40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 40m Log, Page 317 of 344 Not logged in
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
16973   Wed Jul 6 15:28:18 2022 TegaUpdateSUSOutput matrix diagonalisation : F2P coil balancing

local dir:  /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/SUS/OutMatCalc

Here is an update on our recent attempt at diagonalization of the SUS output matrices. There are two different parts to this: the first is coil balancing using existing F2P code which stopped working because of an old-style use of the print function and the second which should now focus on the mixing amongst the various degrees of freedoms (dof) without a DC/AC split I believe. The F2P codes are now working and have been consolidated in the git repo.

TODO:

• The remaining task is to make it so that we only call a single file that combines the characterization code and filter generation code, preferably with the addition of a safety feature that restores any changed values in case of an error or interruption from the user. The safety functionality is already implemented in the output matrix diagonalization stem of the code, so we just need to copy this over.
• Improve the error minimization algorithm for minimizing the cross-coupling between the various dof by adjusting the elements of the output matrix.

Previous work

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/4762

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/4719

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/4688

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/4682

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/4673

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/4327

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/4326

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/4762

16997   Wed Jul 13 12:49:25 2022 PacoSummarySUSSUS frozen

[Paco, JC, Yuta]

This morning, while investigating the source of a burning smell, we turned off the c1SUS 1X4 power strip powering the sorensens. After this, we noticed the MC1 refl was not on the camera, and in general other vertex SUS were misaligned even though JC had aligned the IFO in the morning to almost optimum arm cavity flashing. After a c1susaux modbusIOC service restart and burt restore, the problem persisted.

We started to debug the sus rack chain for PRM since the oplev beam was still near its alignment so we could use it as a sensor. The first weird thing we noticed was that no matter how much we "kicked" PRM, we wouldn't see any motion on the oplev. We repeatedly kicked UL coil and looked at the coil driver inputs and outputs, and also verified the eurocard had DC power on which it did. Somehow disconnecting the acromag inputs didn't affect the medm screen values, so that made us suspicious that something was weird with these ADCs.

Because all the slow channels were in a frozen state, we tried restarting c1susaux and the acromag chassis and this fixed the issue.

17073   Wed Aug 10 20:30:54 2022 TegaSummarySUSCharacterisation of suspension damping

[Yuta, Tega]

We diagnosed the suspension damping of the IMC/BHD/recycling optics by kicking the various degree of freedom (dof) and then tuning the gain so that we get a residual Q of approx. 5 in the cases where this can be achieved.

MC1: Good
MC2: SIDE-YAW coupling, but OK
MC3: Too much coupling between dofs, NEEDS ATTENTION
LO1: Good
LO2: Good
AS1: POS-PIT coupling, close to oscillation, cnt2um off, NEEDS ATTENTION
AS4: PIT-YAW coupling, cannot increase YAW gain because of coupling, No cnt2um, No Cheby, NEEDS ATTENTION
PR2: No cnt2um, No Cheby
PR3: POS-PIT coupling, cannot increase POS/PIT/YAW gain because of coupling, No cnt2um, No Cheby, NEEDS ATTENTION
SR2: No cnt2um

17092   Fri Aug 19 14:46:32 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSOpen loop transfer function measurements for local damping loops of BHD optics

[Anchal, Tega]

As a first step to characterize all the local damping loops, we ran an open loop transfer function measurement test for all BHD optics, taking transfer function using band-limited (0.3 Hz to 10 Hz) gaussian noise injection at error points in different degrees of freedom. Plots are in the git repo. I'll make them lighter and post here.

We have also saved coherence of excitation at the IN1 test points of different degrees of freedom that may be later used to determine the cross-coupling in the system.

The test ran automatically using measSUSOLTF.py script. The script can run the test parallelly on all suspensions in principle, but not in practice because the cdsutils.getdata apparently has a limitation on how many real-time channels (we think it is 8 maximum) one can read simultaneously. We can get around this by defining these test points at DQ channels but that will probably upset the rtcds model as well. Maybe the thing to do is to separate the c1su2 model into two models handling 3 and 4 suspensions. But we are not sure if the limitation is due to fb or DAQ network (which will persist even if we reduce the number of testpoints on one model) or due to load on a single core of FE machines.

The data is measured and stored here. We can do periodic tests and update data here.

### Next steps:

• Run the test for old optics as well.
• Fit the OLTF model with the measured data, and divide by the digital filter transfer function to obtain the plant transfer function for each loop.
• Set maximum noise allowed in the local damping loop for each degree of freedom, and criteria for Q of the loop.
• Adjust gains and or loop shape to reach the requirements on all the suspensions in a quantitative manner.
• (optional) Add a BLRMS calculation stream in SUS models for monitoring loop performance and in-loop noise levels in the suspensions.
• More frequency resolution, please. (KA)
17096   Sat Aug 20 20:26:10 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSOpen loop transfer function measurements for local damping loops of Core optics

I made measurements of old optics OLTF today. I have reduced the file sizes of the plots and data now. It is interesting that it is allowed to read 9 channels simultaneously from c1mcs or c1sus models, even together. The situation with c1su2 is a bit unclear. I was earlier able to take measurements of 6 channels at once from c1su2 but not I can't read more than 1 channel simultaneously. This suggests that the limit is dictated by how much a single model is loaded, not how much we are reading simultaneously. So if we split c1su2 into two models, we might be able to read more optics simultaneously, saving time and giving us the ability to measure for longer.

Attached are the results for all the core optics. Inferences will be made later in the week.

Note: Some measurements have very low coherence in IN2 channels in most of the damping frequency region, these loops need to be excited harder. (eg PIT, POS, YAW, on ITMs and ETMs).

17097   Mon Aug 22 14:36:49 2022 ranaUpdateSUSOpen loop transfer function measurements for local damping loops of Core optics

for damping and OL loops, we typically don't measure the TF like this because it takes forever and we don't need that detailed info for anything. Just use the step responses in the way we discussed at the meeting 2 weeks ago. There's multiple elog entries from me and others illustrating this. The measurement time is then only ~30 sec per optic, and you also get the cross-coupling for free. No need for test-point channels and overloading, just use the existing DQ channels and read back the response from the frames after the excitations are completed.

