40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 72 of 341  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  14319   Mon Nov 26 17:16:27 2018 gautamUpdateSUSEY chamber work

[steve, rana, gautam]

  • PSL and EY 1064nm laser (physical) shutters on the head were closed so that we and sundance crew could work without laser safety goggles. EY oplev laser was also turned off.
  • Cylindrical heater setup removed:
    • heater wiring meant the heater itself couldn't be easily removed from the chamber
    • two lenses and Al foil cylinder removed from chamber, now placed on the mini-cleanroom table.
  • Parabolic heater is untouched for now. We can re-insert it once the test mass is back in, so that we can be better informed about the clipping situation.
  • ETMY removed from chamber.
    • EQ stops were engaged.
    • Pictures were taken
    • OSEMs were removed from cage, placed in foil holders.
    • Cage clamps were removed after checking that marker clamps were in place.
    • Optic was moved first to NW corner of table, then out of the vacuum onto the mini-cleanroom desk Chub and I had setup last week.
    • Hoepfully there isn't an earthquake. EY has been marked as off-limits to avoid accidental bumping / catasrophic wire/magnet/optic breaking.
    • We sealed up the mini cleanroom with tape. F.C. cleaning tomorrow or at another opportune moment.
    • Light door was put back on for the evening.

Rana pointed out that the OSEM cabling, because of lack of a plastic shielding, is grounded directly to the table on which it is resting. A glass baking dish at the base of the seismic stack prevents electrical shorting to the chamber. However, there are some LEMO/BNC cables as well on the east side of the stack, whose BNC ends are just lying on the base of the stack. We should use this opportunity to think about whether anything needs to be done / what the influence of this kind of grounding is (if any) on actuator noise.

Steve also pointed out that we should replace the rubber pads which the vacuum chamber is resting on (Attachment #1, not from this vent, but just to indicate what's what). These serve the purpose of relieving small amounts of strain the chamber may experience relative to the beam tube, thus helping preserve the vacuum joints b/w chamber and tube. But after (~20?) years of being under compression, Steve thinks that the rubber no longer has any elasticity, and so should be replaced.

Attachment 1: IMG_5251.JPG
IMG_5251.JPG
  14413   Wed Jan 23 12:39:18 2019 gautamUpdateSUSEY chamber work

While Chub is making new cables for the EY satellite box...

  1. I removed the unused optic on the NW corner of the EY table. It is stored in a clean Al-foil lined plastic box, and will be moved to the clean hardware section of the lab (along the South arm, south of MC2 chamber).
  2. Checked table leveling - Attachment #1, looked good, and has been stable over the weekend.
  3. I moved the two oversized washers on the reflector, which I believe are only used because the screw is long and wouldn't go in all the way otherwise. As shown in Attachment #2, this reduces the risk of clipping the main IFO beam axis.
  4. Yesterday, I pulled up the 40m CAD drawing, and played around with a rectangular box that approximates the extents of the elliptical reflector, to see what would be a good place to put it. I chose to go ahead with Attachment #3. Also shown is the eventually realized layout. Note that we'd actually like the dimension marked ~7.6 inches to be more like 7.1 inches, so the optic is actually ~0.5 inch ahead of the second focus of the ellipse, but I think this is good enough. 
  5. Attachment #4 shows the view of the optic as seen from the aperture on the back of the elliptical reflector. Looks good to me.
  6. Having positioned the reflector, I then inserted the heater into the aperture such that it is ~2/3rds the way in, which was the best position found by Annalisa last summer. I then ran 0.9 A of current through the heater for ~ 5 minutes. Attachment #5 shows the optic as seen with the FLIR with no heating, and after 5 minutes of heating. I'd say this is pretty unambiguous evidence that we are indeed heating the mirror. The gradient shown is significantly less pronounced than in Annalisa's simulations (~3K as opposed to 10K), but maybe the FLIR calibration isn't so great.
  7. For completeness, Attachment #6 shows the leveling of the table after this work. Nothing has chanegd significantly.

While the position of the reflector could possibly be optimized further, since we are already seeing a temperature gradient on the optic, I propose pushing on with other vent activities. I'm almost certain the current positioning places the optic closer to the second focus, and we already saw shifts of the HOM resonances with the old configuration, so I'd say we run with this and revisit if needed.

If Chub gives the Sat. Box the green flag, we will work on F.C.ing the mirrors in the evening, with the aim of closing up tomorrow/Friday. 

All raw images in this elog have been uploaded to the 40m google photos.

Attachment 1: leveling.pdf
leveling.pdf
Attachment 2: IMG_5930.jpg
IMG_5930.jpg
Attachment 3: Ellipse_layout.pdf
Ellipse_layout.pdf
Attachment 4: IMG_5932.jpg
IMG_5932.jpg
Attachment 5: hotMirror.pdf
hotMirror.pdf
Attachment 6: EY_leveling_after.pdf
EY_leveling_after.pdf
  14399   Tue Jan 15 10:52:38 2019 gautamUpdateSUSEY door opened

[chub, bob, gautam]

We took the heavy door off the EY chamber at ~930am.

Chamber work:

  • ETMY suspension cage was returned to its nominal position.
  • Unused hardware from the annular heater setup was removed.
  • The unused heater had its leads snipped close to the heater crimp point, and the exposed part of the bare wires was covered with Kapton tape (we should remove the source leads as well in air to avoid any accidental shorting)

Waiting for the table to level off now. Plan for later today / tomorrow is as follows:

  1. Lock the Y arm, recover good cavity alignment.
  2. Position parabolic heater such that clipping issue is resolved.
  3. Move optic to edge of table for FC cleaning
  4. Clean optic
  5. Return suspension cage to nominal position.
  14401   Tue Jan 15 15:49:47 2019 gautamUpdateSUSEY door opened

While restoring OSEMs on ETMY, I noticed that the open voltages for the UR and LL OSEMs had significantly (>30%) changed from their values from ~2 years ago. The fact that it only occurred in 2 coils seemed to rule out gradual wear and tear, so I looked up the trends from Nov 25 - Nov 28 (Sundance visited on Nov 26 which is when we removed the cage). Not surprisingly, these are the exact two OSEMs that show a decrease in sensor voltage when the OSEMs were pulled out. I suspect that when I placed them in their little Al foil boats, I shorted out some contacts on the rear (this is reminiscent of the problem we had on PRM in 2016). I hope the problem is with the current buffer IC in the satellite box and not the physical diode, I'll test with the tester box and evaluate the problem further.


