Is this one close to failure as well?

 The foreline pressure of TP3 is 2.9 mTorr  The drypump is loosing it's bearing and it is very noisy.

V3, V5 closed and TP3 small turbo controller off. This turned off the noisy forepump that has to be replaced.

RGA is running at cc4 2e-6 Torr

The RGA was turned off at cc4 1e-5 Torr

 The drypump is replaced at 95,781 hrs on TP3 controller time. The foreline pressure is 30 mTorr and dropping.

 It is 13 mTorr after 17 hours of pumping.

For some time now, I've been puzzled by the unreliability of the ASS_X dither alignment servo. Leaving the servo on, TRX often begins to decay to a lower value, and even after freezing the dither at the maximum TRX values, I can manually align the mirrors to increase TRX. We have suspected some kind of clipping in the TRX path that is responsible for this behaviour. Today I decided to investigate this a bit further. To have the arm locked and to inspect the beam, we have to change the locking trigger - TRX is what is normally used, but I misaligned the Y arm completely, and used AS110 as a trigger instead. There is some strangeness in the triggering topology, but this deserves a separate elog.

Once the arm was locked (and relocks using the AS110 trigger in the event of an unlock), I was able to trace the beampath on the EX table with an IR card. The TRX beam is rather large and weak, so it is hard to see, but as best as I can tell, the only real danger of clipping (or perhaps the beam is already clipped) is on the final steering mirror before the beam hits the (Thorlabs) PD. Steve/Pooja are working on getting a photo of this, and will upload it here shortly. Options to mitigate this:

1. Use the harmonic separator to steer the beam lower, and center it on the 1" steering mirror. However, this could possibly lead to clipping on some of the upstream lenses.
2. Raise the height of the 1" steering mirror by 0.25". However, this would require a custom 3/4" dia post height or some shims, which I am not sure is in line with our optomechanic mounting practises.
3. Use a 2" mirror instead of a 1" mirror.

The EX QPD has stopped working since the Acromag install. If it were working, we wouldn't have to rely on the alternate triggering with AS110 and instead just use the QPD as TRX, while we debug the Thorlabs PD path.

I opted for the quickest fix - I raised the height of the offending steering mirror using a 0.25" shim. In the long term, we can get a taller post machined. After raising the mirror height, I then checked the DC centering of the spot on the DC PD using a scope.

Looking at the performance of the X arm ASS, I no longer see the strange oscillatory behaviour I described in my previous post . Moreover, the TRX level was ~1 before be raising the steering mirror - but it is now ~1.2. So we were certainly losing some power.

These are the settings which determine the transmon (eg, TRX) amplitude, and which are updated by the matchTransMon scripts.

For the X arm

op440m:AutoDither>tdsread C1:LSC-TRX_GAIN C1:LSC-LA_PARAM_FLT_01 C1:LSC-LA_PARAM_FLT_00
0.0023
0.155
119.775

For the Y arm

op440m:AutoDither>tdsread C1:LSC-TRY_GAIN C1:LSC-LA_PARAM_FLT_04 C1:LSC-LA_PARAM_FLT_03
0.00237196
-0.116
19.9809

[Jenne, Diego, Rana]

This is a note about work done last night. 

We were starting to lock, and saw glitches in the Thorlabs TRY PD about once every 1/60th of a second.  It is not a sine wave, so it is not 60Hz line noise directly.  It looks like this:

Rana pointed out that this looks like it could be from a power supply that is converting AC to DC. 

We went down to the Yend, and noticed some weird symptoms.  So far, we do not know where the noise is coming from.  Rather, we are just using the QPD for locking.

* The noise comes and goes, particularly if someone is moving around at the end station.

* Moving the Thorlabs power supply farther from the HeNe power supply didn't do much.  Turning off and disconnecting the HeNe supply didn't make the noise go away, so we conclude that it is not the HeNe's fault.

