quote:

I temporarily disconnected the Heliax cable that brings the 166MHz LO to the LSC rack.

I'm doing a couple of measurement and I'll put it back in as soon as I'm done.

 These are the losses I measured on a RG-174 cable for the two frequencies that we're planning to use in the Upgrade:

@11MHz Loss=0.22dBm/meter

@55MHz Loss=0.41dBm/meter

(The cable was 2.07m long. The input signal was +10dBm and the output voltages at the oscilloscope where: Vpk-pk(11MHz)=1.90V, Vpk-pk(11MHz)=1.82V )

 

  2399   Fri Dec 11 14:19:22 2009 KojiConfigurationVACpumpdown has started

Wait, Wait, Wait. You are moving too fast. Go one by one.

Check the PZTs, the MC, initial pointings, IFO mirrors, some of the partial locks, and maybe some momentary full locks?
Once the recover of the IFO is declared, you can proceed to the measurements.

I hope the grad students can take this precious opportunity to have their fun time for restoring everything by themselves.

Quote:

 I'm leaving the lab now for less than 2 hours. I should be back in time for when the pumping is finished so that I can measure the finesse again.

 

  2408   Mon Dec 14 00:37:28 2009 KojiOmnistructureEnvironmentAnts in the coffee maker

I made a short stop at the 40m on Sunday night and found that hundreds ants are in the coffee maker.
I removed ants around the sink and washed the coffee maker.

It looked the ants were everywhere in the lab tonight. They seemed to prefer warm places like in the coffee maker and below the coffee mill.
So, I recommend that Steve should confirm there is no ants in the coffee maker again before the first coffee of the week is made.
Othewise they will add some more acidity to your cup.

 

  2411   Mon Dec 14 13:08:33 2009 KojiUpdateTreasureLOCKSTARS

Good job guys. What I did was saying "I don't know", "Maybe", and "Ants...".

Now you can proceed to measurements for the visibility and the cavity pole! 

Quote:

[Jenne, Kiwamu, Koji]

We got the IFO back up and running!  After all of our aligning, we even managed to get both arms locked simultaneously.  

  2416   Mon Dec 14 22:32:56 2009 KojiUpdateGeneralArm cavity loss ~ result

I like to ask someone to review the calculation on the wiki.

In the calculation, the round trip loss and the front mirror T are the unknown variables.
The end mirror T of 10ppm was assumed. (End mirror T)+(Round trip loss) is almost invariant, and T_end does not change the other results much.

Arm cavity loss measurement (Dec. 14, 2009)

X Arm:
  • Arm visibility (given): 0.897 +/- 0.005 (20 pts) (2.5%UP!!)
  • Cut off freq (given): 1616 +/- 14 [Hz] (2.1%UP!!)
  • Finesse (derived): 1206 +/- 10 (2.1%UP!!)
  • Round Trip loss (estimated): 127 +/- 6 [ppm] (28%DOWN!!)
  • Front Mirror T (estimated): 0.00506 +/- 0.00004
Y Arm:
  • Arm visibility (given): 0.893 +/- 0.004 (20 pts) (2.1%UP!!)
  • Cut off freq (given): 1590 +/- 4 [Hz] (8.2%UP!!)
  • Finesse (derived): 1220 +/- 3 (8.2%UP!!)
  • Round Trip loss (estimated): 131 +/- 6 [ppm] (37%DOWN!!)
  • Front Mirror T (estimated): 0.00500 +/- 0.00001 

Previous measurement (Oct 07, 2009 & Nov 10, 2009)

X Arm:  

  • Arm visibility (given): 0.875 +/- 0.005 (34 pts)
  • Cut off freq (given): 1650 +/- 70 [Hz]
     
  • Finesse (derived): 1181 +/- 50
  • Round Trip loss (estimated): 162 +/- 10 [ppm]
  • Front Mirror T (estimated): 0.0051 +/- 0.0002

