I was notified by Rob and Rana that there were many measurements of the MC abs length (i.e. modulation 
frequencies for the IFO.) between 2002 and now.

So, I dig the new and old e-logs and collected the measured values of the MC length, as shown below. 

I checked the presence of the vent for two big steps in the MC length. Each actually has a vent. 
The elog said that the tilt of the table was changed at the OMC installation in 2006 Oct.
It is told that the MC mirrors were moved a lot during the vent in 2007 Nov.

Note:
o The current modulation freq setting is the highest ever.
o Rob commented that the Marconi may drift in a long time.
o Apparently we need another measurement as we had the big earthquake.

My curiosity is now satified so far.

Local Time	3xFSR[MHz]	5xFSR[MHz]	MC round trip[m]	Measured by
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002/09/12	33.195400 	165.977000 	27.09343		Osamu
2002/10/16	33.194871 	165.974355 	27.09387		Osamu
2003/10/10	33.194929 	165.974645 	27.09382		Osamu
2004/12/14	33.194609 	165.973045 	27.09408		Osamu
2005/02/11	33.195123 	165.975615 	27.09366		Osamu
2005/02/14	33.195152 	165.975760 	27.09364		Osamu
2006/08/08	33.194700 	165.973500 	27.09401		Sam
2006/09/07	33.194490 	165.972450 	27.09418		Sam/Rana
2006/09/08	33.194550 	165.972750 	27.09413		Sam/Rana
----2006/10 VENT OMC installation	
2006/10/26	33.192985 	165.964925 	27.09541		Kirk/Sam
2006/10/27	33.192955 	165.964775 	27.09543		Kirk/Sam
2007/01/17	33.192833 	165.964165 	27.09553		Tobin/Kirk
2007/08/29	33.192120 	165.960600 	27.09611		Keita/Andrey/Rana
----2007/11 VENT Cleaning of the MC mirrors
2007/11/06	33.195439 	165.977195 	27.09340		Rob/Tobin
2008/07/29	33.196629 	165.983145 	27.09243		Rob/Yoichi

Last night, I tried to find the resonance of Yarm by sweeping the frequency of the injection beam.

A strong beat was present at LT_NPRO=48.7856[C_deg], the power coupling of the injection beam was estimated to be 35%. 
(Vmax_beat = 1.060[V], Vmin_beat = 0.460[V], Vno_inject = 0.664[V])

The Yarm was locked and the alignment script was executed. The PLL between the PSL beam and the injection beam was 
somehow locked.

I tried to scan the freq offset (f_PLL) at around 3.88MHz first, then at around 15.52MHz. They are supporsed to be the 
first and fourth FSR of the Yarm cavity. The Yarm transmitted power (DC) was observed to find the resonance of the 
injection beam. It would have been better to use the RF power, but so far I didnot have the RF PD prepared at the end 
transmission. I just used the DC power.

I think I saw the increase of the transmitted power by 10%, at f_PLL = 15.517 +/- 0.003 [MHz]. This corresponds to the 
arm cavity length of 38.640 +/- 0.007 [m]. The previous measurement was not so bad!

Y-arm length
e-log             length [m]
-----------------------
556(2008-Jun-24)  38.70    +/- 0.08    Cavity swinging measurement
556(2008-Jun-24)  38.67    +/- 0.03    tape & photo
This              38.640   +/- 0.007

However, I had difficulties to have more precise measurement mainly because of two reasons:
o The PLL servo is too naive, and the freqency stability of the inj beam is not enough.
  The injected beam should have the linewidth (=freq stability) narrower than the cavity linewidth.

o The PLL servo may experience change of the transfer function at around the resonance. The PLL works the other 
frequencies. However, close to the resonance, it starts to be unstable.

So the next stuffs we should do is 
o Build the PLL just using the incident beams to the ifo, not by the reflected beams.
o Build sophisticated servo to have better frequency stability.
o RF PD at the transmission.

Left the lab with Yarm locked, flipper down, shutter for the NPRO closed.