Chamber work by Chub and gautam:

  1. Table leveling was checked with a clean spirit level
    • Leveling was substantially off in two orthogonal directions, along the beam axis as well as perpendicular to it.
    • We moved almost all the weights available on the table.
    • Managed to get the leveling correct to within 1 tick on the level.
    • We are not too worried about this for now, the final leveling will be after heater repositioning, ETMY cleaning etc.
  2. ETMY OSEM re-insertion
    • OSEMs were re-inserted till their mean voltage was ~ half the open values.
    • Local damping seems to work just fine.
Attachment 1: EY_OSEMs.png
EY_OSEMs.png
  14314   Wed Nov 21 16:48:11 2018 gautamUpdateCOCEY mini cleanroom setup

With Chub's help, I've setup a mini cleanroom at EY - Attachment #1. The HEPA unit is running on high now. All surfaces were wiped with isopropanol, we can wipe everything down again on Monday and replace the foil.

Attachment 1: IMG_7174.JPG
IMG_7174.JPG
  14835   Tue Aug 6 23:09:20 2019 gautamUpdateALSEY table work
  • Removed power monitoring PD (It was off anyways)
  • Installed Steering mirror and collimator in K6XS mount (fast axis = p-pol to best effort by eye)
  • Installed lens mounts in approx position
  • Cleaned fiber at EY and connected to the collimator
  • Coupled EY--->PSL and spare PSL-->EY fibers together at the PSL table to facilitate coupling.
  • tbc tomorrow...
Quote:

Couple IR light into fiber with good MM at EY

  15059   Mon Dec 2 18:20:29 2019 gautamUpdateALSEY uPDH post mixer LPF

As part of characterization, I wanted to calibrate the EY uPDH error point monitor into units of Hz. So I thought I'd measure the PDH horn-to-horn voltage with the cable to the laser PZT disconnected. However, I saw no clean PDH fringe while monitoring the signal after the LPF that is immediately downstream of the mixer IF output. I then decided to measure the low pass filter OLTF, and found that it seems to have some complex poles (f0~57kHz, Q~5), that amplify the signal by ~x6 relative to the DC level before beginning to roll-off (see Attachment #1). Is this the desired filter shape? Can't find anything in the elog/wiki about such a filter shape being implemented...

The actual OLTF looks alright to me though, see Attachment #2.

Attachment 1: EY_uPDH_LPF.pdf
EY_uPDH_LPF.pdf
Attachment 2: EY_uPDH_OLTF.pdf
EY_uPDH_OLTF.pdf
  15060   Mon Dec 2 20:18:18 2019 ranaUpdateALSEY uPDH post mixer LPF

                   filter Q seems too high,

but what precisely is the proper way to design the IF filter?

   seems like we should be able to do it using math instead of feelins

                              Izumi made this one so maybe he has an algorythym

  15063   Tue Dec 3 00:10:15 2019 KojiUpdateALSEY uPDH post mixer LPF

I got confused. Why don't we see that too-high-Q pole in the OLTF? 

  15064   Tue Dec 3 00:51:25 2019 gautamUpdateALSEY uPDH post mixer LPF

I'm not sure - maybe it was measurement error on my part, I will double check. Moreover, the EX and EY boxes don't seem to use identical designs, if one believes the schematics drawn on the Pomona boxes. The EY design has a 50ohm input impedance in the stopband, whereas the EX doesn't. Maybe the latter needs a Tee + 50ohm terminator at the input?

Judging by the schematics, the servo inputs to both boxes are driving the non-inverting input of an opamp, so they see high-Z.

Quote:

I got confused. Why don't we see that too-high-Q pole in the OLTF?

  15066   Tue Dec 3 18:15:42 2019 gautamUpdateALSEY uPDH post mixer LPF

Rana and I discussed this alogrythym a bit today - here are some bullet points, I'll work on preparing a notebook. We are still talking about a post-mixer low pass filter.

  • We want to filter out the 2f component - attenuation relative to the 1f content and be well below the slew-rate of the first post-mixer opamp (OP27).
  • We don't want to lose much phase due to the corner of the LPF, so that we can have a somewhat high UGF - let's shoot for 30kHz.
  • What should the order of the filter be such that we achieve these goals?
  • We will use a numerical optimization routine, that makes a filter that has
    • yy dB attenuation at high frequencies
    • sufficient stability margin
    • sufficiently small phase lag at 30 kHz so that we can realize ~30kHz UGF with the existing servo electronics.
Quote:

                   filter Q seems too high,

but what precisely is the proper way to design the IF filter?

   seems like we should be able to do it using math instead of feelins

                              Izumi made this one so maybe he has an algorythym

  15068   Tue Dec 3 21:28:24 2019 gautamUpdateALSEY uPDH post mixer LPF

Here are some loop transfer functions. I basically followed the decomposition of the end PDH loop as was done in the multi-color metrology paper. There is no post-mixer low pass filter at the moment (in my model), but already you can see that the top of the phase bubble is at ~10 kHz. Probably there is still sufficient phase available at 30 kHz, even after we add an LPF. In any case, I'll use this model and set up a cost function minimization problem and see what comes out of it. For the PZT discriminant, I used 5 MHz/V, and for the PDH discriminant, I used 40 uV/Hz, which are numbers that should be close to what's the reality at EY.

(i) Note that there could be some uncertainty in the overall gain (VGA stage in the servo).

(ii) For the cavity pole, I assumed the single pole response, which Rana points out isn't really valid at ~1 MHz, which is close to the next FSR

(ii) The PZT response is approximated as a simple LPF whereas there are likely to be several sharp features which may add/eat phase. 

Quote:

 I'll work on preparing a notebook.

Attachment 1: uPDH.pdf
uPDH.pdf
  7958   Tue Jan 29 20:28:11 2013 ericqUpdateGeneralEarly work on Mirror Mounts

 [Q, Chloe]

Chloe has been to the lab twice to start up her investigations in acoustic noise coupling to mirrors. The general idea for the setup is a HeNe laser bouncing off a mirror and onto a QPD, whose signal provides a measure of beam displacement noise. The mirror will be mounted and excited in various ways to make quantitative conclusions about the quality of different mounting schemes.