Y Arm: 

  • Arm visibility (given): 0.869 +/- 0.006 (26 pts)
  • Cut off freq (given): 1720 +/- 70 [Hz]
     
  • Finesse (derived): 1128 +/- 46
  • Round Trip loss (estimated): 179 +/- 12 [ppm]
  • Front Mirror T (estimated): 0.0054 +/- 0.0002
  2419   Tue Dec 15 17:16:22 2009 KojiUpdateGeneralTable distance measurements

During the vent we have tried to measure the distances of the optical tables for BS-ITMX and BS-ITMY.
We need to take into account the difference between the AutoCAD drawing and the reality.

X direction distance of the table center for BS and ITMX:
84.086" (= 2135.8mm)
(This is 84.0000" in AutoCAD drawing)

Y direction distance of the table center for BS and ITMX:
83.9685" (= 2132.8mm)
(This is 83.5397" in AutoCAD drawing)

We used two scales attached each other in order to measure the distance of the certain holes on the tables.

We got more numbers that were estimated from several separated measurements.
I think they were not so accurate, but just as a record, I also put the figure as an attachment 2.

Attachment 1: Table_distance_by_metal_scale.pdf
Table_distance_by_metal_scale.pdf
Attachment 2: Table_distance_by_chambers.pdf
Table_distance_by_chambers.pdf
  2431   Fri Dec 18 15:40:33 2009 KojiUpdateIOOMC2 spot centered / MCT QPD issue

This afternoon I felt like saying hello to the input mode cleaner. So I decided to center the spot on MC2.

Motivation

MC has 6 alignment dofs. 4 of them are controlled by the WFSs. Remaining 2 appears at the spot position on MC2.
If the spot on the MC2 is fixed, the beam hits the same places of three mirrors. If the mirrors are completely fixed
in terms of the incident beam, I suppose the reflected beam is also fixed. This makes the WFS spots more stable.
Then I feel better.

Today's goal is to confirm the behaviour of MC such as dithering amplitude, response of the couplings to the alignment,
behavior of the WFS, and the transmitted power.


Method

1) Turned off MC auto locker. Turned off MC WFS as the WFS servos disturbs my work.
2) Dithered MC2 in Pitch and Yaw using DTT. There looks elliptic filter (fc=28Hz) in the ASC path, I used 20Hz-ish excitations.
- C1:SUS-MC2_ASCPIT_EXC 100cnt_pk@19Hz
- C1:SUS-MC2_ASCYAW_EXC 100cnt_pk@22Hz
3) Looked at C1:SUS-MC2_MCL_OUT to find the peaks at 19Hz and 22Hz. These are caused by alignment-length coupling.
If they are minimized I assume the spot is somehow centered on MC2.
Note: This may not be the true center. The suspension response should be investigated. But this is a certain reporoducible spot position.
Note: I should use ezcademod in order to obtain the phase information of the dither result.

4) Move MC2 Pitch for certain amount (0.01cnt) by the alignment slider. Align MC1/MC3 to have max transmittion.
5) If the Pitch peak got lower, the direction of 4) was right. Go further.
5') If the Pitch peak got higher, the direction of 4) was wrong. Go the other direction.

6) Repeat 4)&5) for Yaw.


Result

After the adjustment, the couplings got lower about 10 times. (Sorry! The explanation is not so scientific.)
Next time I (or someone) should make a script to do it and evaluate the coupling by the estimated distance of the spot from the center of the mirror (the center of the rotation).
I have not seen visible change in the spectrum of C1:SUS-MC2_MLC_OUT.


MCT QPD issue

By the spot centering, I could expected to see some improvement of the transmittion. But in reality, there was no change.
In fact, the transmittion power was getting down for those weeks.

I checked WFS and MCT paths. Eventually I found that a couple of possible problems:
1) MCT Total output varies more than 10% depending on the spot position on MCT QPD.
2) Just before the QPD, there is a ND1 filter.
This may suggest that:
a) Four elemtns of the MCT QPD have different responses.
b) The ND filter is causing a fringe.