* We suspected the loops of excess cable that were sitting on top of iscey, but moving the coils away from the computer did not make the noise go away.

* We removed a few disconnected BNC cables that were near or touching the end table, but that didn't fix things.

* We disconnected the PD's signal cable and pulled it out of the table enclosure, and then put it back.  Noise was gone when cable was disconnected (good), but it was back after plugging the cable back in.

* The noise still comes and goes, but we don't have to use the Thorlabs PD for locking, so we leave it for another day.

RXA: also moved the Thorlabs power supply to a different power strip and tried putting it closer/farther to the Uniblitz shutter controller. Another suspect is that its some PWM type noise from the doubler crystal temperature driver. Need to try turning off the heater and the Raspberry PI to if it effects the noise.

A more permanent fix than a crocodile clip was implemented. Should probably look to do this for the X end unit as well.

Rich came by the 40m to photocopy some pages from Hobbs, and saw me working on the 60 Hz hunting. As I suspected, the problem was being generated in the D040060. This board receives the photodiode signal single-ended, but has a different power ground than the photodiode (even though the PD is plugged into a power strip that claims to come from 1Y4). The mechanism is not entirely clear - the presence of these 60 Hz features seemed to be dependent on the light level on the TRY photodiode (i.e. they were absent when the PSL shutter is closed, and were more prominent when TRY was 0.9 rather than 0.5) but the PD certainly wasn't saturated - the DC signal was only ~100 mV when viewed on a scope. In any case, Rich suggested the simplest test would be to ground the BNC shield bringing TRY to the rack, to the local ground on the board, which I did using a crocodile clip. This did the trick, the TRY signal RMS is now dominated by the ~1 Hz seismic-driven variation.

 On a more pessimistic note - it looks like the elliptical reflector moving did not work, and the clipping in the Y arm persists . I am able to recover TRY~1 with the yaw offset on the ETM (which is still lower than the 1.06-1.07 Koji reported in Aug 2018, but I can believe that being down to the MC transmission being a few % lower at 15000cts rather than 15500), while the maximum I see without it is ~0.9. This is puzzling, because when the chamber was open, we saw that there was ~1.5" clearance between the edge of the reflector and the beam on an IR card. I suppose the input pointing could have been off by a small amount. So one of the primary vent objectives wasn't acheieved... But I will push ahead with the loss measurement.

This evening, I was not able to successfully transition CARM from ALS to 1/sqrt(trans) signals.  The TRY time series looked odd, so I took a spectra, and we have huge 60Hz noise in TRY. 

I found a lock stretch from around 6:30pm that did not show the 60Hz noise, and then there was a lock stretch around 8pm that did have the noise.  So, something happened at the Yend between 6:30 and 8pm tonight.

Asking around, this was the time frame in which Manasa was down at the Yend to realign the green beam, and to check cabling for the PZT_OUT and ERR_MON signals to the ADC.

Looking at the spectra, Rana noted that we have even as well as odd harmonics of the 60Hz line, which is unusual.

To try to diagnose the problem, Rana and I tried to make sure no cables' connectors were touching, and that no equipment was plugged in that shouldn't be.  We noticed that none of: the shutter, the Thorlabs TRY PD, or the QPD TRY are isolated from the table.  To see if perhaps the shutter was the problem, I turned off the power to the Yend green shutter, and unplugged the cable.  The cable is laying on the table, with the connector sitting on a piece of plastic to isolate it.  Removing the shutter from the system did not change anything. 

We don't see the 60Hz noise in the Xarm, so it's not on the laser light itself.  Also, we don't see the 60Hz lines in the Yarm feedback signal, so we're not putting the lines onto the mirror, and thus onto the Yarm's light. 

Manasa, can you please take a look, and see if you can figure out what is going on?  We need TRY so that we can transition to 1/sqrt(trans) signals for CARM.  Thanks!!

 I went to the Y end to look at the TRY 60Hz noise situation this morning. While looking at TRY noise on dtt, I found that just lifting the cable away from the cable bunch that runs out of the table suppressed the noise drastically. 