17102   Wed Aug 24 12:02:24 2022 PacoUpdateSUSITMX SUS is sus UL glitches?

[Yehonathan, Paco]

This morning, while attempting to align the IFO to continue with noise-budgeting, we noted the XARM lock was not stable and showed glitches in the C1:LSC-TRX_OUT (arm cavity transmission). Inspecting the SUS screens, we found the ULSEN rms ~ 6 times higher than the other coils so we opened an ndscope with the four face OSEM signals and overlay the XARM transmission. We immediately noticed the ULSEN input is noisy, jumping around randomly and where bigger glitches correlated with the arm cavity transmission glitches. This is appreciated in Attachment #1.

## Signal chain investigation

We'll do a full signal investigation on ITMX SUS electronics to try and narrow down the issue, but it seems the glitches come and go... Is this from the gold satamp box? ...

17105   Thu Aug 25 16:05:51 2022 YehonathanUpdateSUSTrying to fix some SUS

I tried to lock the Y/X arms to take some noise budget. However, we noticed that TRX/Y were oscillating coherently together (by tens of percent), meaning some input optics, essentially PR2/3 are swinging. There was no way I could do noise budgeting in this situation.

I set out to debug these optics. First, I notice side motion of PR2 is very weakly damped .

The gain of the side damping loop (C1:SUS-PR2_SUSSIDE_GAIN) was increased from 10 to 150 which seem to have fixed the issue. Attachment 1 shows the current step response of  the PR2 DOFs. The residual Qs look good but there is still some cross-couplings, especially when kicking POS. Need to do some balancing there.

PR3 fixing was less successful in the beginning. I increased the following gains:

C1:SUS-PR3_SUSPOS_GAIN: 0.5 -> 30

C1:SUS-PR3_SUSPIT_GAIN: 3 -> 30

C1:SUS-PR3_SUSYAW_GAIN: 1 -> 30

C1:SUS-PR3_SUSSIDE_GAIN: 10 -> 50

But the residual Q was still > 10. Then I checked the input matrix and noticed that UL->PIT is -0.18 while UR->PIT is 0.39. I changed UL->PIT (C1:SUS-PR3_INMATRIX_2_1) to +0.18. Now the Q became 7. I continue optimizing the gains.

Was able to increase C1:SUS-PR3_SUSSIDE_GAIN: 50 -> 100.

Attachment 2 shows the step response of PR3. The change of the entry of the input matrix was very ad-hoc, it would probably be good to run a systematic tuning. I have to leave now, but the IFO is in a very misaligned state. PR3/2 should be moved to bring it back.

17133   Tue Sep 6 17:39:40 2022 PacoUpdateSUSLO1 LO2 AS1 AS4 damping loop step responses

I tuned the local damping gains for LO1, LO2, AS1, and AS4 by looking at step responses in the DOF basis (i.e. POS, PIT, YAW, and SIDE). The procedure was:

1. Grab an ndscope with the error point signals in the DOF basis, e.g. C1:SUS-LO1_SUSPOS_IN1_DQ
2. Apply an offset to the relevant DOF using the alignment slider offset (or coil offset for the SIDE DOF) while being careful not to trip the watchdog. The nominal offsets found for this tuning are summarized below:
 POS PIT YAW SIDE LO1 800 300 300 10000 LO2 800 300 400 -10000 AS1 800 500 500 20000 AS4 800 400 400 -10000
1. Tune the damping gains until the DOF shows a residual Q with ~ 5 or more oscillations.
2. The new damping gains are below for all optics and their DOFs, and Attachments #1-4 summarize the tuned step responses as well as the other DOFs (cross-coupled).
 POS PIT YAW SIDE LO1 10.000 5.000 3.000 40.000 LO2 10.000 3.000 3.000 50.000 AS1 14.000 2.500 3.000 85.000 AS4 15.000 3.100 3.000 41.000

Note that during this test, FM5 has been populated for all these optics with a BounceRoll (notches at 16.6, 23.7 Hz) filter, apart from the Cheby (HF rolloff) and the 0.0:30 filters.

17134   Wed Sep 7 14:32:15 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSUpdated SD coil gain to keep all coil actuation signals digitally same magnitude

The coil driver actuation strength for face coils was increased by 13 times in LO1, LO2, SR2, AS1, AS4, PR2, and PR3.

After the change the damping strenghth of POS, PIT, and YAW were reduced, but not SIDE coil output filter module requires higher digital input to cause same force at the output. This wouldn't be an issue until we try to correct for cross coupling at output matrix where we would want to give similar order of magnitude coefficients for SIDE coil as well. So I did the following changes to make input to all coil output filters (Face and side) same for these particular suspensions:

• C1:SUS-LO1_SUSSIDE_GAIN 40.0 -> 3.077
C1:SUS-AS1_SUSSIDE_GAIN 85.0 -> 6.538
C1:SUS-AS4_SUSSIDE_GAIN 41.0 -> 3.154
C1:SUS-PR2_SUSSIDE_GAIN 150.0 -> 11.538
C1:SUS-PR3_SUSSIDE_GAIN 100.0 -> 7.692
C1:SUS-LO2_SUSSIDE_GAIN 50.0 -> 3.846
C1:SUS-SR2_SUSSIDE_GAIN 140.0 -> 10.769
• C1:SUS-LO1_SDCOIL_GAIN -1.0 -> -13.0
C1:SUS-AS1_SDCOIL_GAIN 1.0 -> 13.0
C1:SUS-AS4_SDCOIL_GAIN -1.0 -> -13.0
C1:SUS-PR2_SDCOIL_GAIN -1.0 -> -13.0
C1:SUS-PR3_SDCOIL_GAIN -1.0 -> -13.0
C1:SUS-LO2_SDCOIL_GAIN -1.0 -> -13.0
C1:SUS-SR2_SDCOIL_GAIN -1.0 -> -13.0

In short, now 10 cts of input to C1:SUS-AS1_ULCOIL would create same actuation on UL as 10 cts of input to C1:SUS-AS1_SDCOIL will on SD.