So far I aligned the ND filter to face the beam. The reflection from the filter was blocked at a farther place.
Still the output varies on the spot position. Probably I have to look at the QPD someday.

So far the spot on the QPD was defined so that I get the maximum output from the QPD. This is about 8.8.
As I touched the steering mirrors, the X and Y outputs of the QPD are no longer any reference.

For now, I closed the PSL table. The full IFO was aligned.

  2432   Sat Dec 19 14:33:25 2009 KojiConfigurationComputersPDFlib lite / gnuplot 4.2.6 on Rosalba/Allegra

In order to enable 'set terminal pdf' in gnuplot on Rosalba/Allegra, I installed PDFlib lite and gnuplot v4.2.6. to them.
(PDFlib lite is required to build the pdf-available version of gnuplot)


Installation of PDFlib lite:

  • Building has been done at rosalba
  • Download the latest distribution of PDFlib lite from http://www.pdflib.com/products/pdflib-7-family/pdflib-lite/
  • Expand the archive. Go into the expanded directory
          tar zxvf PDFlib-Lite-7.0.4p4.tar.gz
          cd ./PDFlib-Lite-7.0.4p4
  • configure & make
          ./configure
          make
  • install the files to the system / configure the dinamic linker
          sudo make install
          sudo ldconfig

Installation of gnuplot:

  • Building has been done at rosalba
  • Download the latest distribution of gnuplot form http://www.gnuplot.info/
  • Expand the archive. Go into the expanded directory
          tar zxvf gnuplot-4.2.6.tar.gz
          cd ./gnuplot-4.2.6.tar.gz
  • configure & make
          ./configure --prefix=/cvs/cds/caltech/apps/linux/gnuplot
          make
          make install
  • Create symbolic links of the executable at
          /cvs/cds/caltech/apps/linux/bin
          /cvs/cds/caltech/apps/linux64/bin
  • Note: Although the original (non-PDF) gnuplot is still at
          /usr/bin/gnuplot
    new one is active because of the path setting
          rosalba:linux>which gnuplot
          /cvs/cds/caltech/apps/linux64/bin/gnuplot

 

  2433   Sun Dec 20 14:34:24 2009 KojiUpdateSUSETMY watchdog tripped Sunday 5:00AM local

It seemed that the ETMY watchdog tripped early Sunday morning.
The reason is not known. I just looked at ETMX, but it seemed fine.

I called the control room just in case someone is working on the IFO.
Also I did not see any elog entry to indicate on going work there.

So, I decided to reset the watchdog for ETMY. And it is working fine again.

Attachment 1: Y.png
Y.png
  2448   Wed Dec 23 16:34:25 2009 KojiUpdateIOOMCT QPD/MC REFL QPD disabled

For a certain investigation of the sum/diff module for MCT QPD/MC REFL QPD, I removed it from the system.

 

  2451   Thu Dec 24 19:13:29 2009 KojiUpdateIOOMCT QPD investigation

I found that MCT QPD has a dependence of the total output on the position of the spot. Since the QPD needs the supply and bias voltages from the sum/diff amp, I could not separate the problems of the QPD itself and the sum/diff amplifier by the investigation on Tuesday. On Wednesday, I investigated a generic quad photodiode interface module D990692.

...I was so disappointed. This circuit was left uninvestigated and used so long time with the following sorrowful conditions.
- This circuit has 4 unbuffered inputs with input impedance of 300~400 Ohm. It's way too low!
- Moreover, those channels have different input impedances. Ahhhh.
- Even worse, the QPD circuit D990272 has output impedance of 50 Ohm.
- The PCB of this circuit has four layers. It is quite difficult to make modifications of the signal route.
- It is a headache: this circuit is "generic" and used in many places.