Attachment 1

I removed the unwanted bnc connector in the path of the already long TRY cable running from the PD to the 1Y4 rack and isolated it from the bunch. TRY became less noisy.

But the noise was back again earlier in the evening and it looks like the noise is very much related to the TRY cable. TRY cable might have moved from its sweet spot while I was around checking cable connections yesterday.

I couldn't find a spare to replace it right away today (We need a BNC to 4 pin lemo).

 The detectors and electronics on this table are not properly isolated. To reduce the 60 Hz and ground loops, photodiodes and shutter must be isolated by using plastic spacers as we usually do elsewhere - this table just seems to have a few oversights.

Steve can start assembling all of the pieces to do this in the morning and then we can start the swapping after the meeting.

The high gain Transmon cable should be a regular BNC. There's no need for 4-pin LEMO in this usage, so the best move is to modify the board and replace the 4-pin LEMO connector with an isolated panel mount BNC female.

The AC adapter for this diode (and all of the detectors on the table) should get their power from a power strip which gets plugged into the rack with the whitening boards. The SHG oven, the Uniblitz shutter, and any cameras can get their power from another power strip if needed/wanted.

[Steve, Manasa]

To find noise source

1. Swapped the power cable of the PD and checked that it is connected to the right power source.

2. Changed the aluminium base of the post holding the diode so that the diode is floating

3. Grounded the table and the rack

4. Routed the cable on the other side of the beam tube to isolate it from other cables.

After all the above, we still found that shaking the cable was making TRY noisy.

I pulled out the PD whitening board to replace the 4 pin lemo connector with a bnc connector so that we can swap the cable with a new one. So there is no TRY right now.

This is an effort to get rid of our ground loops  by isolating the electronic components from the optical table.

Aluminum mounting base plates of Thorlabs BA2 and Newport B-2 were replaced by plates or post made out of delrin material.

This is an insulator. DELRIN base plates were installed 6 places. The oplev-qpd has Nylon base plate.

The NPRO and HE/NE lasers are not isolated from the table. S8 and S9

I'm not sure about the doubling oven S10 

The optical table is grounded at G11  through  ~1 Mohms to the ETMY chamber.

Alignment touch up needed   at all D-marked component!

 Attachment appendix:

D: component delrin isolated

N: component nylon isolated ( or Delrin )

S: component shell is shorting to optical table (except oven)

G:  optical table ground

I failed to maximize TRY the pds.

 I worked at the ETMY-ISCT this morning and late afternoon.  I will continue the 60 Hz noise hunt tomorrow. 

The Y arm was locked with the TRY DC signal.

The handing off process is too complicated because there is no path from ALS to the LSC error.

 The TRY DC error signal & the gain determination

- The error signal was produced by the operation 1/SQRT(TRY) - OFFSET. The initial offset was -5.

- The sign of the TRY DC error signal depends on which side of the resonance the arm is.
  By looking at the strip chart, I determined that the sign is opposite of the ALS.
  The ALS had the gain of -25, so the TRY control gain was to be positive.

- From the strip chart on the previous entry , the slope difference between the PDH error and the TRY DC error was x500.
  The arm control with POY11 PDH had the gain of 0.2. So the target gain for the TRY DC was determined to be +100.

Handing off

- The arm was stabilized by ALS. The ALS gain was -25 with FM2/3/5/6/7/10

- YARM configuration: no trigger / no FM trigger / gain =+0 / FM5 ON / OFFSET -5

- Start handing off:
  YARM: Turned up the gain to +50

- ALS: Turned off FM6/7

- YARM: Turned on FM6/7

- ALS: Turned off FM2

- YARM: Turned on FM4

- ALS: Turned off FM3/10

- YARM: Turned on FM2/3/8/9 ON

- ALS: Reduced the gain to -15

- YARM: Increased the gain to +70

- ALS: Reduced the gain to 0

- YARM: Increased the gain to +100

HANDING OFF - DONE

Changing the offset

The offset of -5 gave the TRY of <0.1.