We have set up the laser+mirror+QPD on the SP table, and collected data via SR560s->SR785, with the main aim of evaluating the suitability of this setup. The data we collected is not calibrated to any meaningful units (yet). For now, we are just using QPD volts.

Chloe collected data of vertical displacement noise for the following schemes: Terminated SR785 input, Terminated SR560 inputs, Laser centered directly onto the QPD, Laser shining on mirror centered on QPD, laser/mirror/qpd with some small desktop speakers producing white noise from http://www.simplynoise.com. Data shown below. 

early.pdf

 

 

  7960   Wed Jan 30 03:01:55 2013 KojiUpdateGeneralEarly work on Mirror Mounts

I can't believe that SR785 can have such a low input noise level (<1nV/rtHz). Review your calibration again.

It is also described in the manual that SR560 typically has the input noise level of 4nV/rtHz, although this number depends on which gain you use.

  7830   Fri Dec 14 03:49:02 2012 AyakaUpdateGeneralEarthquake

There was an earthquake around 2:30 am. Now all the mirrors except SRM are damped.

earthquake.pngseis.pdf

  6524   Thu Apr 12 00:16:38 2012 JenneUpdateEnvironmentEarthquake - moderate

 


M4.7 - Santa Isabel, Mexico 2012-04-12 06:48:38 UTC

Mode Cleaner doesn't want to stay locked.  Seismic is coming down from an earthquake ~20min ago.  

We're in the process of measuring IPPOS, so this is obnoxious.

EDIT:  Followed by a 6.2 and a 7.1 at 07:06UTC and 07:15UTC in the same area.

We're following the tried and true tradition of going home when there's an earthquake big enough that the MC won't stay locked.

Several optics have rung up, PRM is the only one which has tripped so far, because the side sensor has the extra gain, but the watchdog threshold is set for the face OSEMs.

  7229   Sun Aug 19 01:41:27 2012 MashaUpdatePEMEarthquake Classified

There was a 5.6 Earthquake that occurred near Tofino, Canada about 30 minutes ago. It showed up rather strongly on the BLRMS.

The neural network classification system also picked up on it, but oscillated from Earthquake (1.0) to Quiet (0.5) perhaps due to the filters we currently have installed. Here is a shot of the GUR1X classification channel at the time of the EQ:

 Earthquake_Found.png

  1218   Thu Jan 8 20:26:17 2009 robOmnistructureGeneralEarthquake in San Bernardino
Magnitude 4.5
Date-Time

* Friday, January 09, 2009 at 03:49:46 UTC
* Thursday, January 08, 2009 at 07:49:46 PM at epicenter

Location 34.113N, 117.294W
Depth 13.8 km (8.6 miles)
Region GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
Distances

* 2 km (1 miles) S (183) from San Bernardino, CA
* 6 km (4 miles) NNE (25) from Colton, CA
* 8 km (5 miles) E (89) from Rialto, CA
* 88 km (55 miles) E (86) from Los Angeles Civic Center, CA

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 0.3 km (0.2 miles); depth +/- 0.8 km (0.5 miles)
Parameters Nph=142, Dmin=1 km, Rmss=0.38 sec, Gp= 14,
M-type=moment magnitude (Mw), Version=Q

I felt it from home.

All the watchdogs are tripped, vacuum normal. It looks like all the OSEM sensor values are swinging, so presumably no broken magnets. I'm leaving the suspensions off so we can take fine-res spectra overnight.

Watchout for crappy cables coming loose.
  14724   Thu Jul 4 10:47:37 2019 MilindUpdateGeneralEarthquake now

There was a magnitude 6.6 earthquake just a few minutes ago. I am attaching photographs of the monitor feeds for reference here. Is there a standard protocol to be followed in this situation? I'm looking through the wiki now.

Further, the IMC seems to be misaligned and is not locking! cryingcrying As Koji has let me know, I really hope this is not too serious and can be fixed easily.

Attachment 1: after_earthquake2.jpg
after_earthquake2.jpg
Attachment 2: after_earthquake.jpg
after_earthquake.jpg
  5209   Fri Aug 12 15:46:51 2011 JenneUpdateSUSEarthquake stop procedure

According to Rana, the following is the "new" (should always have been used, but now we're going to enforce it) earthquake stop backing-off procedure:

1. Back all EQ stops away from the optic, so that it is fully free-swinging.

2. Confirm on dataviewer that the optic is truely free-swinging.

3. One at a time, slowly move the EQ stop in until it barely touches the optic.  Watch dataviewer during this procedure - as soon as the time series of the OSEMs gets a 'kink', you've just barely touched the optic.

4. Back the EQ stop off by the calculated number of turns.  No inspections, no creativity, just math.  Each EQ stop should be between 1.5m and 2.0mm away from the optic.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 for each EQ stop.

Note: The amount that you need to turn the screws depends on what the threads are.

FACE and TOP stops are all 1/4-20, so 1.5 turns is 1.90mm

BOTTOM stops are either #4-40 or #6-32 (depending on the suspension tower).  If #4-40, 3 turns is 1.90mm.  If #6-32, 2.5 turns is 1.98mm

  323   Tue Feb 19 15:21:47 2008 AndreyUpdateSUSEarthquake tripped watchdogs in ETMY, ITMY

According to the web-page http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsus/Quakes/ci14351140.php ,

there was a 5.0 earthquake in northern Baja California in Mexico at 02.41PM earlier today.

This earthquake made an effect on our watchdogs for ETMY and ITMY (their currents exceeded maximal values).
Watchdogs for ITMY are now restored back,
and it is taking more time for a "side degree" for ETMY to calm down,
it is still (40 minutes after the kick) swinging a lot with amplitude ~ 200mV.
  2675   Tue Mar 16 04:22:02 2010 JenneUpdateEnvironmentEarthquake, Mag 4.4

Earthquake Details

Magnitude 4.4
Date-Time
  • Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 11:04:00 UTC
  • Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 04:04:00 AM at epicenter
Location 33.998°N, 118.072°W
Depth 18 km (11.2 miles)
Region GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
Distances
  • 2 km (1 miles) ENE (58°) from Pico Rivera, CA
  • 4 km (3 miles) ESE (115°) from Montebello, CA
  • 4 km (3 miles) SSW (207°) from Whittier Narrows Rec. Area, CA
  • 9 km (5 miles) NE (39°) from Downey, CA
  • 9 km (6 miles) SSW (206°) from El Monte, CA
  • 17 km (11 miles) ESE (112°) from Los Angeles Civic Center, CA
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 0.4 km (0.2 miles); depth +/- 0.9 km (0.6 miles)
Parameters Nph=122, Dmin=5 km, Rmss=0.37 sec, Gp= 25°,
M-type=local magnitude (ML), Version=2
Source
Event ID

ci14601172

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

MC1 and MC3 seem to have kept themselves together, but all the other optics' watchdogs tripped.