Y-arm length
e-log    length [m]
-----------------------------
556      38.70   +/- 0.08   Cavity swinging measurement
556      38.67   +/- 0.03   tape & photo
776      38.640  +/- 0.007  Beam injection, poor PLL, Transmitted DC
this     38.6455 +/- 0.0012 Beam injection, independent PLL, Transmitted DC
-----------------------------

Y-arm length
e-log              length [m]           Measurement Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 556(2008-Jun-24)  38.67    +/- 0.03    Cavity swinging measurement
 776(2008-Jul-31)  38.640   +/- 0.007   Beam injection, poor PLL, Transmitted DC
 782(2008-Aug-02)  38.6455  +/- 0.0012  Beam injection, independent PLL, Transmitted DC
this(2008-Aug-04)  38.64575 +/- 0.00037 Beam injection, independent PLL, Transmitted RF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

f_freq_count = K0 + K1 * f_IFR [Hz]
K0 = 0.00        +/- 0.02
K1 = 0.999999470 +/- 0.000000001

Y-arm length
e-log    length [m]
-----------------------------
 556(2008-Jun-24)  38.70    +/- 0.08    Cavity swinging measurement
 556(2008-Jun-24)  38.67    +/- 0.03    Tape & photo
 776(2008-Jul-31)  38.640   +/- 0.007   Beam injection, poor PLL, Transmitted DC
 782(2008-Aug-02)  38.6455  +/- 0.0012  Beam injection, independent PLL, Transmitted DC
 787(2008-Aug-04)  38.64575 +/- 0.00037 Beam injection, independent PLL, Transmitted RF
this(2008-Aug-04)  38.6462  +/- 0.0003  Beam injection, independent PLL, Transmitted RF, five FSRs, freq calibrated
-----------------------------

FSR1:  3879251.9 Hz +/-  8.8 Hz
FSR2:  7757968.1 Hz +/- 10.8 Hz
FSR3: 11636612.9 Hz +/- 10.2 Hz
FSR4: 15515308.1 Hz +/-  8.7 Hz
FSR5: 19393968.7 Hz +/-  8.4 Hz

Alan and Alberto conducted a tour of 40 high-school students.
It may be the same tour that Rana found a spare PMC during the tour explanation as far as I remember...

I talked with Zach. So this is just a note for the others.

The setup I suggested was totally equivalent with the setup proposed in the entry http://131.215.115.52:8080/40m/1721, except that the PLL PD sees not only 29.501MHz, but also 1kHz and 59.001MHz. These additional beating are excluded by the PD and the PLL servo. In any case the beating at 1kHz is present at the camera. So if you play with the beamsplitter alignment you will see not only the perfect Gaussian picture, but also distorted picture which is resulted by mismatching of the two wave fronts. That's the fun part!

The point is that you can get an equivalent type of the test with fewer optics and fewer efforts. Particularly, I guess the setup would not be the final goal. So, these features would be nice for you.

Chris,

Some comments:

0. Probably, you are working on the SP table, not on the PSL table.

1. The profile measurement looks very nice.

2. You can simplify the optical layout if you consider the following issues
  A. The matching lenses just after the laser:
      You can make a collimated beam only with a single lens, instead of two.
      Just put a lens of f0 with distance of f0 from the waist. (Just like Geometrical Optics to make a parallel-going beam.)

      Or even you don't need any lens. In this case, whole optical setup should be smaller so that your beam
      can be accomodated by the aperture of your optics. But that's adequately possible.

  B. The steering mirrors after the laser:
      If you have a well elevated beam from the table (3~4 inches), you can omit two steering mirrors.
      If you have a laser beam whose tilte can not be corrected by the laser mount, you can add a mirror to fix it.

  C. The steering mirrors in the arms:
      You don't need the steering mirrors in the arms as all d.o.f. of the Michelson alignment can be adjusted
      by the beamsplitter and the mirror at the reflected arm. Also The arm can be much shorter (5~6 inches?)

  D. The lenses and the mirrors after the PBS:
      You can put one of the lenses before the PBS, instead of two after the lens.
      You can omit the mirror at the reflection side of the PBS as the PBS mount should have alignment adjustment.

The simpler, the faster and the easier to work with!
Cheers.

Stephanie, 

This is a quite nice measurement. Much better than the previous one.

1) For further steps, I think now you need to connect the real EOM at the end in order to incorporate
the capacitance and the loss (=resistance) of the EOM. Then you have to measure the input impedance
of the circuit. You can measure the impedance of the device at Wilson house.
(I can come with you in order to consult with Rich, if you like)

Before that you may be able to do a preparatory measurement which can be less precise than the Wilson one,
but still useful. You can measure the transfer function of the voltage across the input of this circuit,
and can convert it to the impedance. The calibration will be needed by connecting a 50Ohm resister
on the network analyzer.

