TITLE: 10/27 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 149Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Corey
SHIFT SUMMARY: Two lock acquisitions today, both of which involved pauses for some commissioning measurements, but otherwise they were automatic. Rode through an earthquake this afternoon using the high-gain ASC configuration, which very likely saved time with relocking afterwords. H1 has now been locked for 4 hours.
LOG:
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15:29 | FAC | Nellie | MY | N | Technical cleaning | 16:19 |
| 15:31 | FAC | Kim | MX | N | Technical cleaning | 16:19 |
| 15:31 | FAC | Tyler | X-arm | N | Tumbleweed inventory | 15:37 |
| 15:37 | FAC | Randy | MX | N | Caulking BTE | 19:31 |
| 17:58 | IAS | Jason | Opt Lab | N | Checking parts | 18:16 |
| 20:07 | ISC | Keita | Opt Lab | Local | ISS array work | 21:30 |
| 20:14 | ISC | Rahul | Opt Lab | Local | ISS array work | 21:30 |
| 21:20 | VAC | Gerardo, Jordan | MX | N | Collecting equipment | 21:56 |
TITLE: 10/27 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 148Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan S
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 8mph Gusts, 3mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.26 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Got the rundown from RyanS with H1's status (which has been good even with the EQs), it has been locked 3.5hrs. Microseism has leveled off (between the 50th & 90th percentile lines, after it's fast downturn yesterday), and winds lare calm.
Jennie W, TJ Schaffer
I used git restore to undo the following change in the labutils/PIMON/plot_lockloss.py script.
git diff plot_lockloss.py
diff --git a/PIMON/plot_lockloss.py b/PIMON/plot_lockloss.py
index 34cc35a..9a5575e 100644
--- a/PIMON/plot_lockloss.py
+++ b/PIMON/plot_lockloss.py
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from pathlib import Path
from matplotlib.backends.backend_pdf import PdfPages
-file = sys.argv[1]
+file = '/ligo/data/pimon/locklosses/1445269860_lockloss_pi_data.npz'
data = np.load(file, allow_pickle=True)
RMS = lambda y: np.cumsum(y[::-1])[::-1]
Just so we can push the labutils repository.
Link to report here.
Summary:
H1 returned to observing at 19:54 UTC after a fairly strightforward relocking process. DRMI took a while to catch, but once it did, we paused to take a few OLG measurements (alog87768).
The 1 HZ ASC ringup started right around reaching low noise. Elenna tried a couple things to mitigate it, but we eventually just transitioned to high-gain ASC to finally subdue it.
I had one SDF to accept (see screenshot) which appears to be from Tony's SQZ troubleshooting overnight (alog87760).
FAMIS 31109
PMC TRANS is having a bit of increase again, but otherwise no major events this week. I adjusted the ISS RefSignal this morning to bring the diffracted power back to our target of 4%; something I've been meaning to do for a while.
Some DRMI locking info
MICH, PRCL, SRCL filter banks during the "acquire DRMI 1f" state before the lock is grabbed.
OLGs for MICH, PRCL, SRCL after 1F acquisition, DRMI ASC engaged.
Mon Oct 27 10:10:35 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 10min 32secs
I made plots of anti-symmetric power P_AS vs. power at reflected port of OMC P_OMC_REFL during the DARM offset step measurement on September 4th, (see LHO alog #86785 and 87629).
I had to use the Beckhoff reported power for this (H1:OMC-REFL_A_DC_POWER) as the front-end channel is calibrated wrongly (see LHO alog #87648).
I also plotted the P_OMC_REFL vs. P_DCPD, ie. reflected vs. transmitted power for the OMC.
The plots for our two measurements taken at different times during IFO thermalisation are below, both were taken when OM2 was hot.
Ibrahim, TJ O'Hanlon
There was question about where the prism position was with respect to the nominal position (known to be 2.6775mm from the cetner line as figure 1 shows).