D990692 has 4 channel inputs that are not buffered. Each channel has two high impedance buffers but they are used only for the monitors. The signal paths have no buffer.

The differential amplifier is formed by R=1k Ohm. The inverted side of the input has 1kOhm impedance. The non-inverted side has 1.5kOhm impedance.

CH1: 10K // 1.5k // 1.5k // 1k = 411 Ohm
CH2: 10K // 1.5k // 1k // 1k = 361 Ohm
CH3: 10K // 1k // 1k // 1k = 323 Ohm
CH4: 10K // 1k // 1.5k // 1k = 361 Ohm

Considering the output impedance of 50Ohm for the QPD, those too low input impedances result in the following effect:
- Because of the voltage division, we suffer absolute errors of 10.8~13.4%. This is huge.
- Because of the input impedance differences, we suffer a relative error of 1.5%~3%. This is also huge.

Unfortunately, the circuit has no room to modify; the signal paths are embedded in the internal layer.

I decided to replace the resistors of the sum/diff amps from 1k to 10k. Also the input impedance of the buffer was removed as the input is terminated by the sum/diff amps in any case.This changes the input inpedance to the followings:

CH1: 15k // 15k // 10k = 4286 Ohm
CH2: 15k // 10k // 10k = 3750 Ohm
CH3: 10k // 10k // 10k = 3333 Ohm
CH4: 10K // 15k // 10k = 3750 Ohm

These yield the absolute error of 1.2-1.5%. The relative error is now 0.3%. I can accept these numbers, but later I should put additional terminating resistors to compensate the differencies.

So far I have modified the resistors for the MCT as the modification for a QPD needs 17 10k resistors.
Next thing I have to check is the dependence of the QPD outputs on the spot positions.

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

Edit: Feb 11, 2010

I talked with Frank and he pointed out that the impedances are not the matter but the gains of the each channels are the matters (after considering the output impedance of the QPD channels).
If we assume the ideal voltage sources at the QPD and the symmetric output impedances of 50Ohm, the gain of the each circuit are affected but the change should be symmetric.

He found that several things:
- The analog switch (MAX333) used in the QPD unit adds more output impedance (somewhat randomly!).
- The resistance of the sum/diff circuits may vary each other unless we use 0.1% resistors.

 

Attachment 1: D990692.png
D990692.png
  2452   Sat Dec 26 19:22:13 2009 KojiSummaryGeneralMode coupling of two astigmatic beams

In this note, amplitude and power couplings of two astigmatic (0,0)-th order gaussian modes are calculated.

Attachment 1: mode_coupling.pdf
mode_coupling.pdf mode_coupling.pdf
  2455   Mon Dec 28 01:17:01 2009 KojiUpdateElectronicsMCT QPD investigation

Unfortunately, the signals for individual segments also suffer from the voltage drop as all of the low impedance amplifiers are hung from the same input.
In order to utilize the individual channels, we anyway have to remove the resistors for the VERT/HOR/SUM amps.
That is possible. But does it disable some fast channels for future ASC purposes?

 

Quote:

 This is indeed sad. But, we can perhaps bypass all of this by just using the individual segment outputs. According to the circuit diagram and the c1iool0 .db file, we should be able to just do the math on the segments and ignore the VERT/HOR/SUM signals completely. In that case, we can just use high impedance for the sum/diff buffers as Koji says and not suffer from the calibration errors at all I think.

 

  2458   Mon Dec 28 12:45:55 2009 KojiUpdateSUSMC2 is having a bad day

The MCL path of MC2 was in a strange state as the filters were activated as if it is in lock even though we had no lock. So I manually ran "mcdown". This reset the filters of the MCL path.

Quote:

MC2 is having a bad day, and I'm not yet sure why.  It's to do with the damping though.  When the damping is off, after a little while it will settle to ~30mV or so on the Watchdog screen.  When I enable all of the outputs and then turn on the damping, the optic gets kicked up.  It's like there's a minus sign error somewhere, maybe in a bad burtrestore?  This has been going on since I did my morning bootfest.