2) I wonder why the model transfer function (TF) has slow phase changes at the resonance.
Is there any implicit resistances took into account in the model?

If the circuit model is formed only by reactive devices (Cs and Ls), the whole circuit has no place to dissipate (= no loss).
This means that the impedance goes infinity and zero, at the resonance and the anti-resonance, respectively.
This leads a sharp flip of the phase at these resonances and anti-resonances.

The real circuit has small losses everywhere. So, the slow phase change is reasonable.

I played with the MC alignment for the beam centering. After that, I restored the alignment values.

In principle, one can select the MC2 spot as one likes, while the transmitted beam axis to the IFO is not changed
as far as you are at the best alignment. This principle is almost trivial because the beam axis matches
to the input beam axis at the best alignment.
The alignment solution is not unique for a triangle cavity if we don't fix the end spot position.

In practice, this cruising of the MC2 spot is accomplished by the following procedure:
0) Assume that you are initially at the best alignment (=max transmission).
1) Slightly tilt the MC2.
2) Adjust MC1/MC3 so that the best transmission is restored.

I started from the following initial state of the alignment sliders:

BEFORE TRIAL

After many iterations, the spot was centered in some extent. (See the picture)
RESULT

The instability looked cured somewhat.
Further adjustment caused a high freq (10Hz at the camera) instability and the IMCR shift issue.
So I returned to the last stable setting.

Side effect:
Of course, if you move MC1, the reflected spot got shifted.
The spot has been apparently off-centered from the IMCR camera. (up and right)
At this stage, I could not determine what is the good state.
So, I restored the alignment of the MC as it was.
But now Alberto can see which mirror do we have to move in which direction and how much.

Q. When should we use plano-convex lenses, and when should we use bi-convex?

As I had the same question from Jenne and Dmass in a month,
I just like to introduce a good summary about it.
Lens selection guide (Newport)
http://www.newport.com/Lens-Selection-Guide/140908/1033/catalog.aspx

At a first order, they have the same function.
Abberation (= non-ideal behavior of the lens) is the matter.

Peter and Koji,

We are constructing a setup for the new 40m CDS using Realtime Code Generator (RCG).
We are trying to put simulated suspensions and test suspension controllers on a different processors of megatron
in order to create a virtual control feedback loop. Those CDS processes are communicating
each other via a shared memory, not via a reflective memory for now.

After some struggles with tremendous helps of Alex, we succeeded to have the communication between the two processes.
Also we succeeded to make the ADC/DAC cards recognized by megatoron, using the PCI express extension card replaced by Jay.
(This card runs multi PCI-X cards on the I/O chasis.)

Next steps:
- Establish a firewall between the 40m network and megatron (Remember this)
- Make DTT and other tools available at megatron
- Try virtual feedback control loops and characterize the performance
- Enable reflective memory functionalities on megatron
- Construct a hybrid system by the old/new CDSs
- Controllability tests using an interferometer

Note on MATLAB/SIMULINK
o Each cdsIPC should have a correct shared memory address spaced by 8 bytes. (i.e. 0x1000, 0x1008, 0x1010, ...)

Note on MEDM
o At the initial state, garbage (e.g. NaN) can be running all around the feedback loops. They are invisible as MEDM shows them as  "0.0000".
To escape from this state, we needed to disconnect all the feedback, say, by turning off the filters.

Note on I/O chasis
o We needed to pull all of the power plugs from megatron and the I/O chasis once so that we can activate
the PCI-e - PCI-X extension card. When it is succeeded, all (~30) LEDs turn to green.

 I checked the setup and found RF reflection at the load was the cause of the unreasonable response in the impedance measurement.
So, I have put a total 22dB attenuation (10+6+6 dB) between the power splitter and the load to be measured. See the picture.
This kind of attenuators, called as PADs, is generally used in order to improve the impedance matching, sacrificing the signal amplitude at the load.

Then, It looks the measurements got reasonable up to 100MHz (at least) and |Z|<1kOhm.
For the measurements, I just followed the procedure that Stephanie described.
Stephanie has measured the impedance of her resonant circuit.