The detuning was reduced by giving the offset of -4. TRY went up to ~.1

The offset of -3 made TRY 0.13

The offset of -2 made TRY 0.25

The offset of -1.5 made TRY 0.4. And the arm could not be held by this error signal anymore.

I don't know why, but TRY has somehow gotten a 0.3 count offset in the last hour. 

Rana and I are witnesses for each other that neither of us has gone into the IFO room in the last several hours (and we're the only ones here).  For some reason though, the TRY PD now has a 0.3 count offset.  We have been doing some ALS locks, but we have not run the offset script in the last several hours.  Closing the green shutter doesn't change things, and we still see the offset when the MC loses lock, so it's not to do with the end or the PSL laser.  We haven't been in there, so there hasn't been a change in the room lights. 

TRY signals are all gone!  Both the PD and the camera show no signal.  I went down there to turn off the lights, and look to see what was up, and I don't see any obvious things blocking the beam path on the table.  However, Steve has experimentally bungeed the lids down, so I didn't open the box to really look to see what the story is.

Absent TRY, I redid the IFO alignment.  Yarm locked, so I assumed it was close enough.  I redid Xarm alignment pretty significantly.  Transmission was ~0.5, which I got up to ~0.85 (which isn't too bad, since the PMC transmission is 0.74 instead of the usual 0.83).  I then aligned MICH, and PRM.  After fixing up the BS alignment, the POP beam wasn't hitting the POP PD in the center any more.  I centered the beam on the PD, although as Gabriele pointed out to me a week or two ago, we really need to put a lens in front of POP, since the beam is so big.  We're never getting the full beam when the cavity flashes, which is not so good.

Den is still working on locking, so I'll let him write the main locking report for the night.

We see that the PRC carrier lock seems to be more stable when we lock MICH with +1 for ITMY and -1 for ITMX, and PRCL with -1 for both ITMs.  This indicates that we need to revisit the systematic problem with using the PRM oplev to balance the coils, since that oplev has a relatively wide opening angle.  I am working on how to do this.

Again unknown, but about 6 hours ago (so ~8am) the offset disappeared. 

Here's a 1-day trend:

One question answered, but another raised. The offset came from LSC-TRY switching to the ETMY-QPD signal from ETMY-TRY (Hi gain pd). 

BUT WHY

The TRY (TRansmitted light from Y arm ) path was a bit realigned because there had been a small clipping.

This clipping was introducing offsets on the error signals of the C1ASS servo.

(Story)

During I was running the C1ASS servo on the Y arm I found every time after the auto-alignment is done there still remained a slight offset in the beam pointing,

I looked at the CCD camera which looks at the transmitted light and then introduced an intentional misalignment in ETMY in order to find an obvious clipping.

Indeed there was a clipping in horizontal direction. I checked through the optics on the Y end optical bench.

On the second mirror (beam splitter) the beam was on a very edge. So I steered the first steering mirror to fix it,

In addition to that an iris which is placed between the first and second mirror was also clipping the beam,

So I fully opened the aperture of the iris.

[Suresh / Kiwamu]

 We installed the TRY photo diode (Thorlabs one) and the ETMYT CCD camera in place on the ETMY table.

Now we can see a signal on the TRY digital channel.

It will be quite useful for the Y arm locking, for instance we can do a triggered locking and the maximization of the intracavity power.

Someone has to install the EMTY trans QPD at some point.

Koji noticed that earlier this afternoon the Yarm ASS was working, but then after dinner it was no longer working.  I saw that the ETMY trans camera beam was clipped.  These things precipitated a visit to the Yend station. 