 Quote: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/16802 [Koji, JC] Coil Drivers LO2, SR2, AS4, and AS1 have been updated a reinstalled into the system.  LO2 Coil Driver 1 (UL/LL/UR)now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH1/2/3        Unit: S2100008 LO2 Coil Driver 2 (LR/SD)now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH3                    Unit: S2100530 SR2 Coil Driver 1 (UL/LL/UR)now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH1/2/3        Unit: S2100614 SR2 Coil Driver 2 (LR/SD)now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH3                    Unit: S2100615 AS1 Coil Driver 1 (UL/LL/UR)now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH1/2/3        Unit: S2100610 AS1 Coil Driver 2 (LR/SD)now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH3                    Unit: S2100611 AS4 Coil Driver 1 (UL/LL/UR)now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH1/2/3        Unit: S2100612 AS4 Coil Driver 2 (LR/SD)now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH3                    Unit: S2100613

 Quote: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/16791 [JC Koji] To give more alignment ranges for the SUS alignment, we started updating the output resistors of the BHD SUS coil drivers. As Paco has already started working on LO1 alignment, we urgently updated the output Rs for LO1 coil drivers. LO1 Coil Driver 1 now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH1/2/3, and LO1 Coil Driver 2 has the same mod only for CH3. JC has taken the photos and will upload/update an elog/DCC. We are still working on the update for the SR2, LO2, AS1, and AS4 coil drivers. They are spread over the workbench right now. Please leave them as they're for a while. JC is going to continue to work on them tomorrow, and then we'll bring them back to the rack.

 Quote: https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/16760 [Yuta Koji] We took out the two coil driver units for PR3 and the incorrect arrangement of the output Rs were corrected. The boxes were returned to the rack. In order to recover the alignment of the PR3 mirror, C1:SUS_PR3_SUSPOS_INMON / C1:SUS_PR3_SUSPIT_INMON / C1:SUS_PR3_SUSYAW_INMON were monitored. The previous values for them were {31150 / -31000 / -12800}. By moving the alignment sliders, the PIT and YAW values were adjusted to be {-31100 / -12700}. while this change made the POS value to be 52340. The original gains for PR3 Pos/Pit/Yaw were {1, 0.52, 0.2}. They were supposed to be reduced to  {0.077, 0.04, 0.015}. I ended up having the gains to be {0.15, 0.1, 0.05}. The side gain was also increased to 50. ---- Overall, the output R configuration for PR2/PR3 are summarized as follows. I'll update the DCC. PR2 Coil Driver 1 (UL/LL/UR) / S2100616 / PCB S2100520 / R_OUT = (1.2K // 100) for CH1/2/3 PR2 Coil Driver 2 (LR/SD) / S2100617 / PCB S2100519 / R_OUT = (1.2K // 100) for CH3 PR3 Coil Driver 1 (UL/LL/UR) / S2100619 / PCB S2100516 / R_OUT = (1.2K // 100) for CH1/2/3 PR3 Coil Driver 2 (LR/SD) / S2100618 / PCB S2100518 / R_OUT = (1.2K // 100) for CH3

17147   Tue Sep 20 18:18:07 2022 AnchalSummarySUSETMX, ETMY damping loop gain tuning

[Paco, Anchal]

We performed local damping loop tuning for ETMs today to ensure all damping loops' OLTF has a Q of 3-5. To do so, we applied a step on C1:SUS-ETMX/Y_POS/PIT/YAW_OFFSET, and looked for oscillations in the error point of damping loops (C1:SUS-EMTX/Y_SUSPOS/PIT/YAW_IN1) and increased or decreased gains until we saw 3-5 oscillations before the error signal stabilizes to a new value. For side loop, we applied offset at C1:SUS-ETMX/Y_SDCOIL_OFFSET and looked at C1:SUS-ETMX/Y_SUSSIDE_IN1. Following are the changes in damping gains:

C1:SUS-ETMX_SUSPOS_GAIN : 61.939   ->   61.939
C1:SUS-ETMX_SUSPIT_GAIN :   4.129     ->   4.129
C1:SUS-ETMX_SUSYAW_GAIN : 2.065     ->   7.0
C1:SUS-ETMX_SUSSIDE_GAIN : 37.953  ->   50

C1:SUS-ETMY_SUSPOS_GAIN : 150.0     ->   41.0
C1:SUS-ETMY_SUSPIT_GAIN :   30.0       ->   6.0
C1:SUS-ETMY_SUSYAW_GAIN : 30.0       ->   6.0
C1:SUS-ETMY_SUSSIDE_GAIN : 50.0      ->   300.0

17218   Tue Nov 1 15:41:18 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSF2A filter design and trial on MC1

Following discussion in this elog thread (40/6004), I used the design of F2A (force to angle(pitch)) decoupling filter as mentioned in this DCC doc T010140. This document is very useful as it talks about the overall control loops of a suspension, including sensor signal conditioning, damping filter shapes, force to pitch decoupling, pitch to position decoupling, and coil strength balancing. In future, if people are working on suspension characterization and damping, this document is a good resource to read.

### Force to Angle (Pitch) decoupling filter

The document address this problem with first principle calculation using the geometry of single suspensions. As a first pass, I decided to use the design value of these geometric paramters to create a filter design for upper coils and one for lower coils. The parameters are listed in table 2. I used following:

Description Value used
L Vertical dis-tance  from  the  suspension  point  to  the  wire  take-off  point 247.1 mm
h Pitch distance (distance above the center-of-mass of the wire take-off point) 0.9 mm
l L + h 248 mm
D Vertical distance from a magnet to the center of the optic 24.7 mm
Q Q value used in poles of the filter (doc says to use 1000) 3, 5, 10
$\omega_0$ Position resonant angular frequency given by $\sqrt{g/l}$ 6.288 rad/s

Using above parameters, we can define the F2A filter for upper coils as:

$T(s) = \frac{s^2 + \omega_0^2(1 + h/D)}{s^2 + s \omega_0 /Q + \omega_0^2}$

and for lower coil:

$T(s) = \frac{s^2 + \omega_0^2(1 - h/D)}{s^2 + s \omega_0 /Q + \omega_0^2}$

I used the design values as listed in the table above and got the filters as shown in attachment 1 for Q=3 case. I think the Q is higher than what other f2a filters I have seen for example at ETMY, the filters are as shown in attachment 2.

I tried turning on MC1 f2a filters but the watchdog tripped in about 4 minutes. This was the case when WFS were turned off. Another trial also lead to the same result. I tried this on MC2 and MC3 as well, all of them tripped after som time. See attachment 3 to see MC1 tripping on these filters.