As a test of the method, I measured impedances of various discrete devices. i.e. 50Ohm, 10-1000pF Cap, Inductances, circuit opened.

a) 50Ohm (marine-blue) was calibrated to be recognized as 50Ohm.

b) The mica capacitances (orange 10pF, yellow 100pF, green 1000pF) appeared as the impedances f^-1 in the low freq region. It's nice.
At high frequency, the impedances deviate from f^-1, which could be caused by the lead inductance. (Self Resonance)
So 1000pF mica is not capacitance at 50MHz already.

c) Open BNC connector (Red) looks have something like 5pF. (i.e. 300Ohm at 100MHz)

d) I could not get good measurements with the inductors as I had 200nH (and some C of ~5pF) for a Pomona clip (blue).
This is just because of my laziness such that I avoid soldering the Ls to an RF connector!

Stephanie and Koji

We left two carts near the PSL table.
We are using them for characterization of the tripple resonant EOM.

nodus was rebooted by Alex at Fri Aug 14 13:53. I launched elogd.

cd /export/elog/elog-2.7.5/
./elogd -p 8080 -c /export/elog/elog-2.7.5/elogd.cfg -D

Jenne, Koji

The cause of the decrease was found and the problem was solved. We found this entry, which says

Yoich> We opened the MOPA box and installed a mirror to direct a picked off NPRO beam to the outside of the box through an unused hole.
Yoich> We set up a lens and a PD outside of the MOPA box to receive this beam. The output from the PD is connected to the 126MON cable.

We went to the PSL table and found the dc power cable for 126MOPA_AMPMON was clipping the 126MON beam.
We also made a cable stay with a pole and a cable tie.

After the work, 126MON went up to 161 which was the value we saw last night.

We also found that the cause of the AMPMON signal change by the DAQ connection, mentioned in this entry:

Jenne> 6.  We teed off of the AMPMON photodiode so that we could see the DC values on a DMM. 
Jenne> When we used a T to connect both the DMM and the regular DAQ cable, the DMM read
Jenne> a value a factor of 2 smaller than when the DMM was connected directly to the PD.

We found a 30dB attenuator is connected after the PD. It explains missing factor of 2.

I ran (script dir)/PSL/FSS/SLOWscan on op440m from 11:30 to 12:30 on 27th. Although Rana and later I myself set "timed bombs" for the scan, they did not work as they have probably been ran on Linux. After the scan I relocked PMC, FSS, and MZ . MC locked automatically.

Observation:

1. To keep away from the mode hop, FSS_SLOWDC is to be at around 0. The values -5 ~ -6 is the place for the power, which is my preference for now. BTW, the mode hop only appears to the PSL output (=AMPMON) is this normal?

2. The PSL output looks dependent on the NPRO wavelength. The NPRO output and the PSL output tends to be high when the FSS_SLOWDC is low (= LTMP: Laser Crystal Temp is low). Also there is a step at the LTMP where we think the mode hop is present. This may cause the daily PSL output variation which induced by the daily change of the reference cavity length.

My naive speculation is that the NPRO wavelength is too long (= hot side) for the MOPA absorption as the MOPA heads are cooled to 19deg.

3. Scanning of -10 to +10 changes the LTMP from 42-49deg. This is almost 1/10 of the NPRO capability. The manual told us that we should be able to scan the crystal temperature +/-16deg (about 30deg to 60deg).

What I like to try:
a) Change the NPRO temp to more cold side.
b) Change the MOPA head temp to a bit hot side.
c) Tweak the MOPA current (is it difficult?)

Jenne, Koji

Tonight we found that the wireless for Martian network was down.
We inspected the router and found the power was down. The power of the weather station was also down.

By touching the power outlet which they are connected, the power changes on and off.
This problematic power outlet has a label "L#17" just below the photograph of the mk I (1989).
The plug was connected to the left one.

As it was scary, we moved the power plug to the next one (L#19).
The wireless router and the weather station were powered now,
though the weather station is showing a wrong time in its clock.

Rana, Jenne, Koji

Last night we checked MZ. The apparent thing we found was the gain slider does not work.
The slider actually changes the voltage at the cross connection of 1Y2 (31 pin4?), the gain does not change.
The error spectrum didn't change at all even when the slider was moved.

Rana poked the flat cable at the bottom of 1Y2, we had no imporvement.