Attachment 1: EQ_16Mar2010.png
EQ_16Mar2010.png
  2676   Tue Mar 16 05:10:39 2010 kojiUpdateEnvironmentEarthquake, Mag 4.4

Some of the suspensions got watchdog tripped -> enabled -> damped.

The MC mirrors got slightly misaligned.

 

Attachment 1: 100316_MC_SUS.png
100316_MC_SUS.png
  8271   Mon Mar 11 17:18:00 2013 ManasaUpdateEnvironmentEarthquake: Suspensions tripped and MC realigned

I found all suspensions including the MC suspensions tripped this morning after the earthquake.

I damped all the optics and realigned MC mirrors to lock at refl 0.57.

PRM and SRM tripped a couple of times due to the aftershocks that followed; but were damped eventually.

  13275   Wed Aug 30 15:00:06 2017 gautamUpdateGeneralEdgeswitch fiber swap

A couple of minutes ago, Larry W swapped the fibers to our 40m Edgeswitch (BROCADE FWS 648G) to a faster connection. This is the switch to which our gateway machine, NODUS, is connected. The actual swap itself happened at the core router in Bridge, and took only a few seconds. After the switch, I double checked that I was able to ssh into nodus from my laptop, and Larry informed me that everything is working as expected on his end.

Larry also tells us that the other edgeswitch at the 40m (Foundry Networks), to which most of our GC network machines are connected, is a 100MBPS switch, and so we should re-route the connections from this switch to the BROCADE switch at our convenience to take advantage of the faster connection.

  1487   Wed Apr 15 17:11:37 2009 JenneUpdatePSLEdited c1psl.db to calibrate PMC's LO mon


Following the method in Peter's Elog, 

I edited c1psl.db to include the following: 


grecord(calc, "C1:PSL-PMC_LOCALC")
{
        field(INPB,"C1:PSL-PMC_LODET")
        field(SCAN,".1 second")
        field(PREC,"4")
        field(CALC,".955*LOGE(B)-17.11")
}

 

I restarted c1psl (had to go hit the physical reset button since it didn't come back after telnet-ing and "reboot"ing) to make this take effect.

Next step is to tell the PMC screen to look at this _LOCALC rather than _LODET, and the screen will be calibrated into dBm. 

Right now, the screen is as it always has been, because after relooking at the calibration, I no longer believe it.  This calibration claimes -19dBm for an LOmon value of 0.1200, when I actually measured +16dBm for this LOmon value.  So I've screwed something up in doing my MatLAB calibration.  I'll fix it tomorrow, and put in the correct calibration before I change the PMC screen.

 

RefCav, PMC, MC are all back and locked after my shenanigans. 

  1488   Thu Apr 16 11:17:56 2009 JenneUpdatePSLEdited c1psl.db to calibrate PMC's LO mon

Quote:

I edited c1psl.db to include the following: 


grecord(calc, "C1:PSL-PMC_LOCALC")
{
        field(INPB,"C1:PSL-PMC_LODET")
        field(SCAN,".1 second")
        field(PREC,"4")
        field(CALC,".955*LOGE(B)-17.11")
}

 

 As it turns out, I apparently can't tell X from Y when fitting a function in a rush.  The real calibration stuff which is now in c1psl.db is:

 

 

grecord(calc, "C1:PSL-PMC_LOCALC")
{
        field(INPB,"C1:PSL-PMC_LODET")
        field(SCAN,".1 second")
        field(PREC,"4")
        field(CALC,"1.004*LOGE(B)+17.76")
}

I restarted c1psl (again, had to go hit the physical reset button since it didn't come back after a telnet-reboot) to have it take in the changes.  The psl.db file that was in place before yesterday (before I touched it) is saved as psl.db.15Apr2009 just in case.

I edited the PMC EPICS screen to have the LO mon look at C1:PSL-PMC_LOCALC, which is the calibrated channel in dBm.  I also stuck a little label on the screen saying what units it's in, because everyone likes to know what units they're looking at.
  664   Sun Jul 13 22:39:16 2008 JohnSummaryGeneralEdited medm screens
I've edited the FSS and PMC screens so that red boxes are shown around the appropriate slider if a gain or offset is not within the limits defined in C1PSL_SETTINGS_SET.adl

With the current setting of 0 V the FSS input offset is red. According to the settings screen the nominal value is 0.3 +/- 0.050. Are there any objections to editing the nominal value?

I changed the LockMC screen so that red boxes are not shown when the up/down scripts are not running; when they are active you should see a green box.
  5565   Wed Sep 28 14:15:40 2011 JenneUpdateComputersEdits to c1pem, c1oaf

[Mirko, Jenne]

Mirko edited c1pem to have some new BLRMS channels.

I added a master Enable switch to the c1oaf.

Both were compiled, and restarted.  fb rebooted.  All looks okay (hopefully)

  9537   Wed Jan 8 13:01:48 2014 GabrieleSummaryLSCEffect of PRC length mismatch on error signals

I ran a simulation of a double cavity with a PRC length mismatched w.r.t. the modulation frequency. I summarized the results in the attached PDF. I think it would be important to have a cross check of the results.

In brief:

A mismatch between PRC length and modulation frequency do have an effect on error signals

Multiple zeros appear in REFL_3f/PRCL that can be removed by careful tuning of the demodulation phase (however, the shape of the signal makes difficult to understand which phase is good…)

No visible effect on REFL_1f/CARM

But a large PRCL signal appears in REFL_1f_I, which is used to control CARM. This is not good.

A mismatch of the order of 0.5 cm has a small effect.