I'll now try to use a lower Q filter.

17219   Tue Nov 1 17:17:27 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSModified F2A filter design and trial on MC1

After a quick discussion with Yuta, we figured that the introduction of a finite Q that Peter Fritschel does in this DCC doc T010140 for the poles pair, he should have done the same for the zeros pair as well otherwise there will be a notch at around 1 Hz. So I simply modified the filter design to have same Q for both zero pair and pole pair and got following transfer functions:

For upper coils:

$T(s) = \frac{s^2 + s\omega_0\sqrt{1 + h/D}/Q + \omega_0^2(1+h/D))}{s^2 + s\omega_0/Q + \omega_0^2}$

for lower coils:

$T(s) = \frac{s^2 + s\omega_0\sqrt{1 - h/D}/Q + \omega_0^2(1-h/D))}{s^2 + s\omega_0/Q + \omega_0^2}$

Attachment 1 shows the new filter design. I tested this filter set on MC1 and the optic kept on going as if nothing changed. That is atleast a good sign. Now next step would be test test if this actually helped in reducing the POS->PIT coupling on MC1, maybe using WFS signals.

The filters were added using this createF2Afilters.py script.

17220   Tue Nov 1 17:59:23 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSAdded F2A filters on MC1, MC2, and MC3

I've cleared all old attempts on F2A filters on MC1, MC2, and MC3, and added the default F2A filter described in the last post. I added 3 such sets of filters, with Q=3, 7, and 10. I have turned on Q=3 filter for all IMC optics right now. I'll setup some test of switching between different Q filters in future.

17222   Thu Nov 3 14:00:29 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSMC1 coil strengths balanced

I balanced the face coil strengths of MC1 using following steps:

• At all points, keep sum(abs(coil_gains)) = 4
• After reading coil gains, remove the signs. Do the operations as below, and before writing put back the signs.
• Butterfly to POS decoupling:
• Drive butterfly mode at 13 Hz using LOCKIN2 on MC1 and look at C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ for position fluctuations
• Subtract 0.05 times the BUT vector to coil strengths to see the effect on C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ using diaggui exponential averaging of 5, BW=1.
• Use Newton-Raphson from here to reach to no POS actuation when driving butterfly mode.
• POS to PIT decouping:
• Drive LOCKIN2 in POS mode at 13 Hz and look for PIT signal at C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_P_DQ using diaggui exponential averaging of 5, BW=1.
• Subtract 0.05 times the PIT vector to coil strengths
• Use Newton-Raphson from here to reach to no PIT actuation when driving POS.
• POS to YAW decoupling:
• Drive LOCKIN2 in POS mode at 13 Hz and look for YAW signal at C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_Y_DQ using diaggui exponential averaging of 5, BW=1.
• Subtract 0.05 times the YAW vector to coil strengths
• Use Newton-Raphson from here to reach to no YAW actuation when driving POS.

By the end, I was able to see no actuation on POS when butterfly is driven with 30000 counts amplitude at 13 Hz. I was able to see no PIT or YAW actuation when POS is driven with 10000 counts at 13 Hz.

Final coil strengths found:

C1:SUS-MC1_ULCOIL_GAIN: -1.008
C1:SUS-MC1_URCOIL_GAIN: -0.98
C1:SUS-MC1_LRCOIL_GAIN: -1.06
C1:SUS-MC1_LLCOIL_GAIN: -0.952

I used this notebook while doing the above work. It has a couple of functions that could be useful in future while doing similar balancing.

17223   Thu Nov 3 14:42:57 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSMC2 coil strengths balanced

Balanced MC2 coil strengths using the same method.

Final coil strengths found:

C1:SUS-MC2_ULCOIL_GAIN: 1.074
C1:SUS-MC2_URCOIL_GAIN: -0.979
C1:SUS-MC2_LRCOIL_GAIN: 0.97
C1:SUS-MC2_LLCOIL_GAIN: -0.976

17225   Thu Nov 3 16:22:11 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSMC3 coil strengths balanced

Balanced MC3 coil strengths using the same method.

Final coil strengths found:

C1:SUS-MC3_ULCOIL_GAIN: 0.942
C1:SUS-MC3_URCOIL_GAIN: -1.038
C1:SUS-MC3_LRCOIL_GAIN: 1.075
C1:SUS-MC3_LLCOIL_GAIN: -0.945

17227   Thu Nov 3 17:36:00 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSF2A filters on MC1, MC2, and MC3 set to test at 1 am
 Quote: I'll setup some test of switching between different Q filters in future.

The f2A filters are set to test on IMC optics. The script used is testF2AFilters.py. The script is running on rossa in a tmux session named f2aTest. It will trigger at 1 am, Nov 4th 2022. First the script will turn off all F2A filters on IMC optics, wait for an hour, then it will try out the three F2A filter sets with different Q values, one at a time, for one hour each. So the test should last for roughly 4 hours. The gpstime stamps will be written in a logfile that can be used later to readback noise performance of IMC with different filter. The script has a try-except failsafe to revert things to original state if something fails. To stop the script from triggering or stop it during runtime, do following on rossa:

tmux a -t f2aTest
ctrl+C
exit

17230   Mon Nov 7 08:36:10 2022 JCUpdateSUSIMC out of alignment -- f2A failure

[Paco, JC]

We came in this morning and noted the IMC was grossly misaligned, with MC3 still damped but with >= 100 rms motion in all coil monitors  (a lot but not enough to trip the WD)... Turning off the WFS didn't do much so it was obviously an issue with the recent f2A output filters, so we turned all off (though only MC3 had this excess motion). After this we aligned IMC, engaged the lock and turned WFS back on.

There was no elog about f2A beyond this test scheduled to run Friday, I guess the filters were meant to stay on long term?

17231   Mon Nov 7 11:24:05 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSF2A filters on MC1, MC2, and MC3 set to test at 1 am

This test was not successfull as IMC lost lock during the f2A filter trial. However, we do have 1 hour off data when all f2A filters were turned off in between following GPS times:

start gpstime: 1351584077

stop gpstime: 1351587677

After this gpstime, the f2A filters were turned ON for all IMC optics. After about 2000 seconds of no issues, the MC3 suspension suddenly rung up 1 Hz oscillations around 1351590720 gpstime. See attachment one for noise spectra of local damping error signals for MC3 before and after this event. See attachment 2 for time series of this event.