We coudn't find the VME extender board, so we just replaced AD602 (=VGA) and LT1125 (=Buffer for the ctrl voltage).
Even after the replacement, the gain slider is not working yet.

Today, I will put a lead or probe to the board to see whether the slider changes the voltage on the board or not.

Somehow the gain is sitting at a intermediate place that is not to low not to high. So I still don't know the gain slider
is the cause of the MZ instability or not.

12:45 I started the work on MZ. Thus the MZ was unlocked.

Found the bad connection on the FLKM 64pin cross connection board. We need a replacement.

I went to Wilson and got the replacement, two VME extender boards, three 7815, and three 7915. Thanks, Ben!

The MZ work completed. I replaced the bad cross connection terminal. The gain slider is working now.

I looked at the error spectrum on an FFT analyzer. I could see the lock was more tight.

Then I proceeded to the MZ epics panel.

1) C1:PSL-MZ_MZTRANSPD has no meaning (not connected). So I put  C1:PSL-ISS_INMONPD as the MZ trans monitor.

2) The EPICS setting for the MZ gain slider was totaly wrong.
    Today I learned from the circuit, the full scale of the gain slider C1:PSL-MZ_GAIN gave us +/-10V at the DAC.
    This yield +/-1V to V_ctrl of the AD602 after the internal 1/10 attenuation stage.
    This +/-1V didn't correspond to -10dB~+30dB, but does -22dB~+42dB and is beyond the spec of the chip.

    The gain of AD602 is calculated by

G [dB] = 32 V_crtl + 10,  for -0.625 [V]< V_ctrl < +0.625 [V].

    In order to fix this I used the following commands which overrode the EPICS parameters.
    The tip of EGUF/EGUL is to know how much the gain (virtually) goes for the full scale of the DAC output. 

ezcawrite C1:PSL-MZ_GAIN.EGUF 42
ezcawrite C1:PSL-MZ_GAIN.EGUL -22
ezcawrite C1:PSL-MZ_GAIN.DRVH 30
ezcawrite C1:PSL-MZ_GAIN.DRVL -10
ezcawrite C1:PSL-MZ_GAIN.HOPR 30
ezcawrite C1:PSL-MZ_GAIN.LOPR -10

   and for the permanent change I modified the db file /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1iool0/c1iooMZservo.db
   This will be active when cliool0 is rebooted.

# This yields the output limited to -6.25V ~ +6.25V, which corresponds to -10dB ~ +30dB
# modified by Koji Arai (29-Sept-2009)
grecord(ao,"C1:PSL-MZ_GAIN")
{
        field(DESC,"GAIN- overall pre-modecleaner servo loop gain")
        field(SCAN,"Passive")
        field(PINI,"YES")
        field(DISV,"1")
        field(DTYP,"VMIVME-4116")
        field(OUT,"#C3 S5 @")
        field(EGUF,"42")
        field(EGUL,"-22")
        field(PREC,"1")
        field(EGU,"dB")
        field(HOPR,"30")
        field(LOPR,"-10")
        field(DRVH,"30")
        field(DRVL,"-10")
        field(LINR,"LINEAR")
        field(OROC,"0")
        field(DOL,"0")
}

# previous code
grecord(ao,"C1:PSL-MZ_GAIN")
{
        field(DESC,"GAIN- overall pre-modecleaner servo loop gain")
        field(SCAN,"Passive")
        field(PINI,"YES")
        field(DISV,"1")
        field(DTYP,"VMIVME-4116")
        field(OUT,"#C3 S5 @")
        field(EGUF,"30")
        field(EGUL,"-10")
        field(PREC,"4")
        field(EGU,"Volts")
        field(HOPR,"30")
        field(LOPR,"-10")
        field(LINR,"LINEAR")
        field(OROC,"0")
        field(DOL,"0")
}

The previous "+15" was Vctrl = 0.25 [V]. Which was +18 dB.

Probably there is the same mistake for the PMC gain slider. Possibly on the FSS slider, too???

MZ stayed unlocked. Now It was relocked.

I will investigate the MZ board. I will unlock MZ (and MC).

MZ work has been done. I did not change anything on the circuit.

Recently we observed that the MZ PZT output was sticking at a certain voltage. I found the reason.
Shortly to say "we must return the PZT Ramp offset to 0, after the lock"

I am going to write a MZ auto lock script someday, to do it automatically.