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 1: REFL_vs_PRClength.pdf
REFL_vs_PRClength.pdf REFL_vs_PRClength.pdf REFL_vs_PRClength.pdf REFL_vs_PRClength.pdf REFL_vs_PRClength.pdf REFL_vs_PRClength.pdf REFL_vs_PRClength.pdf REFL_vs_PRClength.pdf
  9539   Wed Jan 8 16:08:52 2014 ericqSummaryLSCEffect of PRC length mismatch on error signals

 [ericq,Gabriele]

So, we want an relatively quick measurement of the PRC length error (with sign!) at the order of .5 centimeter or so. Rana suggested the "demodulation phase method," i.e. lock the simple Michelson, measure what demodulation phase brings the 1F signal entirely within the phase quadrature, then lock the PRMI and measure the demodulation phase again. This tells you something about the length of the PRC. 

Gabriele and I worked through a simulation using MIST to determine how to actually do this. We simulated the case of injecting a line at 1kHz in the laser frequency via the laser's PZT and looking at the transfer function of the 1kHz signal to the I and Q at the 1F AS demodulated signal when locked. (Michelson locked on the dark fringe, PRC locked on 11MHz sideband) With the I and Q in hand, we can measure some demodulation phase angle that would bring everything into I. 

When the PRC length is in the ideal location, the demodulation phases in the two cases are the just about the same. Sweeping the length of the PRC around the ideal length gives us a monotonic function in the difference in the demodulation phases:

phaseVlength.pdf

So, with this simulation, we should be able to calibrate a measured difference in demod phase into the length error of the cavity! We will proceed and report...

  9541   Wed Jan 8 19:05:30 2014 GabrieleSummaryLSCEffect of PRC length mismatch on error signals

 [Gabriele, EricQ]


Actually it is difficult to see any laser frequency line in the dark fringe signal, since the Schnupp asymmetry is small. It is much better to use a differential MICH excitation which gives a better signal at the dark port.

We repeated the simulation explained before. We can use both the AS55 or the AS11 signals, bout the first one has a limited linear range and the expected 4cm value is very close to saturation.

as11.pngas55.png

  9544   Thu Jan 9 17:58:31 2014 ericqSummaryLSCEffect of PRC length mismatch on error signals

[ericq, Gabriele, Manasa]

 We wanted to perform the PRC length measurement today with an AS11 signal, but such a signal didn't exist. So, we have temporarily connected the AS110 PD signal (which is some Thorlabs PD, and not a resonant one) into the REFL11 demod board. 

We then proceeded with the goal of locking the PRC with REFL165. A few parameters that were changed along the way as we aligned and locked things:

  • the XARM gain was increased from 0.4 to 0.5 to help it acquire lock
  • the MICH gain was decreased from -10 to -5 since there was some gain peaking in its servo output
  • the REFL165 demodulation phase was changed from 155 to 122, to place a PRCL excitation entirely within I (we did this while locked on the carrier)

Sadly, in the end, we couldn't lock the PRC on a sideband in a stable manner. The alignment would drift faster than we could optimize the alignment and gains for the PRC. I.e. we would lock the PRC on the carrier, align PRM (and maybe touch ITMX) to maximize POPDC, switch to sideband locking, try to lock, and things would start looking misaligned. Switching back to carrier locking, the beam spots on REFL (for example) would have moved.

Manasa noted the MC_TRANS_Y has been substantially drifting along with small drift in MC_TRANS_P as well. So we need to fix the source of the mode cleaner beam drifting if we want to make this measurement. 

  9546   Fri Jan 10 15:31:07 2014 ranaSummaryLSCEffect of PRC length mismatch on error signals

 

 Its very doubtful that the MC yaw drift matters for the IFO. That's just a qualitative correlation; the numbers don't hang together.

  9548   Sun Jan 12 09:57:24 2014 GabrieleSummaryLSCEffect of PRC length mismatch on error signals

Quote:

 

 Its very doubtful that the MC yaw drift matters for the IFO. That's just a qualitative correlation; the numbers don't hang together.

 Then there must be something else slowly drifting. It was very clear that the good alignment of the IFO was every time lost after few minutes...

  1512   Thu Apr 23 18:09:11 2009 YoichiUpdateEnvironmentEffect of cryopump
The attached is the trend plot of the MC1 accelerometer for 3 days.
It is evident that the seismic level increased by a factor of two on Wednesday morning (when Steve started the cryopump).
Attachment 1: SeisTrend.pdf
SeisTrend.pdf
  12316   Wed Jul 20 14:03:01 2016 ericqUpdateSUSEffect of thicker ruby standoffs

The new ETMX ruby guide rods are slightly thicker than the old aluminum ones; specifically 1.27mm vs 1.0mm.

Since we did not change the guide rod location in response to this fact, the vertical position of the suspension point changes, which in turn changes the dynamics of the suspension. Specifically, since the standoff is placed below the guide rod, the suspension point is lowered, which makes the pitch mode softer. I crunched a few numbers and have determined that this effect should not be a problem.

Given the wiki's value of the ETMX pitch resonance frequency of 0.829 Hz, I predict a the new pitch resonance frequency of 0.800 Hz.

(wiki link: https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Suspensions/Mechanical_Resonances)


A useful document about the dynamics of our suspension can be found at T000134

From this document, one will find that the effect of changing the suspension point height over the optic center of mass,`b`, on the pitch resonance frequency (while keeping all other dimensions equal) to be:

\frac{\omega'_\theta}{\omega_\theta} \approx \sqrt{\frac{b'}{b}}

The top of the standoff is fixed by the guide rod, so let's say that b' is given by the position of the center of the Ruby standoff. This is then smaller than the previous b by the differences in the radii of the standoffs:

b' = b - \frac{\oslash_{\textrm{ruby}}-\oslash_{\textrm{Al}}}{2}

The nominal value of b is 0.985mm. Thus, the pitch resonance frequency is changed by factor of 0.965, i.e. 3.5% smaller. Then, taking the wiki value of 0.829 Hz results in 0.800Hz, a 30mHz decrease.

  5906   Wed Nov 16 10:08:17 2011 SureshUpdateIOOEffect of turning on the MC2_TRANS_PIT and YAW loops in ASC

I turned on the two remaining loops in the ASC system to see if we can lock.   I put in some ones into the WFS_OUTPUT matrix

WFS_OUTMATRIX.png

and locked the MC2_TRANS_PIT and MC2_TRANS_YAW loops.

The effect of doing so is visible in the error signals.  The black loops are with all ASC loops off, Blue traces are with the WFS1 and 2 loops locked and Red traces are with all loops locked.  I took the red traces to a lower frequency to see if the suppression of the error signals at low frequencies is disturbed by the switching on of the MC2_TRANS loops.  They seem to be working fine without adding any perturbation above the UGF.