So, after this point, MC3 remained rung up and IMC remained unlocked, so no WFS signals are meaningful after gpstime 1351590720.

I have seen this happening out of nowhere to MC3 today too when PSL shutter was closed and only thing interacting with MC3 was the local damping loop. This suggests that some glitch event happens in MC3 which is not taken well by the f2a filter on it. The ringing goes down as soon as we turn OFF the f2a filter. The other optics show no such signs.

We'll do more tests in future to figure out the issue. For now, MC3 f2a filters are kept off. Maybe we need custom filter for MC3 rather than the design value default filter we are using right now. I'm attaching foton bode plot for MC3 f2a filters for verification that correct filters are in place.

17232   Mon Nov 7 12:02:15 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSIMC test with PSL shutter closed.

Following configurations were kept today morning:

Start Time Stop Time HEPA PSL Shutter MC1 f2a MC2 f2a MC3 f2a MC3 ringing Notes

1351879503

10:04:45 PST
18:04:45 UTC

1351879797

10:09:39 PST
18:09:39 UTC

ON OFF ON ON ON NO Found later that MC3 started ringing at 1351879797

1351879797

10:09:39 PST
18:09:39 UTC

1351881325

10:35:07 PST
18:35:07 UTC

ON OFF ON ON ON YES This is the duration when MC3 was ringing

1351881325

10:35:07 PST
18:35:07 UTC

1351882257

10:50:39 PST
18:50:39

OFF OFF ON ON ON YES We turned off HEPA filter during this time, MC3 was still ringing.

1351882257

10:50:39 PST
18:50:39 UTC

1351882346

10:52:08 PST
18:52:08 UTC

OFF OFF ON ON ON NO I noticed MC3 rining and reset f2a filter by turning it off, waiting for it to damp down and restarting it.

1351882346

10:52:08 PST
18:52:08 UTC

1351883406

11:09:48 PST
19:09:48 UTC

OFF OFF ON ON ON YES MC3 started ringing again soon.

1351883406

11:09:48 PST
19:09:48 UTC

1351885490

11:44:32 PST
19:44:32 UTC

OFF OFF ON ON OFF NO MC3 f2a filters turned off due to repeated failure.

1351885490

11:44:32 PST
19:44:32 UTC

1351887487

12:17:49 PST
20:17:49 UTC

ON OFF ON ON OFF NO Turned ON HEPA for completeness of data.

17234   Mon Nov 7 14:38:59 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSMC3 coil strengths rebalanced

I checked again today by sending excitation at POS and reading back from C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_P and C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_Y. I found that there was some POS->PIT and POS->YAW coupling remaining that I was to remove by same method. New coil gains are:

C1:SUS-MC3_ULCOIL_GAIN: 0.942
C1:SUS-MC3_URCOIL_GAIN: -1.042
C1:SUS-MC3_LRCOIL_GAIN: 1.076
C1:SUS-MC3_LLCOIL_GAIN: -0.94

17235   Mon Nov 7 16:14:43 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSF2A filter with Q=1, 0.3 stable with MC3

I tired running for a few hours F2A filter with Q=1 and for maybe 30 min Q=0.3 on MC3 today and that keeps the suspension stable. So I'm going to put in Q=0.3 at FM1, Q=0.7 at FM2, and Q=1 filter on FM3. I am setting the test again for tonight with some modifications. Now the separate set of filters will be tried one by one on the three different optics so that we know the best Q filter for each optic. It is set to trigger at 1 am tonight in tmux sessions f2aMC1Test, f2aMC2Test, f2aMC3Test on rossa. To cancel the test or interrupt, do:

tmux a -t f2aMC1Test
ctrl+C
exit
tmux a -t f2aMC2Test
ctrl+C
exit
tmux a -t f2aMC3Test
ctrl+C
exit
17237   Mon Nov 7 19:53:12 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSMC2 OSEMs calibrated using MC_F

MC2 OSEM outputs were calibrated today using MC_F to get the output values in microns. This was done using this diaggui file. We drive a sine wave at 13 Hz and 5000 cts at C1:SUS-MC1_BIASPOS_EXC. This signal is read at C1:IOO-MC_F and the C1:SUS-MC1_ULSEN_OUT and similar OSEM output channels. MC_F calibration in Hz is assumed to be correct. In diaggui, a calibration conversion of 4.8075e-14 m/Hz is added to convert MC_F signal into meters. This is then used to calibrate the OSEM outputs and necessary gain changes were done in teh cts2um filter module in all of the face OSEM input filters. Following are the new gains:

• UL 0.36 -> 0.28510
• UR 0.36 -> 0.26662
• LL 0.36 -> 0.34861
• LR 0.36 -> 0.71575

Note that this measurement was done after the coil strengths for MC2 have been balanced in 40m/17223.

17238   Mon Nov 7 20:00:37 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSMC1 OSEMs output is weird

Following up, I tried to do this exercise with MC1 and MC3. While MC3 shows expected minute corrections to the previous value, MC1 showed much alrger corrections which led me to investigate further. Koji suggested to take a transfer function between MC_F and the OSEM outputs for both MC1 and MC3 the same way to see if something is different. And Koji was absolutely right. MC1 MC_F to OSEM outptu transfer function has a frequency dependent value, with a slope of ~0.6. Very weird. I'm holding on to doing OSEM calibration on both MC1 and MC3 until we know better on what is happening. See attached transfer functions.

Reminder, MC1 is using new satellite amplifier box, but OSEM outputs are read through single ended PDMon outputs rather than the differential ended PD Output port, because rest of the MC1 electronics is still last generation and the whitening board for them take in single ended input.

17240   Tue Nov 8 08:57:18 2022 ranaUpdateSUSMC2 OSEMs calibrated using MC_F

this measurement is not valid because of the coil to sensor coupling that I mentioned before. This is why I suggested you make the measurement at low frequencies (like 0.1 Hz).