I saw that the beam on the optic that steers the camera beam to the camera was very, very low, almost falling off the optic.  The only mirror which steers to this optic is the harmonic separator which reflects the IR, and transmits the green.  I turned the pitch knobs on the harmonic separator until the beam was roughly centered on all 3 optics between the separator and the camera (BS to QPD, BS to TRYDC and Y1 for camera).  The yaw was fine, so I didn't touch it.

I then adjusted the steering mirror to the camera, and the BS pointing to the DC PD.  I have not touched the BS pointing to the QPD.  Once the beam was on the TRY PD, Koji ran the ASS script, and I recentered the beam on the DC PD.  During this time, Koji had the Yarm triggering using -1 in the POYDC element of the matrix.

The harmonic separator is not mounted in a nice way (I'm assuming that Annalisa is in the middle of things, and she'll get back to it after the green work), so the TRY PD and camera will need to be aligned again, so I didn't do any ASS-recentering-ASS iteration tonight.

The Yarm ASS works nicely again, getting TRY to ~0.89 . 

  [Koji, Steve, Den]

TT alignment is fine, yaw damping is satisfactory, pitch damping is slow. We might want to add magnets to the mirror and attach blades to the frame for pitch edge current damping.

We are moving towards electronics testing.

[Jenne, Koji]

D - UL

B - UR

A - LR

C - LL

The sensor card on the bottom of the chamber was not salvaged yet.

[Manasa, Jenne]

First plug in only one of the quadrupus cables, find out what coil it corresponds to according to screen, then plug in 2nd cable, don't test already-determined cable, but all other 3, find what cable it corresponds to according to the screen.  Repeat for other 2 cables.

TT2, confirmation:

C = LL, not UR, not UL, not LR

D = UL, not UR, not LR

A = LR, not UR

B = UR

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

After confirming that the correct quadrupus cables were plugged in to the correct coils, I suspected that our problems could be coming from a (or some) magnet(s) touching the inside of the OSEM.  We tested this a little bit, with the goal of finding the range of values where no magnets are touching.

All matrix values are either +1000 or -1000, so, with an example pitch slider value :

                       PIT    YAW

Pit slider           |  1000   1000  | --->  -22000 UL


     -22.2           | -1000   1000  | --->  +22000 LL


Yaw slider           |  1000  -1000  | --->  -22000 UR


    0                | -1000  -1000  | --->  +22000 LR

Trying some values for pitch, keeping yaw constant:

0 yaw, Pitch bias = 5 -> UR is touching on left side of its osem.

0 yaw, Pitch 0, UR is touching left side.

0 yaw, -1.2 pitch, UR just came off from touching left side.  More neg from here should be non-touching.  all others are fine.

0 yaw, -32.2 pitch, LR not quite touching right side of osem, but is close (much less than 1mm clearance).  UR fine. all others fine.

0 yaw, -22.2 pitch, all 4 are fine.

Trying some yaw values, keeping pitch constant:

1.  -22.2 pitch, -32 yaw, LR touching. UR touching.

2.  -22.2 pitch, -12 yaw, LR barely not touching, UR still touching.

3.  -22.2 pitch, 0 yaw, UR still touching.

4.  -22.2 pitch, 16 UR barely not touching.

5.  -22.2 pitch, 32, none touching.

6.  -22.2 pitch, 12, UR close, not touching.

7.  -22.2 pitch, 0, UR touching.

8.  -22.2 pitch, 32 (or 30?) UR came off.

9.  -22.2 pitch, -25, UR close

10.  -22.2 pitch, -32 UR touching.

11.  -22.2 pitch, -4 UR not touching.

12.  -22.2 pitch, 0 yaw, UR not touching.

Here is a graphical semi-representation for the yaw data:

 [Manasa, Jenne]

The motion of the magnets (~1.5mm estimated by looking at the magnets moving) correspond to ~2deg. tilt of the mirror. This would mean almost 1.5m shift at the ETM end (~45m from the TT).

 That seems like easily enough range; as long as we can put the TT into the middle of their range to start with we should be OK.