It's started to sit down and play nicely now.  Is someone doing magic remotely that is fixing things that I hadn't figured out yet?

 

  2481   Wed Jan 6 03:44:41 2010 KojiConfigurationIOOElusive Mode Matching Solution found!

I am in the way to get a reasonable optical layout.
Please calculate the final results with the following conditions.

"Result" =
- mode overlapping with astigmatism
- alignment matrix (m/rad, rad/rad) for Pitch and Yaw
- alignment orthogonality
- sensitivity of the mode overlapping to the perturbations
  * histgram
  * individual scan of the optic positions

Optics chain: MC3 - SM1(flat) - MMT1(f=-5m) - MMT2(f=+8m) - SM2(flat) - PRM

Incident angles: SM1 24deg, MMT1 3deg, MMT2 1deg, SM2 44.5deg

Distances:
MC3 HR - SM1: 884mm
SM1 - MMT1: 1058.2mm
MMT1 - MMT2: 1890mm
MMT2 - SM2: 2007.9mm
SM2 - PRM HR: 495.6mm

It has ~200mm deviation from the solution. I can move only MMT1 for final optimization.
Give us the numbers if it can improve the performance.
Note that this move changes SM1-MMT1 and MMT1-MMT2 simultaneously.

Quote:

I think I have finally found a Mode Matching solution for our new Input Mode Matching Telescope!  And after looking at the layout diagram with Koji and Raffaele, it seems like all of the optics will fit into the chambers / onto the tables (not true as of last week). 

3. RoCMMT1 is -5m
   RoCMMT2 is 8m,
   with the MMTs 1.89m apart.
   This is a 1.6x telescope.
   MMT2 is 2.2641m from the PRM
   MMT1 is 2m from MC3.
   The Condition Number for this optical chain is 89219047.5781.

This layout is very similar to the one that Koji posted on the wiki yesterday:  Upgrade09/Optical Layout.  The difference is that I want to move MMT1 ~20cm closer to the MC13 table, so just on the other side of the main red beam that goes directly to PRM.  There is plenty of space there, so it should be all good.  The tricky bit is that the flat steering mirrors fit into things now while they are piezos, but they will be trickier to fit if we make them into Tip Tilts.  But I have full faith in Koji's amazing optical table layout skills, that he can make it happen. 

Unless there are major objections, I think this is the MMT that we're going to go with. (So speak now or forever hold your peace.)  The angle between tilt and translation isn't quite what we'd like it to be (at ~18deg), but it's not too terrible.  And we still have 99.5% overlap which is very important.

 

  2495   Sun Jan 10 15:47:26 2010 KojiUpdateSUStransfer function measurement of the quadrant maglev circuit

1. Why do all of the BNCs have no GND connection? Each should have the individual cables to the ground. Each signal line and the corresponding ground line should be twisted together.

2. This looks the (usual) oscillation of the V-I conversion stage but I can't tell anything as I don't have the circuit diagram of the whole circuit.

3. In a certain case, putting some capacitance at the feedback may help. Read P.11 of the data sheet of LT1125. Try to put some capacitors from 20pF to some larger one whether it changes the situation or not. I suppose the bandwidth of your sensor can be ~1kHz. So putting a capacitance less than 10nF still has no effect to the servo.

  2498   Sun Jan 10 17:15:25 2010 KojiUpdateSUStransfer function measurement of the quadrant maglev circuit

1. Yes. That is the bad. You should eventually replace the BNCs to the isolated ones.

2. OK. I like to emphasize again that everyone works on electronics should read data sheets more carefully and seriously because they have many important practical instructions to exploit full performance of the components. 

Quote:

Quote:

1. Why do all of the BNCs have no GND connection? Each should have the individual cables to the ground. Each signal line and the corresponding ground line should be twisted together.