As it turns out, measuring from the scribe line of the center of the dummy test mass, yields an "dummy mass upside down" answer that has confused us (LLO Measurement). However, using the scribe on the glued tooling that we used to determine the secondary prism location resulted in the correct value ~2.73mm. While all these are rough measurements, I wanted to check if LLO's upside-down metal-prism version is equivalent to LHO's scribe-on-prism tooling glued-on version. For the LLO comparison, I used the metal prism build dimensions from D1900580. According to a scale-comparison (using line lengths ratios), they are at least comparable (Figure 2).
TJ agrees that the the scribe line I'm using, which was on D2400027 (also screenshotted below) and says "our prisms are in the same place but you are measuring off of the scribe line off the D24000247 while I am looking at the center round mass. The center round mass scribleline would match with d24000247 if it wasn't flipped".
Meaning LHO and LLO prisms are in the same spots but that the dummy scribe line is not to be trusted. That spot also matches (with at least +-1 mm error until measured more accurately) the 2.67mm nominal value.
I've attached some pictures of the measurement.
I don't have a sense of what exactly the problem is yet, but last week's adventure taught us that this 1 Hz instability is related to the gain of SRCL just as much as it is related to the DHARD, CHARD and CSOFT gains. I checked the SRCL UGF today when we reached NLN and it was at 10.5 Hz, which seems low even by these standards.
I have increased the SRCL gain by 3 dB (-7.5 to -10.5) which brings the UGF to 15 Hz.
I remeasured the MICH OLG, and it's still around 5.5 Hz, which is as Evan designed.
PRCL UGF is back to 50 Hz; we made this change in June.
Guardian and SDF updated.
This is a late alog, but I wanted to put it in to document. In July, Randy installed an acrylic barrier on the pipe bridge that would block any spray from a failed cooling line expansion joint from spraying onto squeezer electronics racks or optics tables. Associated FRS30283
TITLE: 10/27 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Earthquake
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Tony
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: EARTHQUAKE
Wind: 10mph Gusts, 7mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.19 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.26 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: H1 lost lock at 12:48 UTC after spedning almost 16 hours locked from a M6.5 EQ out of the Caribbean. Still in EQ mode, so will start relocking once ground motion calms down.
H1 back to NLN at 16:57 UTC.
Ran in initial alignment then set to relocking automatically. Paused in a couple of places on the way up for Elenna to make some ASC measurements, now starting some commissioning activities which are slated to be wrapped up by 18:30 UTC.
And of course as soon as I'm about to post this, lockloss @ 17:14 UTC from what looks like an ETM glitch.
At [?] in the morning H1 was Found Locked but SQZ_Man was upset.
SQZ_Man stuck in loop from Beam Div_Open_FRS ->FC_WAIT _FS.
SHG H1:SQZ-SHG_TEC_SETTEMP was adjusted down to maximixe H1:SQZ-SHG_GR_DC_POWERMON
still stuck in loop
Ran the noconda python switch_nom_sqz_states.py without script
....UH.... Broke all the SQZr Gaurdians.... Ooops
Ran the noconda python switch_nom_sqz_states.py with script
Taking SQZ_man to no_squeezing
Ran the noconda python switch_nom_sqz_states.py without script.... again
Nothing broke !!! But Still cannot get to observing.
Had to manually take SQZ_ SHG to Down.
Back to Observing. Range only at 133 Mpc
The problem was that the OPO pump ISS was running out of range, as the OPO reflected power has slowly been increasing since our last crystal move. I've adjusted the wave plate on SQZT0 to allow more green power to be launched, this now gives a control mon of about 5 when the OPO transmission is 80 uW.
TITLE: 10/26 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 150Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Tony
SHIFT SUMMARY:
H1's been locked 8+hrs & microseism continues to fall (almost touching 50th percentile line) and winds are calm.
LOG: n/a
Summary:
We aligned everything such that none of 8 PDs was excellent but all were OK (we were also able to set up such that 4 pds were excellent but a few were terrible but decided not to take that), we were preparing for putting the array in storage until the installation, only to find that something is wrong with the design of the asymmetric QPD clamp D1300963-V2. It's unusable as is.