WFS_servo_err_20111115.png

I measured the  Transfer Function coefs (at 10Hz using the WFS Lockins)  with MC2_TRANS loops locked in this rudimentary fashion

  WFS1P WFS2P MC2TP WFS1Y WFS2Y MC2TY
MC1P -23.8541 15.2501 -24.3470 -3.3166 -2.0473 -0.1202
MC2P 29.7402 54.7689 29.5102  -0.2922 -17.4226 0.0310
MC3P 34.3612 10.7279 33.9650 6.6582 -4.0892 0.2333
MC1Y 0.9510 -6.3929 0.8722 -98.2414 -82.9129 -4.2802
MC2Y 12.0673 6.1708 11.9502 237.1172 20.7970 14.6480
MC3Y -0.8498 2.8712 -1.4195 -20.6031 111.2531 -1.5234

 

The green and blue bits are the only relevant parts since we ignore the off diagonal parts.  And most of these off diagonal coefs are indeed quite small (<5% of the max).  I have marked the not-so-small ones in yellow.

I then calculated the output matrix elements in two different ways.

a) Using a null vector in the place of MC_DoF --> MC2_TRANS transfer coefs.  The output matrix we get is

 

  WFS1P WFS2P Null Vector
MC1P -1.0000 0.8271  -0.8880
MC2P 0.0962 1.0000  0.4431
MC3P 0.9306 -0.2913  -1.0000

 

  WFS1Y WFS2Y Null Vector
MC1Y -0.2340 -0.5840 1.0000
MC2Y 1.000o -0.1551  0.4714
MC3Y -0.3613 1.0000 0.6571

 

b) Without using the null vector.  i.e. using the MC_DoF --> MC2_TRANS transfer coefs and inverting the full matrix.  The output matrix we get is

 

   WFS1P WFS2P  MC2TP
 MC1P  0.1471  -0.8880  0.8655
 MC2P  1.0000  0.4431  -0.4369
 MC3P  -0.7634  -1.0000  1.0000

 

  WFS1Y WFS2Y MC2TP
MC1Y 0.1401 1.0000 -1.0000
MC2Y 0.1449 0.4714 -0.3627
MC3Y 1.0000 0.6571 -0.6775

 

I plan to try out these two output matrices and measure the OL TFs of the MC2_TRANS and see if we can include these into ASC in a useful fashion.

Attachment 1: WFS_OUTMATRIX.png
WFS_OUTMATRIX.png
  10630   Wed Oct 22 02:35:45 2014 JenneUpdateLSCEfforts at hopping PRMI to REFL165

[EricQ, Jenne]

The first half of our evening was spent working on CARM and DARM in PRFPMI, and then we moved on to the PRMI part.

I moved the DARM ALSdiff -> TransDiff transition to be after the CARM ALScomm -> SqrtInvTrans transition in the carm_cm_up script.  After I did that, I succeeded every time (at least  10?  We did it many times) to get both CARM and DARM off of the ALS signals. 

We tried for a little while looking at transitioning to REFL11 normalized by the sum of the transmissions, but we kept losing lock.  We also several times lost lock at arm powers of a few, when we thought we weren't touching the IFO for any transitions.  Looking at the lockloss time series did not show any obvious oscillations in any of the _IN1 or _OUT channels for the length degrees of freedom, so we don't know why we lost lock, but it doesn't seem to be loop oscillations caused by changing optical gain.  Also, one time, I tried engaging Rana's "Lead 350" filter in FM7 of the CARM filter bank when we were on sqrtInvTrans for CARM, and the arm powers were around a few, but that caused the transmission signals to start to oscillate, and after one or two seconds we lost lock.  We haven't tried the phase lead filter again, nor have we tried the Boost2 that is in FM8. 

We increased the REFL11 analog gain from 0dB to 12dB, and then reset the dark offsets, but still weren't able to move CARM to normalized REFL11. Also, I changed the POP22 demod phase from 159 degrees to 139 degrees. This seems to be where the signal is maximized in the I-phase, while the arms are held off resonance, and also partway up the resonance peak. 

We then decided that we should go back to the PRMI situation before trying to reduce the CARM offset further.  We can robustly and quickly lock the PRMI on REFL33 while the arms are held off resonance with ALS.  So, we have been trying to acquire on  REFL33 I&Q, and then look at switching to REFL 165 I&Q.  It seems pretty easy to get PRCL over to REFL165 I (while leaving MICH on REFL33 I).  For REFL33, both matrix elements are +1.  For PRCL on REFL165, the matrix element is -0.08.  We have not successfully gotten MICH over to REFL 165 ever this evening. 

We went back and set the REFL165 I&Q offsets so that the outputs after the demod phase were both fluctuating around 0.  I don't know if they were around +/-100 because our dark offsets were bad or what, but we thought this would help.  We were still able to get PRCL transitioned no problem, but even after remeasuring the MICH REFL33 vs. REFL165 relative gains, we still can't transition MICH.  It seems like it's failing when the REFL33Q matrix element finally gets zeroed out, so we're not really getting enough signal in REFL165Q, or something like that, and throughout the rest of the transition we were depending entirely on REFL33Q. 

So. Plan:

  • Get PRMI on REFL165 while arms are held off resonance. 
    • May require PRCL-MICH FF decoupling, by combining error signals?
    • May require looking back at simulations to see what we expect the relative gains and signs to be.
  • Look at CARM loop stability in simulation for REFLDC, REFL11, and normalized REFL11.  Is there a stable loop path from about 100pm down to 0pm on normalized REFL11?
  3246   Mon Jul 19 16:11:17 2010 GopalUpdateOptic StacksEigenfrequency Analysis of Full Stack

Expanding on the single-layer model, I added the second, third, and fourth layers to the stack in COMSOL. Eigenfrequency analysis run times increased exponentially as the model multiplied in complexity. The following images document the some of the important eigenfrequencies:


First Eigenmode: y-translational, 3.34 Hz:

Eigenfrequency_1_4Stacks.png


Second Eigenmode: x-translational, 3.39 Hz:

Eigenfrequency_2_4Stacks.png


Third Eigenmode: z-rotational, 3.88 Hz:

 Eigenfrequency_3_4Stacks.png


Sixth Eigenmode: z-translational, 8.55 Hz:

Eigenfrequency_6_4Stacks.png


As expected, the eigenfrequencies are generally lower, but still in the same range, as the single-layer model, because of greater mass but constant weight-per-spring distribution.