2. This looks the (usual) oscillation of the V-I conversion stage but I can't tell anything as I don't have the circuit diagram of the whole circuit.

3. In a certain case, putting some capacitance at the feedback may help. Read P.11 of the data sheet of LT1125. Try to put some capacitors from 20pF to some larger one whether it changes the situation or not. I suppose the bandwidth of your sensor can be ~1kHz. So putting a capacitance less than 10nF still has no effect to the servo.

 1. They are all connected to the box which has a single connection to the board ground. If I connect each of them to the ground, there would be many small loops

of ground. Of course, I should have replaced all the connectors such that the they are disconnected to the box as point out by Robert.

2. The oscillation disappears after I add 5 nF capacitor in parallel to the existing resistor. Thank you very much for pointing this out.

 

  2526   Tue Jan 19 02:40:38 2010 KojiUpdateElectronicstriple resonant circuit for EOM

The design looks very good. I have some questions.

1. As far as I remember, you've got the gain of slightly worse than 10 for a 55MHz single resonant case. Why your expectation of the gain (G=11) for the highest resonance better than this?

Supposing the loss exists only on the EOM, the other part of the LC network for the triple work as an inductor at the resonant frequency. This is just equivalent as the single resonant case. So the expected gain at 55MHz should coincides with what we already have. Probably, the resistance of 4 Ohm that is used here had too rough precision???

2. How can you adjust the resonances precisely?

Do we need any variable components for Cs and Ls, that may have worse quality than the fixed one, generally speaking.
I myself has no experience that I had to tune the commercial EOM because of a drift or whatever. I hope if you can adjust the resonance with a fixed component it should be fine.

3. Changing Cp. What does it mean?

Do you put additional cap for Cp?

4. The resonances for the lower two look very narrow. Is that fine?

This will show up in a better shape if we look at the transfer function for the gain. Is this right?

If we have BW>100kHz, it is sufficient.

5. Impedance matching for the lower two resonances.

Yep. You know this problem already.

 

  2527   Tue Jan 19 03:04:14 2010 KojiUpdateElectronicstriple resonant circuit for EOM

Self-follow:

I got the answer of Q3 from the follow-up entry.

For Q4, once you get the impedance of the LC network lower than n^2*50, the EOM gain will be quite low. This means that the resonance is anyway narrow.
I did some simple calculation and it shows that the width of the resonance will be 100kHz~500kHz. So it maybe OK.

Quote:

The design looks very good. I have some questions.

1. As far as I remember, you've got the gain of slightly worse than 10 for a 55MHz single resonant case. Why your expectation of the gain (G=11) for the highest resonance better than this?

Supposing the loss exists only on the EOM, the other part of the LC network for the triple work as an inductor at the resonant frequency. This is just equivalent as the single resonant case. So the expected gain at 55MHz should coincides with what we already have. Probably, the resistance of 4 Ohm that is used here had too rough precision???

2. How can you adjust the resonances precisely?

Do we need any variable components for Cs and Ls, that may have worse quality than the fixed one, generally speaking.
I myself has no experience that I had to tune the commercial EOM because of a drift or whatever. I hope if you can adjust the resonance with a fixed component it should be fine.

3. Changing Cp. What does it mean?

Do you put additional cap for Cp?

4. The resonances for the lower two look very narrow. Is that fine?

This will show up in a better shape if we look at the transfer function for the gain. Is this right?

If we have BW>100kHz, it is sufficient.

5. Impedance matching for the lower two resonances.

Yep. You know this problem already. 

 

  2528   Tue Jan 19 03:20:28 2010 KojiUpdateElectronicsdesign complete --- triple resonant circuit for EOM ---

First I was confused, but now I think I understood.

My confusion:
If the k get bigger, L get smaller, C get bigger. This makes R(L) smaller and R(C) smaller. This sounds very nice. But why smaller k is preferable in the Kiwamu's result?

Explanation:
The resultant impedance of the network at a resonance is determined by Zres = L/(R C) or something like that. Here R = R(L)+R(C). (I hope this is right.)

Here larger Zres is preferable. So smaller R is nice.

But If the speed of reduction for R is slower than that of L/C (which is proportional to k^-2), increasing k does not help us to increase of Zres. And that's the case.

This means "if we can put the LC network in the box of EOM, we can do better job!" as we can reduce Cp.

Quote:

scaling.png


   Loss for Capacitor :  R(C) = 0.5 (C / 10pF)^{-0.3} Ohm

   Loss for Inductor :    R(L) = 0.1 ( L / 1uH) Ohm

  2535   Thu Jan 21 10:09:27 2010 KojiSummaryIOOPhotos of the optical tables

I made a wiki page dedicated for the photos of the optical tables.
The current layouts were uploaded.

http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Optical_Tables

  2536   Thu Jan 21 10:31:13 2010 KojiUpdateABSLSome preliminary results from measuring PRC's transmissivity for an amplitude modulated beam

Nice and interesting plot.

I suppose slight decrease of the Schnupp asymmetry (in your model) adjusts the discrepancy in the high freq region.
At the same time, it will make the resonance narrower. So you need to put some loss at the recombination (=on the BS)?

...of course these depends on the flatness of the calibration.

  2559   Tue Feb 2 13:14:09 2010 KojiHowToIOOAnatomy of New Focus Resonant EOM

Joe let me use the resonant EOM for GigE phase camera for a while.
Then, I immediately started to open it :)

it uses the MiniCIrcuits T5-1T transformer and a TOKO RCL variable inductor.

The photos are on the Picasa 40m album.

http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/40m_Pictures

  2564   Wed Feb 3 01:17:19 2010 KojiUpdatePSLIFO isn't playing nice tonight

I checked the situation from my home and the problem was solved.

The main problem was undefined state of the autolocker and the strange undefined switch states, being associated with the bootfest and burtrestore.

- MC UP/DOWN status shows it was up and down. So I ran scripts/MC/mcup and scripts/MC/mcdown. These cleared the MC autolocker status.

- I had a problem handling the FSS. After mcup/mcdown above, I randomly pushed the "enable/disable" buttons and others, and with some reason, it recovered the handling. Actually it acquired the lock autonomously. Kiwamu may have also been working on it at the same time???

- Then, I checked the PSL loop. I disconnected the loop by pushing the "test" button. The DC slider changes the PZT voltage only 0~+24V. This is totally strange and I started pushing the buttons randomly. As soon as I pushed the  "BLANK"/"NORMAL" button, the PZT output got back under the control.

- Then I locked the PMC, MZ, and MC as usual.

Alberto: You must be careful as the modulations were restored.

Quote:

[Jenne, Kiwamu]

It's been an iffy last few hours here at the 40m.  Kiwamu, Koji and I were all sitting at our desks, and the computers / RFM network decided to crash.  We brought all of the computers back, but now the RefCav and PMC don't want to lock.  I'm a wee bit confused by this.  Both Kiwamu and I have given it a shot, and we can each get the ref cav to sit and flash, but we can't catch it.  Also, when I bring the PMC slider rail to rail, we see no change in the PMC refl camera.  Since c1psl had been finicky coming back the first time, I tried soft rebooting, and then keying the crate again, but the symptoms remained the same.  Also, I tried burt restoring to several different times in the last few days, to see if that helped.  It didn't.  I did notice that MC2 was unhappy, which was a result of the burtrestores setting the MCL filters as if the cavity were locked, so I manually ran mcdown.  Also, the MC autolocker script had died, so Kiwamu brought it back to life.

Since we've spent an hour on trying to relock the PSL cavities (the descriptive word I'm going to suggest for us is persistent, not losers), we're giving up in favor of waiting for expert advice in the morning.  I suppose there's something obvious that we're missing, but we haven't found it yet......

 

ELOG V3.1.3-