 Quote: MC2 OSEM outputs were calibrated today using MC_F to get the output values in microns. This was done using this diaggui file. We drive a sine wave at 13 Hz and 5000 cts at C1:SUS-MC1_BIASPOS_EXC.
17241   Tue Nov 8 10:23:42 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSMC3 damping loop step responses

I tuned MC3 local damping gains by looking at step responses in the DOF bassis. The same procedure was followed as described in 40m/17133. The gains were changed as following:

Old Gains New Gains
C1:SUS-MC3_SUSPOS_GAIN 100 200
C1:SUS-MC3_SUSPIT_GAIN 24 10
C1:SUS-MC3_SUSYAW_GAIN 8 30
C1:SUS-MC3_SUSSIDE_GAIN 125 75

Attachement 1 shows the step responsed with the old gains and attachment 2 shows the step responses with the new gains. There is considerable cross coupling between SIDE OSEM and Coil to the face DOFs (POS, PIT, YAW). I think the high SIDE gain earlier was the culprit that started ringing with the f2a filters.

I agree that POS and SIDE step responses could look better but this was the best I was able to achieve. Further attempts by others is most welcome.

I also verified running f2a filter with Q=3 and it has been stably running with no ringing for past few minutes. More long term behavior is yet to be seen.C1:SUS-MC3_SUSSIDE_GAIN

17242   Tue Nov 8 10:35:26 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSIMC F2A test

This time the test was succesful but I have reverted MC3 f2a filters back to with Q=3, 7, and 10. The inital part of the test is still useful though. I'm attaching amplitude spectral density curves for WFS control points and C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ in the different configurations. The shaded region is the 15.865 percentile to 84.135 percentile bounds of the PSD data. This corresponds to +/- 1 sigma percentiles for a gaussian variable. Also note that in each decade of freqeuncy, the FFt bin width is different such that each decade has 90 points (eg 0.1 Hz bin width for 1Hz to 10 Hz data, 1 Hz binwidth  for 10 Hz to 100 Hz and so on.)

The WFS control points do not show any significant difference in most of the frequency band. The differences below 10 mHz are not averaged enough as this was 30min data segments only.

C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ channel also show no significant difference in 0.1 Hz to 20 Hz. Between 20-100 Hz, we see that higher Q filters resulted in slightly less noise but the effect of the filters in this frequency band should be nothing, so this could be just coincidence or maybe the system behaves better with hgiher Q filters. In teh lower frequency band, we would should take more data to average more after shortlisting on some of these f2a filters. It seems like MC1 Q=10 (red curve) filter performs very good. For MC2, there is no clear sign. I'm not sure why MC2 Q=3 curve got a big offset in low frequency region. Such things normally happen due to significant linear trend presence in signal.

I'm not sure what other channels might be interesting to look at. Some input would be helpful.

17245   Tue Nov 8 18:12:01 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSMC2 OSEMs calibrated using MC_F

I reran this measurement at low frequency 0.1016 Hz. Following were the cts2um gain changes:

• UL 0.28510 -> 0.30408(0.00038)
• UR 0.26662 -> 0.28178(0.00027)
• LL 0.34861  -> 0.38489(0.00049)
• LR 0.71575 -> 0.80396(0.00681)

Edited AG: Wed Nov 9 12:17:12 2022 : Uncertainties added by taking coherence of each channel and MC_F with excitation, using $\sqrt{\frac{1-\gamma}{2 \gamma n_{avg}}}$ to get fractional error in ASD values I used for taking ratios(where $\gamma$is coherence and $n_{avg}$ is number of averages (5 in this case)), and adding MC_F ASD frac error to all sensor's frac error, and finally multiplyingit witht he ratios obtained above to get error in cts2um gain values.

RXA: I don't believe it. This is more accurate than the LIGO calibration of strain and also more accurate than the NIST calibration of laser power.

17246   Tue Nov 8 19:39:34 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSMC3 OSEMs calibrated using MC_F

I did the same measurement for MC3 with one difference that OSEMs report $\sqrt{2}$ more motion than IMC cavity length change due to it being at 45 degrees. Following are the new cts2um gain values

• UL 0.36 -> 0.39827(0.00045)
• UR 0.36 -> 0.33716(0.00038)
• LL 0.36  -> 0.34469(0.00039)
• LR 0.36 -> 0.33500(0.00038)

17248   Wed Nov 9 07:49:59 2022 ranaUpdateSUSMC2 OSEMs calibrated using MC_F

It would be good if you can post the uncertainties with these measurements (and for generally any measurements). This is so that we can propagate that uncertainty later for other measurements. From your entry, it looks like there are something like 7 digits of precision, which would be astounding.

I suggest that we adopt the convention of reporting Uncertainty properly by number of significant figures and the parantheses notation.

17249   Wed Nov 9 11:07:16 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSIMC test

Following configurations were kept today morning:

 Start Time Stop Time HEPA PSL Shutter WFS Loops 1352046006 08:19:48 PST 16:19:48 UTC 1352050278 09:31:00 PST 17:31:00 UTC OFF OPEN OFF 1352050393 09:32:55 PST 17:32:55 UTC 1352054538 10:40:00 PST 18:40:00 UTC OFF OPEN ON 1352054537 10:41:59 PST 18:41:59 UTC 1352058724 11:51:46 PST 19:51:46 OFF CLOSED OFF

f2a filters with Q=10 (FM3) were turned on all IMC optics.

17251   Wed Nov 9 20:01:38 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSMC1 OSEMs output is weird

I took a coil to OSEM transfer function for MC1 osems  (LL, UR) today and again the slope of the transfer function was -1.4 instead of -2 as expected. I compared this with MC3 coil to osem transfer function (LL) which correctly had the slope of -2. See attachments 1 and 2 for the results. This measurement was taken with PSL shutter closed and local damping loops turned off.

As I mentioned earlier, MC1 is using new satellite amplifier box (S2100029-v2) whose transfer function data exists and was actually measured by me in 40m/15776. Using this transfer function data, and the foton 3:30 (FM1) filter, I tried to recreate the product transfer function that should happen if both filters are working correctly. Attachment 3 shows these transfer function plots. I overlayed on top of this the measured transfer function of OSEM to position displacement as done in 40m/17238 by making the magnitude equal at 1 Hz. It is suspicious how nicely the measured transfer function overlay with the satellite amplifier measured transfer function, both in magnitude and phase. I'll investigate more tomorrow.

17252   Wed Nov 9 20:29:20 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSMC2 and MC3 set to undergo free swing test tonight

I have set a free swing test for MC2 and MC3 to trigger at 1 am tonight. The test should last for about 4.5 hrs upto 5:30 am. It will close the PSL shutter, perform the test, and open the shutter afterwards. To cancel or interrupt the test, go to rossa and do:

tmux a -t FST
ctrl+c
exit

17254   Thu Nov 10 18:09:28 2022 ranaUpdateSUSMC WFS settings all weird

Today I found the MC WFS settings all weird. Not only was the input slider set to zero, but the filter bank outputs were off, and also the ON/OFF buttons after the output matrix.

I think we may have been hacked, because there was not mention of this settings change in the ELOG, even though we have this scary red sign.

I am now trying to recover things as best as I can, but I'm not sure exactly which settings the hacker changed. Stay tuned...

17256   Fri Nov 11 11:29:11 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSMC1 OSEMs output is weird

Late elog; original time Thursday, Nov 10 16:00 2022

MC1 is using a new satellite amplifier which was a whitening circuit on it with 3 Hz zero and 30 Hz pole. But to read out this signal, we use the old whitening board as it serves as the interface board with the ADC too. This is D000210 Whitening and Interface Board. This board has a switchable whitening filter which our RTS models supply GND as the switch input. It was not immediately clear to me if the GND input to this switch means whitening is ON or not.

I disconnected inputs and outputs to the whitening Board used for MC1 OSEM PDs, and I used a moku:go to measure the transfer function for the UR channel. This confirmed that whitening is turned ON on this interface board as well, which means the MC1 OSEM signals are whitened twice, while digitally we have been dewhitening only once. To fix this there are two possible solutions:

• We turn on another identical dewhitening filter in MC1 OSEM input filter modules (a 3:30 at FM3)
• We can change the MC1 Simulink model to stop keeping whitening on by default.
17259   Fri Nov 11 19:20:23 2022 ranaUpdateSUSMC1 OSEMs output is weird

I turned on the extra un-whitening filter (not the same as dewhitening) which Anchal has installed in the XXSEN filter banks of MC1. Seems good, so I'm leaving them on.

Anchal determined that the new satellite for MC1 was whitening, and also the old one was whitening, which made the whole thing non-white. So, I turned on the FM3 filter. I then checked that the ADCs were not saturating by looking at the spectrum of the IN1 channels (before the un-whitening). They are very far from saturating, but we should trend the ADC overflows on MC1 to make sure that this is not an issue (someone besides Tega should ask Tega how to add these to the summary pages so that not only Tega can edit summary pages).

In the attached plot, we can see that the reference trace for the unwhitened MC1 (FM1 ON, FM3 OFF) (black) sensor looks noisier than the others at 16 Hz, where we expect the suspensions to be mostly the same. This is because the analog whitening (amplification) was not being compensated properly. With FM1 and FM3 ON (RED) we can see that the spectra line up nicely below 20 Hz. Above 20 Hz the MC1 sensor is quieter than the others because the ADC noise is being reduced more.

Clearly, the other sensors could use some more whitening. If we find a reason to need lower damping noise in the future, let's remember this elog and remember that we ought to do proper signal conditioning on all our OSEMs. For now, probably doesn't matter.

17260   Fri Nov 11 19:47:04 2022 ranaUpdateSUSMC SUS were overdamped: damping gains all reduced

After clicking on the extra MC1 unwhitening filter, I was going to retune the damping gains to give a Q ~ 5 for the suspension. I found it was very over damped. I also checked the other MC SUS. They were all overdamped.

A Q ~ 5 means that the amplitude of the oscillation should drop by 1/e after 5 oscillations. Most of the DOFs were damping in 1-2 cycles. This is good for lock acquisition impulses, but because it ties the suspension to the frame, it reduces the seismic isolation that we get from the pendulum. So we normally want the Q to be ~4-7. Someone more clever can figure out a better local damping servo that minimizes the overall MCF and IMC WFS signals, but that is a project that takes some thought.

17264   Mon Nov 14 14:52:56 2022 PacoConfigurationSUSBHD SUS Coil output balance

[JC, Paco]

We installed a steering mirror intersecting the BHD beam path and put the AS beam on the ITMY Oplev QPD (see Attachment #1 for a photo of this temporary hack) . This is done to do coil balancing of AS1/AS4, LO1/LO2. QPD sees ~ 10000 counts when the beam is centered.

[Paco, Yuta]

We follow this procedure -- but with different sensors for all BHD suspension coil output balancing.

## AS1/AS4

We dither BUTT first, lock the LO-AS fringe (DC lock), and look at the residual LO_PHASE spectrum to minimize POS coupling. We then unlock, misalign LO beam and look at the hijacked Oplev (ITMY) while dithering POS to minimize PIT and YAW couplings.

## LO1/LO2

We dither BUTT first, lock thChangeset summarye LO-AS fringe (DC lock), and look at the residual LO_PHASE spectrum to minimize POS coupling. We then unlock, misalign AS beam and look at the hijacked Oplev (ITMY) PIT/YAW residual noise while dithering POS to minimize PIT/YAW coupling.

## Changeset summary

The new coil output gains are summarized in the table below:

 Optic / Coil UL UR LR LL AS1 -0.939 1.040 -1.026 0.995 AS4 -0.9785 0.9775 -1.0695 0.9745 LO1 -0.939 1.003 -1.074 0.984 LO2 -1.051 1.342 -0.976 0.631

Finally, I reverted the hacked QPD setup to restore the ITMY OPLEV.

17286   Fri Nov 18 17:00:15 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSMC1 and MC3 OSEMs calibrated using MC_F

After the MC1 osem dewhitening was fixed, I did the calibration of MC1 OSEM signals using MC_F using this notebook. A 0.1 Hz oscillation with amplitude of 1000 cts was sent to MC1 lockin2 and was kept on between 1352851381 and 1352851881. Then I read back the data from DQ channels and performed a welch with standard deviation calculation from the different segments used. From this measurement, I arrive to the following cts2um gain values that were changed in MC1 filter file. The damping remained stable after the changes:

MC1:
UL: 0.09 -> 0.105(12)
UR: 0.09 -> 0.078(9)
LR: 0.09 -> 0.065(7)
LL: 0.09 -> 0.087(10)


I followed the same method for MC3 as well to get mroe meaningful error bars. This measurement was done between 1352856980 and 1352857480 using this notebook. Here are the changes made:

MC3
UL: 0.39827 -> 0.509(57)
UR: 0.33716 -> 0.424(48)
LR: 0.335 -> 0.365(40)
LL: 0.34469 -> 0.376(43)

The larger error bars could be due to more noisy MC3 osem outputs as the satellite amplifier gain is lower here.

17289   Sun Nov 20 13:42:21 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSIMC test

I repeated this test for the following configuration:

• PSL shutter closed at good IMC transmission
• Offset value of 14000 written to C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM_FILT_OFFSET
• WFS loops ON but ASCPIT outputs of the optics were turned off.

The test ran for 4000 seconds between following timestamps:

start time: 1352878206
stop time: 1352882207

This script was used to run this test and can be used again in future to repeat the same test.

17295   Mon Nov 21 18:33:05 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSMC2 OSEMs calibrated using MC_F

Repeated this for MC2 using the error measurement technique mentioned in 40m/17286 using this notebook. Following are the cts2um gain changes:

UL: 0.30408 -> 0.415(47)
UR: 0.28178 -> 0.361(39)
LR: 0.80396 -> 0.782(248)
LL: 0.38489 -> 0.415(49)

I averaged 19 samples to get these values hoping to have reached systematic error limit. The errors did not change from a trial with 9 samples except for the LR OSEM.

17298   Tue Nov 22 10:29:31 2022 AnchalSummarySUSITMY Coil Strengths Balanced

I followed this procedure to balance the coil strengths on ITMY. The position sensor was created by closing PSL shutter so that IR laser is free running, and locking the green laser to YARM, this makes C1:ALS-BEATY_FINE_PHASE_OUT a position sensor for ITMY. The oplev channels C1:SUS-ITMY_OL_PIT_IN1 and C1:SUS-ITMY_OL_YAW_IN1 were used for PIT and YAW sensors. Everything else followed the procedure. The coil gains were changed as follow:

C1:SUS-ITMY_ULCOIL_GAIN :   1.036 -> 1.061
C1:SUS-ITMY_URCOIL_GAIN : -1.028 -> -0.989
C1:SUS-ITMY_LRCOIL_GAIN :   0.930 -> 0.943
C1:SUS-ITMY_LLCOIL_GAIN : -1.005  -> -1.007

I used this notebook and this diaggui to do this balancing.

17310   Thu Nov 24 11:23:35 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSLow noise state

I've turned off HEPA fan and all lights at
PST: 2022-11-24 11:23:59.509949 PST
UTC: 2022-11-24 19:23:59.509949 UTC
GPS: 1353353057.509949

c1ioo model has been updated to acquire C1:IOO-MC2_TRANS_PIT_OUT  and C1:IOO-MC2_TRANS_YAW_OUT at 512 Hz rate.

I'll update when I turn the HEPA on again. I plan to turn it on for a few hours everyday to keep the PSL enclosure clean.

Turned on HEPA again at:

PST: 2022-11-25 12:14:34.848054 PST
UTC: 2022-11-25 20:14:34.848054 UTC
GPS: 1353442492.848054

However this was probably not a low noise state due to vacuum disruption mentioned here.

17313   Fri Nov 25 15:35:23 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSLow noise state

Turned off HEPA at:

PST: 2022-11-25 15:34:55.683645 PST
UTC: 2022-11-25 23:34:55.683645 UTC
GPS: 1353454513.683645

3118   Fri Jun 25 01:28:33 2010 DmassHowToSVNSVN woes

I am trying to get an actual complete install of the 40m svn on my machine. It keeps stopping at the same point:

I do a

svn checkout --username svn40m https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/svn /Users/dmass/svn

A blah blah blah many files

...

svn: In directory '/Users/dmass/svn/trunk/medm/c1/lsc'

I believe I have always had this error come up when trying to do a full svn install. Any illumination is welcome.

3123   Sat Jun 26 05:02:04 2010 ranaHowToSVNSVN woes

 Quote: I am trying to get an actual complete install of the 40m svn on my machine. It keeps stopping at the same point:

I have always seen this when checking out the 40m medm SVN on a non-Linux box. I don't know what it is, but Yoichi and I investigated it at some point and couldn't reproduce it on CentOS. I think its some weirdness in the permissions of tmp files. It can probably be fixed by doing some clever checkin from the control room.

Even worse is that it looks like the whole 'SVN' mantra has been violated in the medm directory by the 'newCDS' team. It could be that Joe has decided to make the 40m a part of the official CDS SVN, which is OK, but will take some retraining on our part.

3287   Sun Jul 25 18:47:23 2010 AlbertoUpdateSVNOptickle 40mUpgrade model updated to include short cavity length corrections

I uploaded an updated optickle model of the upgrade to the SVN directory with the optickle models (here).

7948   Mon Jan 28 19:15:14 2013 ManasaUpdateScatteringScattering setup

[Jan, Manasa]

We are trying to get some scattering measurements in the Y-arm cavity. We have removed one of  the viewport windows window covers of ETMY chamber and have installed cameras on a ring that clamps to the window. The window along with the ring attachment is covered with aluminium foil when not in use.

7962   Wed Jan 30 11:18:31 2013 ManasaUpdateScatteringScattering setup

 Quote: [Jan, Manasa] We are trying to get some scattering measurements in the Y-arm cavity. We have removed one of  the viewport windows window covers of ETMY chamber and have installed cameras on a ring that clamps to the window. The window along with the ring attachment is covered with aluminium foil when not in use.

[Jan, Manasa]

To align the camera to see small angle scattering from the ITMY, we tried shooting a green laser pointer at the pickoff mirror that was installed in the ETMY chamber such that we hit the face of ITMY. But we concluded that to be a very bad way to align the camera because we have no means to reconfirm that the camera was exactly looking at the scattering from ITMY.

Since we are in air, we came up with a plan B. The plan is to temporarily install a mirror in the ITMY chamber to steer the beam from the laser pointer (installed on the POY table) through ITMY to the pickoff mirror at the ETMY end. This way, we can install the camera at the ETMY window and be sure we are looking at ITMY scattered light.

ELOG V3.1.3-