Next Steps:

1) Extend a single stack to the full stack system, which consists of three stacks like this. Perform similar eigenmode analysis.

2) Analyze the mirror suspension system and incorporate a similar pendulum on the top plate.

3) Make transfer function measurements between seismic and mirror motions.

  3199   Mon Jul 12 18:37:10 2010 GopalUpdateOptic StacksEigenfrequency Analysis of Simple Objects

Eigenfrequency analysis has been successfully completed in COMSOL on both a tutorial camshaft, as well as a homemade metal bar.

Upon increasing in complexity to the busbar, I once again began getting into run time errors and increased lag. It seems that this is due to undefined eigenvalues when solving the linear matrices. I tried many boundary values as well as initial conditions in case this was the issue, but it was not. There seems to be some sort of an internal inconsistency. This is no longer a matter of tweaking parameters.

Next steps:

1) Try using the same techniques on the actual mirror stacks to see if we get lucky.

2) In the likely case that this doesn't happen, continue the debugging process. If necessary, a good deal of time may need to be spent learning the COMSOL lower-level jargon.

  3207   Tue Jul 13 14:59:04 2010 GopalUpdateOptic StacksEigenfrequency Analysis of Single Stack Complete

Via reconfiguration of Viton parameters (previously posted), I managed to debug the COMSOL run time errors and null pointer exceptions. Listed are the resultant eigenfrequencies obtained through structural analysis testing. For all tests, the bottom of the Viton springs are constrained from motion, and all other parts are free to oscillate. Notice that color variations signify displacement from the equilibrium position. Also note that different initial conditions produce different eigenmodes:

No initial displacement:

Eigenmode_Stack_4.png


0.01 m x-displacement:

Eigenmode_Stack_4_xdisp.png


0.01 m y-displacement:

Eigenmode_Stack_4_ydisp.png


 0.01 m z-displacement:

 Eigenmode_Stack_4_zdisp.png


Clearly, the plate has its first harmonic between 210-215 Hz, which is much greater than seismic noises (which never exceed the 10-Hz range). This suggests a highly attenuating transfer function. Since the remaining three plates have been designed to resonate similarly, it is likely that the entire stack system will also function very well.

Next steps:

1) Extend the eigenfrequency analysis to obtain a transfer function for the single-plate system

2) Expand the CAD model to include all four stack layers, and perhaps a base

 

  15697   Wed Dec 2 23:07:19 2020 gautamUpdateASCElectrical LO signal for AS WFS

I'm thinking of making some modifications to the RF distribution box in 1X2, so as to have an extra 55 MHz pickoff. Koji already proposed some improvements to the layout in 2015. I've marked up his "Possible Improvement" page of the document in Attachment #1, with my proposed modifications. I believe it will be possible to get 15-16 dBm of signal into a 4 way RF splitter in the quad demod chassis. With the insertion loss of the splitter, we can have 9-10 dBm of LO reaching each demod board, which will then be boosted to +20 dBm by the Teledyne on board. The PE4140 mixer claims to require only -7 dBm of LO signal. So we have quite a bit of headroom here - as long as we limit the RF signal to 0dBm (=0.5 Vpp from the LMH6431 opamp at 55 MHz, we shouldn't be having a much larger signal anyways), we should be just fine with 15 dBm of LO power (which is what we will have after the division into the I and Q paths, and nominal insertion losses in the transmission path). These numbers may be slight overestimates given the possible degradation of the RF amps over the last 10 years, but shouldn't be a show-stopper.

Do the RF electronics experts agree with my assessment? If so, I will start working on these mods tomorrow. Technically, the splitter can be added outside the box, but it may be neater if we package it inside the box. 

Attachment 1: RF_Frequency_Source.pdf
RF_Frequency_Source.pdf
  15700   Thu Dec 3 11:02:35 2020 ranaUpdateElectronicsElectrical LO signal for AS WFS

looks good to me.

The thing I usually look for is how much the downstream system (mixers, etc) can perturb the main oscillator. i.e. we don't want mixer in one chain to reflect back and disturb the EOM chain. But since our demods have amplifiers on the LO side we're pretty immune to that.

  15702   Thu Dec 3 13:55:52 2020 KojiUpdateASCElectrical LO signal for AS WFS

I got a bit confused by your description.

The demod board claims that the nominal power at each LO port is 10dBm. So we want to give at least 16dBm to the (external?) 4way power splitter, but we only have 15dBm. As you said, the actual LO power reaching the FET mixier (PE4140) is the level of ~20dBm. But you said the requirement for the mixer is -7dBm. So are you proposing to reduce the LO level (slightly) than the LIGO recommendation because the minimum for PE4140 is -7dBm?
If that's the message, then I can say "yes". We supply 8~9dBm to the LO ports instead of 10dBm. I suppose the mixers don't care about this level of reduction.

Looking at my original post [40m ELOG 11817], the necessary modification is much larger than you have indicated in your post (as yours is the modification of my modification plan.)
If you do your modification you have to deal with the components rearrangement in the chassis. I think you can still accomplish it as you are going to remove an amplifier and gain the space from it.

The main RF line still has 5dBm Attn. How about to insert another 3dB power splitter there and create a spare 55MHz port for the future use?

Before doing any modification you should check how much the distributed powers are at the ports.
Also your modification will change the relative phase between 11MHz and 55MHz.
Can you characterize how much phase difference you have between them, maybe using the modulation of the main marconi? And you might want to adjust it to keep the previous value (or any new value) after the modification by adding a cable inside?

 

  15704   Thu Dec 3 20:38:46 2020 gautamUpdateASCElectrical LO signal for AS WFS

I removed the Frequency Generation box from the 1X2 rack. For the time being, the PSL shutter is closed, since none of the cavities can be locked without the RF modulation source anyways.