We should consider instrumenting the leakage transmission through all TT with a bare QPD on a stick. We can then use those sensors to monitor the spot positions within the input mirrors as well as the PRC / SRC.

 We can only decide the need of pitch damping when the coils are activated.

Could you tell us why? Are you thinking about induced current damping?

      I  was wrong The instability will be the same when the coils are actuated.

Using my Matlab model of the flexibly-supported eddy current damping system, I have changed parameters to see if/how the TTs can be optimized in isolation. As I found earlier, posted in my bode plot entry, there is only a limited region where the flexibly-supported system provides better isolation than the rigidly-supported system.

Here is what I have found, where \gamma is the scale factor of the magnetic strength (proportional to magnetic strength), \beta is the scale factor of the current damper mass (estimated by attempting to fit my model to the experimental data), and \alpha is the scale factor of the current resonant frequency of the dampers.

Here are my commentaries on these plots. If you have any commentaries, it would be very helpful, as I would like to incorporate this information in my powerpoint presentation.

It seems as if the TT suspensions are already optimized?

It may be difficult to lower the resonant frequency of the dampers because that would mean changing the lengths of the EDC suspensions). Also, it appears that a rather drastic reduction (at most 0.6*current EDC resonant frequency --> reduction from about 10 Hz to 6 Hz or less) is required . Using the calculation that the resonant frequency is sqrt(g/length), for my single-suspended EDC model, this means increasing the wire length to nearly 3 x its current value. I'm not sure how this would translate to four EDCs...

The amplification at resonance caused by increasing the magnet strength almost offsets the isolation benefits of increasing magnet strength. From my modeling, it appears that the magnet strength may be very close (if not already at) isolation optimization.

Lowering the mass to 0.2 the current mass may be impractical. It seems as if the benefits of lowering the mass only occur when the mass is reduced by a factor of 0.2 (maybe 0.4)

What are the parameters you are using? As you have the drawings of the components, you can calculate the masses of the objects.

Reducing the ECD resonance from 10Hz->6Hz looks nice.

The resonant freq of the ECDs are not (fully) determined by the gravitational energy but have the contribution of the elastic energy of the wire.

Q1: How much is the res freq of the ECDs if the freq is completely determined by the grav energy? (i.e. the case of using much thinner wires)

Q2: How thin should the wires be?

 The drawings do not have the masses of the objects.

For the resonant frequency:

Instead of sqrt (g/l) would the numerator in the square root be[ g + (energy stored in wire)/(mass of damper)] ?

1) Drawing has the dimensions => You can calculate the volume => You can calculate the mass
Complicated structure can be ignored. We need a rough estimation.

2) Your restoring force can have two terms:
- one comes from the spring constant k
- the other from the gravity

 Thank you.

The wire used to suspend the EDCs is tungsten?

To verify, for my model, the EDC will be the mass of all four dampers or a single damper? The length of the wire used to suspend the EDC will be the combined length of 4 wires or length of  a single wire?

Taking into account the densities for each material (specific material of each component was listed, so I looked up the densities), and trying my best to approximate the volumes of each component, I have determined

the mass of the mirror + mirror holder to be ~100 g and the mass of a single EDC to be ~19 g

 I am thinking that perhaps my mass estimations were off? The model that I have used fits the data better than the model that I have made (changing the masses to fit my estimations of the values)

As reported in my  previous entry of TT supsension bode plots, I found that my experimental data had what appears to be very noise peaks above 20 Hz (as mentioned earlier, the peak at 22 Hz is likely due to vertical coupling, as 22 Hz is the resonant frequency of the cantilever blades). This is very unusual and needs to be explored further. I would like to vertically-shake the TTs to obtain more data on possible coupling. However, I am leaving on Monday and will not return until Thursday (day of SURF talks). I am leaving campus Friday afternoon or so. I would may need some help coming up with an assembly plan/assembling set-up for vertical shaking (if it is possible to do so in such a limited time frame).

Today I wanted to see if the "noisy peaks" above 30 Hz were due to EM noise coupling. I tested this hypothesis today, seeing if EM fields generated by the coil at higher frequencies were injecting noise into my transfer function measurements. I found that the "noisy peaks" above 30 Hz are NOT DUE TO EM NOISE COUPLING. I am very curious as to what is causing the high peaks (possibly coupling from other degrees of freedom)?

 I have been redoing the noise test multiple times today. Here is the best plot that I got

 SRM, ITMY and MC3 moved some what, but how are the TT? It may worth looking at them before we vent.

I did TT alignment using red laser and QPD.

 I had a problem aligning TT with frame number SN-035 as some screws are damaged so all what I could move were 2 blades on the sides of the mirrors. But this was not enough to align pitch and yaw simultaneously.  It is possible to align pitch only, but then I got a huge yaw angle (~0.05-0.1 rad). The only option I had was to make a reasonable alignment in yaw and then suspend several washes on the screw on the bottom of the mirror to align pitch.

Attached are flag positions inside coils. 1 - SN034, 2 - SN012, 3 - SN006, 4 - SN035. For each TT there are 4 pictures with flag 1-4: UL, LL, UR, LR

I think the angle of incidence on TT inside BSC will be too large because of eddy current damping brackets. I've measured max possible angle of incidence

This means that we do not have too much range and there is a probability that 45 degree incident beam will start clipping. I think we should just cut off the central part of the bracket. We do not need it anyway, our eddy current damping due to corner magnets is good enough.

I've left the brackets near the laptop in the clean room.

I've estimated max possible angle of incidence on TT if we allow 20mm tolerance for the beam size and 5 mm tolerance for spot location on the mirror. It turns out to be

alpha = 43 degrees

So we need to cut the central part of the bracket. Then the max possible angle of incidence will be

alpha = 63 degrees

We can start the vent on Monday and use TT with an old bracket for yaw damping and later during the week we can install the brackets after they will be baked.

At least, we don't want to use Al-coated mirrors. We should use multilayer dielectric mirrors.

But have you looked yet at what angle we need? The first input string mirror has a quite small incidence angle. The other input steering mirror maybe borderline, based on your estimates. Also, have we considered just having new brackets made and cleaned? Is there a reason we would prefer to modify the ones we have?

 I popped into the cleanroom earlier today, and all 4 active TTs have dielectric coatings.  I'm not sure why the mirror in this photo looks funny, but the actual mirrors installed are correct, at least in type of coating. 

I'm not sure if Den wrote down what mirrors are actually in there, and I didn't look carefully - I don't know if they are G&H, CVI, other mystery company?

 This week I've got all TT stuff baked and today was testing eddy current damping and electronics.

In the beginning everything was good: ring magnets fit mirror holder holes and their interaction with actuation magnets is strong enough to keep damping magnets in the wholes. I've put the frame horizontally and kicked it, magnets were still in the whole. Brackets also fit to the TT frame.  

I've tested eddy current dumping during ring down measurements, it was strong enough.

Then I started to test electronics. I've provided signal to TT1 channels and could see it in the clean room. But then things went terrible. I just could not connect TT cables to OSEMS, there is not enough space in the OSEM for the connector to plug in.

Connector should be machines to be more narrow. There is actually no reason for a connector to have this shape. I think it was designed to fit perfectly the OSEM frame but turned out to be ~0.5 mm wider then it should be.

False alarm - the mistake was mine. Looking at the schematic diagram, the AI/Dewhite board, D000316, accepts the inputs from the DAC on the P2 connector. While restoring the connections at 1Y2, I had plugged the outputs of the DAC interface board into the P1 connectors of the AI boards. Having rectified this problem, I am now able to move the beam on the AS camera in both PIT and YAW using TT1 or TT2. So to zero-th order, this subsystem appears to work. A more in-depth analysis of the angular stability of the TTs can only be done once we re-align the arms and lock some cavities.