According to the resister values used in the circuit, the PZT HV output voltage is determined by the following formula:

V_PZT = 150 - 12 V_ctrl - 24 Vramp

Here the ramp voltage Vramp moves from -10V to +10V, the feedback control voltage V_ctrl moves from -13V to +13V.
The baseline offset of 150V is provided in the circuit board.

When V_ramp is 0, V_PZT runs from 0 to 300. This is just enough for the full scale of the actual V_PZT range,
that is 0V~280V.

If any Vramp offset is given, V_PZT rails at either side of the edges. This limits the actual range of the PZT out.

This is not nice, but is what happened recently.

Ops. I restored the damping of the suspensions at around 16:30.

The PSL output looks smaller than the incident. Try to FSS Slow actuator adj of -5.6 (nominal), instead of -3.5.

I set the FSS slow actuator adj to -5.6 at the lunch time. It gave a little help at that time. Now max of the MC Trans is comming back somehow. I hope the MC Trans level is as good as before, if the HEPA is slowed down.

Awesome.

I propose that anyone who tries to do this kind of thoroughgoing cleaning should make an e-mail to call everyone available to join just for some hours
because every member has a responsibility to keep the lab organized.

And we have the list of things to do: Electronics (now it is halfway) / Cables / Optics / Screws / Tools ...

Last night (Oct 07), I ran armLoss script in order to obtain the latest numbers for the arm cavity loss.
Here is the summary

Parameters:

TE=10ppm, LE=L_RT/2, RE=1-TE-LE
tE=Sqrt(TE), rE=Sqrt(RE)

TF=0.005, LF=L_RT/2, RF=1-TF-LF
tF=Sqrt(TF), rF=Sqrt(RF)

rcav = -rF +(tF^2 rE)/(1-rF rE)
R_cav = rcav^2

F = pi Sqrt(rF rE)/(1-rF rE)

I looked at the data of the day before yesterday (Oct 06) to know how much is the recycling gain.

X arm: (TRX_PRecycled) / (TRX_PRMmisaligned) * T_PRM = 83.1/0.943*0.07 = 6.17
Y arm: (TRX_PRecycled) / (TRX_PRMmisaligned) * T_PRM = 99.2/1.017*0.07 = 6.83

==> G_PR = 6.5 +/- 0.5     (oh...this estimation is so bad...)

From the recycling gain and the arm cavity reflectance, one can get the loss in the recycling cavity.

G_PR = T_PRM  / (1-Sqrt(R_PRM * (1-L_PRC)*R_cav))^2

==> loss in the recycling cavity L_PRC: 0.009+/-0.009
       (About 1% loss is likely in the recycling cavity)

Steve, Kiwamu, and Koji

We went through the PSL table to make sure any strong beam did not hit the wall.

We found that the reflection of Stephanie's OSA returned its path down to the beamsplitter.
This BS reflect that beam to the wall. That was fixed.

The surprising was that the relatively strong beam (~1mW?) went through the steering mirror
just before the PMC. We put thorlabs razor blades. I am still thinking what this indicates...
because the beam had been blocked if it was such from long time before.

During the work we found some stray optics such as a cube BS, a flipper mirror, and so on.
We can see them in the photo as those enclosed with yellow circles.
One of the beams was obtained from the reflection of the ND filter (...almost illeagal), and 
was even hittting a metal fixture for the BS cube.

If someone uses these components for useful purposes,
please let me(Koji) know. Otherwise, they are removed next week.

The other thing we found was the bright scatter from the EOM for the PMC.
As this scatter is so blight, I am going to align it.

OK! I saw the optics are redundant and some of the components are not in a right place.
I will talk with you when you are back such that we can keep the usefulness of the setup.

Some questions came arise to me:

A. How the green injection system should be? How the handing off between 532 and 1064 should be?

This is not new, though. It would be worth reminding.

B. Do we still need PMC if we use 2W innolight?

Innolight has low intensity noise at the detection freq. Also the spacial mode is clean.

C. Do we still need frequency prestabilization by RC?

Is the stabilization of the laser freq by the MC not enough?
What is the relationship with the green?

Could be this.

http://ilog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/ilog/pub/ilog.cgi?group=detector&task=view&date_to_view=10/02/2009&anchor_to_scroll_to=2009:10:02:13:33:49-waldman