Prior to removal, I did the following:

  1. Measured powers at each port on the front panel 
    • Gigatronix power meter was used, which has a maximum power rating of 20dBm, so for the EOM drive outputs which we operate closer to 25-27 dBm, I used a 20 dBm coupler to make the measurement.
    • Attachment #1 summarizes my findings - there doesn't seem to be anything majorly wrong, except that for the 11 MHz EOM drive channel, the "7" setting on the variable attenuator doesn't seem to work. 
    • We can probably get a replacement from MiniCircuits, but since we operate at 0dBm variable attenuation nominally, maybe we don't need to futz around with this.
  2. Measured the relative phasing between the 11 MHz and 55 MHz signals using an oscilloscope.
    • I measured the relative phase for the EOM drive channels, and also the demod channels.
    • The scope can accept a maximum of 5V RMS signal with 50ohm input impedance. So once again, I couldn't make a direct measurement at the nominal setting for the EOM drive channel. Instead, I used the variable attenuator to set the signal amplitude to ~2V RMS. 
    • I will upload the time-domain plots later. But we now have a record of the relative phasing that we can try and reproduce after making modifications. FWIW, my measured phase difference of 139 degrees is reasonably consistent with Koji's inferred from the modulation spectrum.

One thing I noticed was that we're using very stiff coax cabling (RG405) inside this box? Do we need to stick with this option? Or can we use the more flexible RG316? I guess RG405 is lower loss, so it's better. I can't actually find any measurement of the shielding performance in my quick google searching but I think the claim on the call yesterday was that RG405 with its solder soaked braids offer superior shielding.

Before doing any modification you should check how much the distributed powers are at the ports.
Also your modification will change the relative phase between 11MHz and 55MHz.
Can you characterize how much phase difference you have between them, maybe using the modulation of the main marconi? And you might want to adjust it to keep the previous value (or any new value) after the modification by adding a cable inside?

Attachment 1: RF_Frequency_Source.pdf
RF_Frequency_Source.pdf
Attachment 2: demodPath.pdf
demodPath.pdf
Attachment 3: EOMpath.pdf
EOMpath.pdf
  15705   Thu Dec 3 21:14:38 2020 KojiUpdateASCElectrical LO signal for AS WFS

Let's use RG405 for better shielding. It is not too stiff. The bending  (just once) does not break the cable.

Are you going to full replacement of the 55MHz system? Or just remove the 7dBm and then implement the proposed modification for the 55MHz line?

  15706   Thu Dec 3 21:44:49 2020 gautamUpdateASCElectrical LO signal for AS WFS

I'm open to either approach. If the full replacement requires a lot of machining, maybe I will stick to just the 55 MHz line. But if only a couple of new holes are required, it might be advantageous to do the revamp while we have the box out? What do you think?

BTW, now that I look more closely at the RF chain, I have several questions:

  1. The 1 dB compression power of the ZHL-2 amplifiers is ~29 dBm, and we are driving it at that level. Is this okay? I thought we always want to be several dBm away from the 1dBm compression point?
  2. Why do we have an attenuator between the Marconi input and the first ZHL-2 amplifier? Can't we just set the Marconi to output 8 or 9 dBm?
  3. The Wenzel frequency multiplier is rated to have 13dBm input and 20 dBm output. We operate it with 12 dBm input and 19 dBm output. Why throw away 1 dBm?

I guess it is feasible to have +17 dBm of 55 MHz signal to plug into the Quad Demod chassis - e.g. drive the 55 MHz input with 20 dBm, pick off 3dBm to the front panel for ASC. Then we can even have several "spare" 55 MHz outputs and still satisfy the 9 dBm input that the ZHL-2 in the 55 MHz chain wants (though again, isn't this dangerously close to the 1dB compression point?). The design doc claims to have done some Optickle modeling, so I guess there isn't really any issue? 

Quote:

Are you going to full replacement of the 55MHz system? Or just remove the 7dBm and then implement the proposed modification for the 55MHz line?

  15707   Fri Dec 4 03:02:40 2020 KojiUpdateASCElectrical LO signal for AS WFS

1. That's true. But we are already in that regime with the Var attn at 0dB, aren't we? We can reduce the input to the amp by 1-2dBm sacrificing the EOM out by that amount (we can compensate this for the demo out by removing the 1dB attn).

2. Not 100% sure but one possible explanation is that we wanted to keep the Marconi output large (or as large as possible) to keep the SNR between the signal and the noise of the driver in Marconi. The attenuator is less noisy compared to the driver noise.

3. My guess is that theoretically we were supposed to have 13dBm input and 20dBm output in design. However, the actual input was as such.  We can restore it to the 13dBm input.

  15980   Wed Mar 31 00:40:32 2021 KojiUpdateElectronicsElectronics Packaging for assembly work

I've worked on packing the components for the following chassis
- 5 16bit AI chassis
- 4 18bit AI chassis
- 7 16bit AA chassis
- 8 HAM-A coil driver chassis
They are "almost" ready for shipment. Almost means some small parts are missing. We can ship the boxes to the company while we wait for these small parts.

  • DB9 Female Ribbon Receptacle AFL09B-ND Qty100 (We have 10) -> Received 90 on Apr 1st
  • DB9 Male Ribbon Receptacle CMM09-G Qty100 (We have 10) -> Received 88 on Apr 1st
  • 4-40 Pan Flat Head Screw (round head, Phillips) 1/2" long Qty 50 -> Found 4-40 3/8" Qty50 @WB EE on Apr 1st (Digikey H782-ND)
  • Keystone Chassis Handle 9106 36-9106-ND Qty 50 -> Received 110 on Apr 1st
  • Keystone Chassis Ferrule 9121 NKL PL 36-9121-ND Qty 100 -> Received 55 on Apr 1st
  • Chassis Screws 4-40 3/16" Qty 1100 -> Received 1100 on Apr 1st
  • Chassis Ear Screws 6-32 1/2" 91099A220 Qty 150 -> Received 400 of 3/8" on Apr 1st
  • Chassis Handle Screws 6-32 1/4" 91099A205 Qty 100 -> included in the above
  • Powerboard mounting screw 4-40 Pan Flat Head Screw (round head, Phillips) 1/4" long Qty 125 -> Received 100 on Apr 1st

And some more additional items to fill the emptying stock.

  • 18AWG wires (we have orange/blue/black 1000ft, I'm sending ~1000ft black/green/white)
  • Already consumed 80% of 100ft 9pin ribbon cable (=only 20ft left in the stock)
Attachment 1: P_20210330_233508.jpg
P_20210330_233508.jpg
Attachment 2: P_20210330_233618.jpg
P_20210330_233618.jpg
ELOG V3.1.3-