The summary pages can still be found at https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/detcharsummary/ (EDIT: in an older version of this post I listed an incorrect url). They are operational and include data from some channels for intermittent periods of time.

Motivation: to make the summary pages more informative and useful for all

What I did:

I have added tabs for ALS, ASC, and LSC subsystems. While there is currently no data on the plots, I plan on checking all channels with DataViewer to set appropriate axis ranges so that we can actually see the data.

I altered which channels are used to represent spectra for OpLev systems to more appropriately provide PSDs.

I've changed the check code status page to include "warning" labels. Previously, when the summary pages ran, resulting in a warning message, the check code status page would list this as an "error", implying that the summary pages were not properly produced.

Results:

All features were implemented, but I need to investigate some of these channels to understand why we aren't seeing many channels in the plots. I am working on some other changes to the summary pages, including providing a Locked status which will only show data in a timeseries for a selected period of time.

I've switches the ALS, ASC, and LSC plots on the summary pages from plotting raw frames, to plotting minute trends, instead. Now, the plots contain information, instead of being completely blank, but data is not recorded on the plots after 12UTC.

Typically, I make changes to the summary pages on my own version of the pages, found at https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~eve.chase/summary/day/, where I change the summary pages for June 30 and then import such changes into the main summary pages. 

I've added states to the summary pages to only show data for times at which one certain channel is above a specified threshold. So far, I've incorporated states for the IOO tab to show when the mode cleaner is locked.

You can see these changes implemented in the IOO tab of my personal summary pages for June 30: https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~eve.chase/summary/day/20150630/ioo/.

I've written a description of how to add states to summary pages here: https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/DailySummaryHelp#How_to_Define_and_Implement_States.

I've fixed the ASC tab on the summary pages to populate the graphs with data without causing an error.

Motivation: The ASC tab was showing no data. It resulted in a name error when generated.

What I did:

A name error indicates a bad channel name in the plot definition. I identified two errors in the code:

1. I said C1:SUS_MC1_ASCPIT_OUT16.mean instead of C1:SUS-MC1_ASCPIT_OUT16.mean (underscore should be dash)
2. The channel C1:ASX-XARM_M1_PUT_OSC_CLKGAIN was resulting in a name error. I removed it.

Results:

The plots are not processing without error. However, no titles or axis labels are present on the plots- I'll work on adding these.

• Made most plots in IOO tab only plot when MC_TRANS > 10000 using Eve's MC_LOCK state definition.
• added the 0.03 - 0.1 Hz and 10-30 Hz bands to the PEM SEIS BLRMS tab and set the y-scales to the same as SeismicRainbowSTS.stp
• set state PMC_LOCK in PSL tab and made some of those plots only plot when PMC trans > 0.6.
• SUS-OL page showed me that the ETM yaw spectrum was wacky, which lead me to find that it was completely uncentered. Stop leaving the room lights ON Steve!!   I also set the quadrant offsets by blocking the QPD with a piece of metal (teflon doesn't work).
• set c1summary to only plot some when X or Y arms are locked

The summary pages were not successfully generated for a long period of time at the end of 2016 due to syntax errors in the PEM and Weather configuration files.

These errors caused the INI parser to crash and brought down the whole gwsumm system. It seems that changes in the configuration of the Condor daemon at the CIT clusters may have made our infrastructure less robust against these kinds of problems (which would explain why there wasn't a better error message/alert), but this requires further investigation.

In any case, the solution was as simple as correcting the typos in the config side (on the nodus side) and restarting the cron jobs (on the cluster side, by doing `condor_rm 40m && condor_submit DetectorChar/condor/gw_daily_summary.sub`). Producing pages for the missing days will take some time (how to do so for a particular day is explained in the wiki https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/DailySummaryHelp).

RXA: later, Max sent us this secret note:

However, I realize it might not be clear from the page which are the key steps. These are just running:

1) ./DetectorChar/bin/gw_daily_summary --day YYYYMMDD --file-tag some_custom_tag To create pages for day YYYYMMDD (the file-tag option is not strictly necessary but will prevent conflict with other instances of the code running simultaneously).

2) sync those days back to nodus by doing, eg: ./DetectorChar/bin/pushnodus 20160701 20160702

This must all be done from the cluster using the 40m shared account.

Pages still not working: PEM and MEDM blank.

• Committed existing MEDM grabbing scripts to SVN. Ran the cron job on megatron by hand. It grabs PNG files, but somehow its not getting into the summary pages.
• Changed the MEDM grabbing scripts to use '/usr/bin/env'.
• GW summary log files were numbering in the many thousands, so I moved everything over 320 days old into the OLD/ sub-directory using 'find . -type f -mtime +320 -exec mv {} OLD/ \;' (the semi-colon is needed)
• Did apt-get upgrade on Megatron.
• pinged Max
• Stared at GWsumm docs to see if there's a clue about what (if anything) is wrong with the .ini file.

PEM config file was also lacking a section named "summary", which is necessary for all parent tabs; this has now been solved. I have deactivated the MEDM pages because Praful's screencap script seemed to be broken (I should have logged this, I apologize).

System-wide CIT LDAS cluster maintenance may cause disruptions to summary pages today. 

LDAS has not recovered from maintenance causing the pages to remain unavailable until further notice.

> System-wide CIT LDAS cluster maintenance may cause disruptions to summary pages today. 

FYI this issue has still not been solved, but the pages are working because I got the software running on an
alternative headnode (pcdev2). This may cause unexpected behavior (or not).

> LDAS has not recovered from maintenance causing the pages to remain unavailable until further notice.
> 
> > System-wide CIT LDAS cluster maintenance may cause disruptions to summary pages today. 

There has been a change in the default format for the output of the condor_q command at CIT clusters. This could be problematic for the summary page status monitor, so I have disabled the default behavior in favor of the old one. Specifically, I ran the following commands from the 40m shared account: mkdir -p ~/.condor echo "CONDOR_Q_DASH_BATCH_IS_DEFAULT=False" >> ~/.condor/user_config This should have no effect on the pages themselves.

For a few days now, the "code status" page has been telling us that the summary pages are DEAD, even though the pages themselves seemed to be generating plots. I logged into the 40m shared account on the cluster and checked the status of the condor job (with condor_q), and did not find anything odd there. I decided to consult Max, who pointed out that the script that checks the code status (/home/40m/DetectorChar/bin/checkstatus) was looking for a particular string in the log files ("gw_daily_summary"), while the recent change in the default output of condor_q meant that the string actually being written to the log files was "gw_daily_summa". This script has now been modified to look for instances of "gw_daily" instead, and so the code status indicator seems to be working again...

The execution of the summary page scripts has also been moved back to pcdev1 (from pcdev2, where it was moved to temporarily because of some technical problems with pcdev1).

Last good page May 18, 2017

Not found, error message May 19 - June 4,2017

Blank plots,  June 5, 2017

Today we met and we finally come up with a lot of cool, clever, brilliant, outstanding ideas to organize the lab.

You can find them on the Wiki page created for the occasion.

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

Enjoy!

Where are we going to put the tiki bar? The ice cream machine? I am disappointed in the details that appear to have been glossed over..

I tried to put together a rudimentary heater setup. 

As a heating element, I used the soldering iron tip heated up to ~800°C.

To make a reflector, I used the small basket which holds the cork of champains battles (see figure 1), and I covered it with alumnum foil. Of course, it cannot be really considered as a parabolic reflector, but it's something close (see figure 2).

Then, I put a ZnSe 1 inch lens, 3.5 inch FL (borrowed from TCS lab) right after the reflector, in order to collect as much as possible the radiation and focus it onto an image (figure 3). In principle, if the heat is collimated by the reflector, the lens should focus it in a pretty small image. Finally, in order to see the image, I put a screen and a small piece of packaging sponge (because it shouldn't diffuse too much), and I tried to see the projected pattern with a thermal camera (also borrowed from Aidan). However, putting the screen in the lens focal plane didn't really give a sharp image, maybe because the reflector is not exactly parabolic and the heater not in its focus. However, light is still focused on the focal plane, although the image appears still blurred. Perahps I should find a better material (with less dispersion) to project the thermal image onto. (figure 4)

Finally, I measured the transmitted power with a broadband power meter, which resulted to be around 10mW in the focal plane. 

I made some simulation to study the change that the heater setup can induce on the Radius of Curvature of the ETM.

Heat pattern

First, I used a non-sequential ray tracing software (Zemax) to calculate the heat pattern. I made a CAD of the elliptical reflector and I put a radiative element inside it (similar to the rod-heater 30mm long, 3.8mm diameter that we ordered), placing it in such a way that the heater tip is as close as possible to the ellipse first focus. (figure 1)

Then, by putting a screen at the second focus of the ellipse (where we suppose to place the mirror HR surface), I could find the projected heat pattern, as shown in figure 2 and 3 (section). Notice that the scale is in INCH, even if the label says mm. As you can see, the heat pattern is pretty broad, but still enough to induce a RoC change. 

Mirror deformation

In order to compute the mirror deformation induced by this kind of pattern, I used this map produced with Zemax as absorption map in COMSOL. I considered ~1W total power absorbed by the mirror (just to have a unitary number).

The mirror temperature and deformation maps induced by this heat pattern are shown in figures 4 and 5. 

RoC change evaluation

Then I had to evaluate the RoC change. In particular, I did it by fitting the Radius of Curvature over a circle of radius:

where  is the waist of tha Gaussian mode on the ETMY (5mm) and n is the mode order. This is a way to approximately know which is the Radius of Curvature as "seen" by each HOM, and is shown in figure 6 (the RoC of the cold mirror is set to be 57.37m). Of course, besides being very tiny, the difference in RoC strongly depends on the heat pattern.

Gouy phase variation

Considering this absorbed power, the cavity Gouy phase variation between hot and cold state is roughly 15kHz (I leave to the SURFs the details of the calculation).

Unanswered points

So the still unaswered questions are:

- which is the minimum variation we are able to resolve with our measurement

- how much heating power do we expect to be projected onto the mirror surface (I'll make another entry on that)

[Annalisa, Koji]

Today both the heater and the reflector were delivered, and we set down the setup to make some first test.

The schematic is the usual: the rod heater (30mm long, 3.8 mm diameter) is set inside the elliptical reflector, as close as possible to the first focus. In the second focus we put the power meter in order to measure the radiated power. The broadband power meter wavelength calibration has been set at 4µm: indeed, the heater emits all over the spectrum with the Black Body radiation distribution, and the broadband power meter measures all of them, but only starting from 4µm they will be actually absorbed my the mirror, that's why that calibration was chosen.

We measured the cold resistance of the heater, and it was about 3.5 Ohm. The heater was powered with the BK precision DC power supply 1735, and we took measurements at different input current.

We also aimed at measuring the heater temperature at each step, but the Fluke thermal camera is sensitive up to 300°C and also the FLIR seems to have a very limited temperature range (150°C?). We thought about using a thermocouple, but we tested its response and it seems definitely too slow. 

Some pictures of the setup are shown in figures 1 and 6.

Then we put an absorbing screen in the suspension mount to see the heat pattern, in such a way to get an idea of the heat spot position and size on the ETMY. (figure 2)

The projected pattern is shown in figures 3-4-5

The optimal position of the heater which minimizes the heat beam spot seems when the heater inserted by 2/3 in the reflector (1/3 out). However, this is just a qualitative evaluation.

Finally, two more pictures showing the DB connector on the flange and the in-vacuum cables.

Some more considerations about in-vacuum cabling to come.

Steve: how are you going to protect the magnets ?

[Annalisa, Rana]

In order to power the heater setup to be installed in the ETMY chamber, we took the Sorensen DSC33-33E power supply from the Xend rack which was supposed to power the heater for the seismometer setup.

We modified the J3 connector behind in such a way to allow a remote control (unsoldered pins 9 and 8). 

Now pins 9 and 12 need to be connected to a BNC cable running to the EPICS.

RXA update: the Sorensen's have the capability to be controlled by an external current source, voltage source, or resistive load. We have configured it so that 0-5V moves the output from 0-33 V. There is also the possibility to make it a current source and have the output current (rather than voltage) follow the control voltage. This might be useful since out heater resistance is changing with temperature.

Summary

We installed two heaters setup on the ETMY bench in order to try inducing some radius of curvature change and therefore HOMs frequency shift.

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

We installed two heaters setup.

Elliptic reflector setup (H1): heater put in the focus of the elliptical reflector: this will make a heat pattern as descirbed in the elogs #14043 and #14050. 

Lenses setup (H2): heater put in a cylndrical reflector (made up with aluminum foil) 1'' diameter, and 2 ZnSe lenses telescope, composed by a 1.5'' and a 1'' diameter respectively, both 3.5'' focal length. The telescope is designed in such a way to focus the heat map on the mirror HR surface. For this latter the schematic was supposed to be the following: 

This setup will project on the mirror a heat pattern like this:

which is very convenient if we want to see a different radius of curvature for different HOMs. However, the power that we are supposed to have absorbed by the mirror with this setup is very low (order of 40-ish mW with 18V, 1.2A) which is probably not enough to see an effect. Moreover, mostly for space reasons (post base too big), the distances were not fully kept, and we ended up with the following setup:

In this configuration we won't probably have a perfect focusing of the heat pattern on the mirror.

In vacuum connections

See Koji's elog #14077 for the final pin connection details. In summary, in vacuum the pins are:

13 to 8 --> cable bunch 0

7 to 2 --> cable bunch 2

25 to 20 --> cable bunch 1

19 to 14 --> cable bunch 3

where Elliptic reflector setup (H1) is connected to cables 0 and 1, and the lenses setup is connected to cables 2 and 3.

Installed setup

This is the installed setup as seen from above:

Annalisa, Gautum, Koji, Terra

Summary: with the reflector setup, we measured a frequency shift of the first and second order modes! First looks of shifts show 1st HOM shift ~-10 kHz, 2nd HOM shift ~-18 kHz (carrier ~4 kHz). We saw no shift with the cylinder/lenses set up.

- - - - -

Tonight we modified the cavity scan setup: the LO is provided by the Marconi which, at the same time, is also used to scan the AUX laser frequency instead of the Agilent. In order to get rid of the free running noise between Marconi and Agilent, the Marconi frequency was scanned and, point by point, the Agilent center frequency was changed accordingly. In order to speed up the process, the whole procedure was automated. The script is called AGfast.py and can be found in /users/annalisa/postVent.

One thing that helped in improving the data quality of the phase information was to set the Agilent IF bandwidth @1kHz. Not yet clear why, but it was better than having a lower bandwidth. To be further investigated.

With this setup, we made some coarse scan of the full FSR and then we "zoomed" around the main peaks in order to increase the resolution and get a more precise information about the peak frequency.

Here are the frequency ranges that we scanned:

• carrier - central frequency: 31.73MHz; range: [31.68MHz - 31.78MHz]
• HOM1 - central frequency: 32.88MHz; range: [32.84MHz - 32.93MHz]
• HOM2 - central frequency: 34.03MHz; range: [33.95MHz - 34.06MHz]
• HOM3 - central frequency: 35.18MHz; range: [35.09MHz - 35.25MHz]

We powered the heater of the lenses setup @4:55 am at 14.4V and 0.9A. Then we slightly increased the power @5:05am and the final "hot state" configuration is with heater powered at 16V and 0.9A.

With this setup we couldn't see any frequency shift

Then, at around 6:30 am we turned on the reflector setup and we measured a frequency shift of the first and second order modes. First scans show 1st HOM shift ~10 kHz, 2nd HOM shift ~18 kHz. First attachment shows carrier hot/cold, second attachment shows HOM2 hot/cold. We started to get plauged by high seismic noise. Heaters turned off at 7:45 am. Lots of scans and actual analysis to go.

gautam: about the questionable plotting -

• 10 faint (alpha~0.3) lines are individual measurements with the reflector doing its heating. (AG4395A, 0 span, single frequency measurements plotted together).
• charcoal line, labelled mean, is the mean of the 10 above lines.
• bright green ("Reference") is the mean of a coarse scan (cold ETM) overlaid for comparison. 
• "cold" - self explanatory.

My personal favourite plot is Attachment #3, which is a 5 MHz scan (cold) to identify positions of the various peaks. The power of including phase information in the analysis is clear. The second FSR on the right edge of the plot is not as prominent as the first is because the arm transmission was degrading throughout the measurement. For future measurements, we should consider locking the IMC length to the arm cavity - this would eliminate such alignment drifts, and maybe also make the PLL control signal RMS smaller. 

I implemented this today. For now, the LSC output matrix is set to actuate on MC2 for Y arm locking. As expected, the transmission was much more stable, and the PLL control signal RMS was also reduced by factor of ~3. MC2 control signal does pick up a large (~2000 cts) DC component over a few hours, so we need to relieve this periodically.

Now that we have a workable ASS for the Y arm as well, we should be able to have more confidence in returning to the same beam spot position on the ETM and staying there during a scan using this technique.

The main improvement to be trialled next in the scanning is to improve the speed of scanning. As things stand, my script takes ~2.5 seconds per datapoint. If we can cut this in half, that'd be huge. On Wednesday night, we were extraordinarily lucky to avoid MC3 glitching, EPICS/slow machine failures, and GPIB freezes. Today, the latter reared its head. Fortunately, since I'm dumping data to file for each datapoint, this means we at least have data till the GPIB freeze.

Not related to this work: Terra, Sandrine, Keerthana and I cleaned up the lab a bit today, and made better cable labels. Aaron and I have to clean up the OMC area a bit. Huge thanks to Steve for taking care of our mess elsewhere in the lab!

Ah. With MC2 feedback, we have about 3 times smaller "optical gain" for the ASS A2L. We have same dither, same actuator, but we need only 1/3 actuation of the MC2 compared to the ETMY case.
We had to reduce the ASS spot servo from 1 to 0.3 to make is stable, so this means that the ASS is really merginally stable.

Attached is a photo of the set up of the ETM Y table showing the AUX read out set up. 

Currently, the flip mount sends the AUX to the PDA255. Terra inserted a razor blade so the PDA255 will witness more HOMs. The laser is also sent to the regular PD and the CCD.

Just a quick update: over the past few days we've taken (at least) 5 scans around each peak [carrier - HOM3] at 9.4V/0.8A, 4 scans around [carrier - HOM5] at 12V/0.9A hot state with the reflector setup. We also have (at least) 5 scans of carrier - HOM5 in cold state. I attach a rough overview of the peak magnitude shifts in the first attachment. Analysis ongoing. All data stored in annalisa/postVent/{date}

Initial shifts just based on rought peak placement in the meantime:

            [9.4V/0.8A]   [12V/0.9A]

HOM1    10 kHz         20 kHz

HOM2    18 kHz         28 kHz

HOM3     30 kHz        40 kHz

HOM4     N/A             26 kHz

HOM5     N/A             35 kHz

I also attach the heating thermal transient from today (12V/0.9A) as seen by the opLevs. We see a shorter time constant for pitch, longer for yaw, preceeded by a dip in yaw. Similar behavior yesterday for slightly less heating, though less pronounced pre-dip. The heater is offcentered on the optic horizontally; likely this is part of the induced yaw. The spikey stuff i removed is from people walking around inside during the transient.

I've left the heater and LSC off for the night. Heater off at 2:07 am local time.

Please don't touch the oplevs; we're taking a cool down measurement.

The scripts: AGfast.py, make HDF5.py, plotSpec_marconi.py, and SandrineFitv3.py were copied into the new directory modeSpec.

The path is: /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/modeSpec

These scripts can still be found under Annalisa's directory under postVent.

[Sandrine, Koji, Terra]

Summary: We completed multiple scans at different heating powers for the reflector set up, observing unique HOM peak shifts of tens of kHz. We also observed HOM5 shifts with the cylinder set up. Initial Lorentzian fittings of the magnitude give tens of Hz resolution. I summarize the main week's work below. 

Set-up

Heater set-up is described in several previous elogs, but attachments #1 and #2 show the full heater set-up and wiring/pinouts in and out of vacuum, since we're all intimately aware of how confusing in-vacuum pinouts can be. We are not using the Sorenson power supply (as described in 14071); we just have the BKPrecision power supply 1735 sitting next to the ETMY rack and are manually going out to turn on/off. 

We've continued to use the scan setup described in elog 14086, which is run using /users/annalisa/postVent/AGfast.py. Step by step notes for setting up the scan, running the scans, and processing the scans are attached in notes.txt.

Inducing/witnessing HOMs

The aux input beam was already clipped and on wednesday (after Trans was centered, 14093) we also clipped the output aux beam with razor blade (angled vertically and horizontally, elog 14103) before PDA255; we clipped ~1/3 of the output beam. Attachment #3 shows before and after clipping output, where orange 'cold' == unclipped, black 'mean' == clipped (all in cold state). Up to HOM5 is visible. 

Measurements

Below is a summary of the available scan data. We also have cold (0A) scans CAR-HOM5 and full FSR scans for most configurations. 

We tried the cylinder set-up again tonight for the first time since inital try and can see shifts of HOM5 - see attachment #5; we haven't looked in detail yet, but it looks like odd modes are more effected, suggesting the ring heat pattern is off centered from the beam axis. 

Scan data is saved in the following format: users/annalisa/postVent/scandata/{reflector,cylinder}/{parsed,unparsed}/{CAR,HOM1,HOM2,HOM3,HOM4,HOM5}{_datetime}{_parsed,_unparsed}.{txt,pdf}

Minimum heating

On 7/26 we increased the power to the elliptical reflector heater in steps to find the minimum heater power required to see frequency shifts with our measurement setup. Lowest we can resolve is a shift in HOM3 with 1.7W (0.5A/3.4V). According to Annalisa's measurements in elog 14050, this would be something like 30-60 mW radiated power hitting the test mass. We only looked at CAR - HOM3 for this investigation; data for scans at 0.4A, 0.5A, 0.6A is available as indicated above.

Lorentizian Fitting

The Lorentzian fitting was done using the equation a + b / sqrt(1+((x-c)/d*2), where a = constant background, b = peak height above background, c = peak frequency, d = full width at half max. 

The fitting is still being edited and optimized. We will crop the data to zoom in around the peak more.

The Lorentzian fit of the magnitude shows ~10Hz of resolution. (See attachment 6 for the carrier at 8A and attachment 7 for HOM 1 at 9A)

We're working on fitting the full complex data.

Nobody documented this, but here is the part number with mechanical drawings of the elliptical reflector installed at EY: Optiforms E180. Heater is from Induceramics, but I can't find the exact part which matches the dimensions of the heater we have (diameter = 3.8mm, length = 30mm), perhaps it's a custom part?

The geometry dictates that if we want the heater to be at one focus and the ETM to be at the other, the separation has to be 7.1 inches. It certainly wasn't arranged this way before. It seems unrealistic to do this without clipping the main beam, I propose we leave sufficient clearane between the main beam and the reflector, and accept the reduced heating efficiency. 

Thanks to Steve for digging this up from his secret stash.

It is feeling cold in the office area. According to the digital wall clock near the coffee machine, it is 19C. Rana bumped the thermostat setpoint up by 2F (from 75F to 77F). We need to setup long-term monitoring.

The corrected drawing base for tip tilt with coils are going to the shop. The will be back by the end of the week.

Koji's design of the SS  2" mirror holder with flexure spring optic retainer  like Polaris-K1 has been ordered. We are getting just one to see it's effect on the hysteresis.

Final Summary of changes to mirror holder in Tip-Tilt holder.

Determining minimum range for Side Clamp:

1. The initial distance b/w wire-release point and mirror assembly COM = 0.265 mm

2. But this distance is assuming that wire-release point is at mid-point of clamp. So I'm settling on a range of +/- 1mm. The screenshots below confirm range of ~1mm between (1) side screw & protrusion and (2) clamp screw and clamp.

Determining length of tilt-weight assembly rod at the bottom to get 20mRad range

The tilt-weight assembly is made from following Mcmaster parts:
Rod   - 95412A864 18-8 SS  #2-56 Threaded Rod
Nuts  - 91855A103 18-8 SS #2-56 Acorn Cap Nut

Since the weights are fixed, only rod length can be changed to get the angle range.

So a range of 1 mm between nut's inner face and mirror-holder face should be enough. Since holder is 12 mm thick, rod length = 12mm + 2 x 1mm + 2 x (nut length) = 12 + 2 + 9.6 = 23.6 mm = 0.93 inch. So a 1" rod from Mcmaster will be fine.

5 PR3/SR3 optics from FiveNine Optics were delivered. The data sheets were scanned and uploaded to the following wiki page. https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Aux_Optics

They have been stored on the 3rd shelf from top in the clean optics cabinet at the south end. EX

[Attachment #1]: Computed spectral power transmissivity (according to my model) for the coating design at a few angles of incidence. Behavior lines up well with what FNO measured, although I get a transmission that is slightly lower than measured at 45 degrees. I suspect this is because of slight changes in the dispersion relation assumed and what was used for the coating in reality.

[Attachment #2]: Similar information as Attachment #1, but with the angle of incidence as the independent parameter in a continuous sweep. 

Conclusion: The coating behaves in a way that is in reasonable agreement with our model. At 41.1 degrees, which is what the PR3 angle of incidence will be, T<50 ppm, which was what we specified. The larger range of angles was included because originally, we thought of using this optic as a substitute for SR3 as well. But I claim that for the shorter SRC (signal recycling as opposed to RSE), we will not end up using the new optic, but rather go for the G&H mirror. In any case, as Koji pointed out, ~50 ppm extra loss in the RC will not severely limit the recycling gain. Such large variation was not seen in the MC analysis because we only varied the angle of incidence by +/- 0.5 degrees about the nominal design value of 41.1 degrees.

Chub, Koji and I have been talking about Udit's re-design. Here are a few points that were raised. Chub/Koji can add to/correct where necessary. Summary is that this needs considerable work before we can order the parts for a prototype and characterize it. I think the requirements may be stated as:

1. The overall pendulum length should be similar to that of the SOS, i.e. ~0.3m (current length is more like 0.1m) such that the eigenfrequencies are lowered to more like ~1 Hz. Mainly we wan't to avoid any overlap with the stack eigenmodes. This may require an additional stiffening piece near the top of the tower as we have for the SOS. What is a numerical way to spec this?
2. The center of the 2" optic should be 6" from the table.
3. The mass of the optic + holder should be similar to the current design so we may use the same suspension wires (I believe they are a different thickness than that used for the SOS).
4. Ensure we can extract any transmitted beams without clipping.
5. Fine pitch adjustment capablity should be yyy mrad (20mrad?).
6. We should preserve the footprint of the existing TTs, given the space constraints in vacuum. Moreover, we should be able to use dog-clamps to fix the tower in place, so the base plate should be designed accordingly.
7. Keep the machining requirements as simple as possible while achieving the above requirements- i.e. do we really need rounded optic holder? Why not just rectangular? Similarly for other complicated features in the current design.

Some problems with Udit's design as it stands:

1. I noticed that the base of the TT and the center of the 2" optic are 4" separated. The SOS cage base and center of 3" optic are separated by 6". Currently, there is an adaptor piece that raises the TT height to match that of the SOS. If we are doing a re-design, shouldn't we just aim for the correct height in the first place?
2. Udit doesn't seem to have taken into account the torque due to the optic+holder in the pitch balancing calculations he did. Since this is expected to be >> that of any rod/screw we use for fine pitch balancing, we need to factor that into the calculation.
3. For the coarse pitch adjustment, we'd need to slide the wire clamping piece relative to the optic holding piece. Rather than do this stochastically and hope for the best, the idea was to use a threaded screw to realize this operation in a controlled way. However, Udit's design doesn't include the threaded hole.
4. There are many complicated machining features which are un-necessary.

A new tool box has been placed at the Y-end! Each drawer has its label so PLEASE put the tools back in their correct location. In addition to this, Each tool has its assigned tool box, so PLEASE RETURN all tools to their designated tool box. The tools can be distinguished by a writing or heat shrink which corresponds to the color of the tool chest or location. Photo #2 is an example of how the tools have been marked.

Each toolbox from now on will contain a drawer for the folllowing: Measurements, Allen Keys, Pliers and Cutters, Screwdrivers, Zipties and Tapes, Allen Ball Drivers, Crescent Wrenches, Clamps, and Torque Wrenches/ Ratchets.

Yoichi's final words on what do next with the interferometer (as of 5 PM on May 21, 2009):

1. Measure laser noise couplings in spring and anti-spring configurations.
2. Dewhitening filter turn on for the ETMs.
3. Noisebudget - import from the sites.
4. Stabilize CM handoff.

My personal sub-comments to these bullets:

1. For the laser noise I'm not sure that we will be able to understand these if the couplings are mainly from junk light due to accidental HOM resonances.
2. WE should look into putting a static passive stage of filtering into the ETMs if warranted by the NB.
3. Because of the sad track record with this, I will start us off this time by importing and modifying the H1/L1 versions.
4. I guess we can do this by just acquiring on MC2 with the huge CARM offset. It works for the single arm so it should work for offset CARM.