QPD clamp doesn't constrain the position of the QPD laterally, and there's a gross mismatch between the position of properly aligned QPD and that of the center hole of the QPD clamp. Because of that, when QPD is properly positioned, one of the QPD pins will touch the QPD clamp and be grounded unless the QPD connector is fixed such a way to pull the QPD pins sideways. Fortunately but sadly, the old non-tilt QPD clamp D1300963-V1 works better, so we'll use that.
Another minor issue, is that there seems to be a confusion as to the direction of the QPD tilt in terms of the word "pitch" and "yaw". The way the QPD is tilted in D1101059-v5 (this is how things are set up in the lab as of now) doesn't seem to follow the design intent of ECR E1400231 though it follows the word of it. After confirming that this is the case with systems, we'll change the QPD tilt direction (or not). This means that we're not ready to put everything in storage quite yet.
None of these affect the PD array alignment we've done, this is just a problem of the QPD.
Pin grounding issue due to the QPD clamp design.
I loosened the screws for the QPD connector clamps (circled in blue in the first attachment) and the output of the QPD preamp got crazy with super large 60Hz noise and large DC SUM even though there was no laser light.
I disconnected the QPD connector, removed the connector clamps too, and found that one pin of the QPD was short circuited to the ground via the QPD clamp (not to be confused with the QPC connector clamps, see 2nd attachment).
Turns out, the offending pin was isolated during our adjustments all the time because the QPD connector clamps were putting enough lateral pressure as well as down such that the pins were slightly bent from the offending side. I was able to reattach the connector, push it laterally while tightening the clamp screws, and confirm that the QPD functioned fine. But this is not really where we wanted to be.
I rotated the QPD clamp 180 degrees (which turns out to make more sense judging from the drawings in the first attachment), which moved the QPD. Since the beam radius is about 0.2mm, if the QPD moves by 0.2mm it's not useful as a reference of the in-lab beam position. I turned the laser on, repositioned the QPD back to where it should be, but the pin on the opposite side started touching. (Sorry no picture.)
I put the old non-tilt version clamp and it was much, much better (attachment 3). It's annoying because the screw holes don't have an angled recess. The screw head is tilted relative to the mating surface on the clamp, contacting at a single point, and tightening/loosening the screw tend to move the QPD. But it's possible to carefully tighten one screw a bit, then the other one a bit, repeat that dozen times or so until nothing moves even when pushed firmly by finger. After that, you can still move the QPD by tiny amounts by tapping the QPD assy by bigger Allen key. Then tighten again.
What's going on here?
In the 4th attachment, you can see that the "center" hole of the QPD clamp is offset by 0.55" (1.4mm) in the direction orthogonal to A-A, and about 0.07" (even though this number is not specified anywhere in the drawing) or 1.8mm in A-A direction. So the total lateral offset is sqrt(1.4^2+1.8^2)~2.3mm. OTOH, the QPD assy is only 0.5" thick, so the lateral shift arising from the 1.41deg tilt at the back of the QPD assy is just 1.41/180*pi*0.5=0.0123" or 0.3mm.
Given that the beam position relative to the array structure is determined by the array itself and not by how the QPD is mounted, 2.3mm lateral shift is impossibly large, something must be wrong in the design. The 5th attachment is a visual aid for you.
Anyway, we'll use the old clamp, it's not worth designing and manufacturing new ones at this point.
QPD tilt direction.
If you go back to the first attachment, the QPD is tilted in a direction indicated by a red "tilt" arrow in the lab as we just followed the drawing.
The ECR E1400231 says "We have to tilt the QPD 1 deg in tip (pitch) and 1 deg in tilt (yaw)" and it sounds as if it colloborates with the drawing.
However, I suspect that "pitch" and "yaw" in the above sentence might have been misused. In the right figure of the 6th attachment (screeshot of ECR unedited), it seems that the QPD reflection hits the elevator (the red 45 degree thing in the figure) at around 6 O'clock position around the eliptic exit hole, which means that the QPD is tilted in its optical PIT. If it's really tilted 1 degree in optical PIT and 1 degree in optical YAW, the reflection will hit something like 7:30 position instead of 6:00.
That makes sense as the design intent of the ECR is to make sure that the QPD reflection will not go back into the exit hole. The 7th attachment is a side view I made, red lines represent the IR beams, yellow lines the internal hole(s) in the elevator, and green lines the aperture of the two eliptical exit holes. Nothing is to scale, but hopefully you agree that, in order to steer the QPD reflection outside of the exit hole aperture, PIT UP requires the largest tilt and PIT DOWN requires the least tilt. We have a fixed tilt of QPD, so it's best to PIT DOWN, that's what I read from the ECR. If you don't know which angle is bigger or smaller, see attachment 8.
Anyway, I'll ask Callum if my interpretation is correct, and will act accordingly.
A followup summary:
Callum and Betsy say that I'm in the best position to judge, so I decided to tilt the QPD in its optical PIT.
Turns out that the QPD was already tilted in QPD's optical PIT so everything is fine(-ish). We'll put the unit in storage tomorrow.
Seems like we were tricked by the part drawing of the tilt washer D1400146, not the assembly drawing D1101059.
Details:
Before rotating anything, I wanted to see if the reflection from QPD could be seen on the aluminum part using the IR viewer, and indeed we could see something. The first attachment shows that some kind of diffraction pattern is hitting the barrel of the 1" 99:1 sampler in PIT. The second attachment shows that the bright spots are gone when Rahul blocked the beam going to QPD, so it's clearly due to the reflection of the QPD. The pattern might come from the gaps at the QPD center. It wasn't clear if the reflection was directly hitting the barrel through AR, or if it hits 99% coating and reflected towards the barrel.
(There was also some IR visible in the input aperture but the beam is much smaller than this aperture, I believe we're seeing the scattered light coming back to this aperture from inside the array structure.)
We pulled the spare tilt washer D1400146-V1 (drawing with my red lines in the 3rd attachment) and measured the depth of the recess at 12 O'clock position (red E in the drawing), 3:00 (B), 6:00 (C) and 9:00 (D) using a caliper. It's a rough measurement, but anyway we repeated the measurement twice and got the following:
| A | B (registration mark) | C | D | |
| Meas 1 | 1.45 mm | 1.21 | 1.45 | 1.70 |
| Meas 2 | 1.41 | 1.21 | 1.49 | 1.71 |
| Average | 1.43 | 1.21 | 1.47 | 1.705 |
Clearly B at the registration mark is the shallowest position and the opposite position D is the deepest. The recess diameter was measured to be 23.0mm (specified as between .906 and .911" or 23.01 to 23.14mm), so the tilt of the recess as measured is (1.705-1.21)/23 ~ 21.5mrad or 1.2 deg, which reasonably agrees with 1.41deg specification and, more importantly, these measurements cannot be explained if the part was manufactured as specified in the drawing.
It seems that the drawing of the tilt washer D1400146 is incorrect or at least doesn't agree with reality, and the assembly drawing D1101059 was correct in that following that will give us the QPD tilt along optical PIT.
Seeing how the QPD reflection hits the barrel of the 99:1 sampler, the ghost beam dumping doesn't look well thought out but that's what it is.
4th picture shows the registration mark of the tilt ring as was set in the lab for future reference.
We've done the last QPD scan (turns out that I happened to set the PIT-YAW angle really well). Data will be posted later. Now we're ready to pack things up.
We "measured" the dimension of the new (non-functional) QPD clamp D1300963-V2 by taking a picture with a ruler.
The offset of the center bore along the line connecting the two screw holes was measured to be about 1.9mm, which agrees pretty well with the above alog where I wrote "(even though this number is not specified anywhere in the drawing) or 1.8mm".
Operator Checksheet NOTES: