Displaying reports 3061-3080 of 83410.Go to page Start 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 End
Reports until 04:20, Tuesday 11 February 2025
H1 CDS
erik.vonreis@LIGO.ORG - posted 04:20, Tuesday 11 February 2025 (82735)
Workstations updated

Workstations updated and rebooted.  This was an os packages update.  Conda packages were not update.

H1 General
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:00, Monday 10 February 2025 (82734)
OPS Monday eve shift summary

TITLE: 02/11 Eve Shift: 0030-0600 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 158Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Oli
SHIFT SUMMARY: The range has been fairly steady, we stayed locked all shift with 2 superevents.
LOG:

Start Time System Name Location Lazer_Haz Task Time End
17:16 SAFETY LASER SAFE  ( \u2022_\u2022) LVEA SAFE! LVEA  SAFE!!! 16:42
16:43 SAF Camilla LVEA N->Y LVEA hazard transition 16:53
16:54 SAF LASER HAZARD LVEA YES LVEA is HAZARD!! 16:54
16:57 ISC Sheila, Jennie LVEA Yes HAM3 VP beam spot power meas. 17:17
17:46 ISC TJ, Sheila, Jennie LVEA YES HAM3 VP beam spot power meas 18:03
17:58 FAC Kim MY, mX n Tech clean 19:12
19:23 ISC Sheila, Matt LVEA - ISCT1 Y (local) Aligning beatnotes 19:43
20:49 ISC Daniel LVEA y Checking on whitening settings at rack 20:58
21:04 ISC Jennie, Mayank, Keita, Siv Opt Lab Y (local) ISS array work, Siv in @ 23:00, Jenne out 23:35, Keita out 23:57 01:20

21:35 UTC Observing

02:26 UTC supervent S250211aa

04:36 UTC superevent S250211be

H1 CAL (Lockloss)
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:10, Monday 10 February 2025 - last comment - 09:17, Wednesday 19 February 2025(82704)
Calibration locklosses

I took a look at the locklosses during the calibration measurements the past week. Looking at DARM right before the locklosses, both times a large feature grows around ~42 Hz right before the lockloss. Sat LL Thur LL

Thursday:

DARM_IN was dominated by the 42 Hz long oscillation and a ~505 short oscillation until the LL, DARM_OUT was dominated by the harmonic of the violins ~1020 Hz.

Saturday:

DARM_IN had a long and a short oscillation, the fund violin modes, ~510 Hz and ~7.5 Hz, DARM_OUT was dominated by the harmonic of the violins ~1020 Hz

I'm not sure how to/where to see exactly what frequencies the simulines were injecting during and before the lockloss.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
vladimir.bossilkov@LIGO.ORG - 10:03, Tuesday 11 February 2025 (82739)

Looking into what's going awry.
I pushed for a change of calibration sweep amplitudes on the Pcal and the PUM (which had been tested a couple of month's back) which was instilled into the calibration sweep wiki last week, labeled informatively as "settings_h1_20241005_lowerPcal_higherPUM.ini".

Both of these sweeps were very near the end, where Pcal is driving at 7.68 Hz and PUM is driving at either 42.45 Hz or 43.6 Hz, which should clarifiy the source of the signals you are pointing out in this aLog.

The driving amplitude of the Pcal at 7.68 is about 20% lower than the injections that were being run the week before, deliberately done to reduce kicking the Pcal during ramping to reduce broad band coupling into DARM which would affect other measurement frequencies like the L1 which is driving at ~12 Hz at this time.
The driving amplitude of the PUM at ~42 Hz is unchanged from injections that had been running up until last week.

Not seeing any SUS stage saturating at lock losses. Presently unconvinced lock losses are related to new sweep parameters.

vladimir.bossilkov@LIGO.ORG - 12:14, Tuesday 11 February 2025 (82746)

Both locklosses coincided with the ramping ON of the final DARM1_EXC at 1200 Hz

vladimir.bossilkov@LIGO.ORG - 09:17, Wednesday 19 February 2025 (82905)CAL

Tagging CAL properly

H1 ISC (IOO, ISC, PSL)
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:32, Monday 10 February 2025 - last comment - 17:46, Monday 10 February 2025(82731)
Apparent contamination and glass chipping in spare ISS PD array SN 1202967 (Siva, Mayank, Jennie, Keita)

To rebuild the spare ISS PD Array unit (D1101059 S1202967, note that I myself don't have an access right for the S-number document on DCC) and align the PDs, we opened the transport container (D1400368) in the optics lab.

We initially had a hard time to open the container as the viton gasket (D1400366) was REALLY firmly stuck to the container lid (D1400367) and the container base (D1400365). We put the container on top of small stainless steel cart and used screwdrivers to pry the cover off from the base plate. Even after two  corners were freed, we could not lift the lid just by hand, and we had to continue prying the lid until all four corners were freed.

Contamination:

After finally removing the lid, we found two bases for concern, the first is the contamination.

  1. There were some class A hardwares (screws/bolts, washers, one half of the QPD PCB retainer, and what turned out to be one of the two adjustment cams for one of the two plate high reflectors) scattered around on the transport container base plate, which is supposed to be a class B surface. But the base plate was dirty when we wiped it using pre-soaked wipe.
  2. Another half of the QPD PCB retainer was freely lying on the ISS PD base plate (D1300323) which is supposed to be class A surface, and it was dirty too.
  3. We wiped all parts that were not attached to anything, and they were all dirty.
  4. We haven't assessed the quality of the diodes nor the plate optics but there's no reason to believe that they are not contaminated.

The first two pictures shows the container assembly before and after removing the lid. 

Note that the second picture shows the class A "cover" for the assembly tilted back. It turns that the cover was just put there, free to rattle. Connection rods that are supposed to attach the cover to the cage structure were not bolted to the cage.

The third picture shows how filthy the container base plate was. It also shows a half of QPD retainer parts that were found there, next to a swagelock fitting attached to the base plate.

Fourth picture shows the pre-soaked wipe I used to lightly clean the top surface of the PD array base plate. I immediately picked up some black stuff. You can also see that the PEEK parts are covered with black stuff.

Fifth picture shows the PEEK parts. I wiped the top parts but the bottom one is yet to be cleaned. You can easily see the difference.

6th and 7th picture shows deep scuff on the class A surface of the array PD structure, which seemed to have most accumulated the black stuff.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - 17:46, Monday 10 February 2025 (82733)

Glass chipping

We also found what seemed like tiny pieces of glass on the container base plate as well as the ISS PD base plate.

We inspected plate optics and found that all of them have chips. The worst one is one of the high reflectors.

The first three pictures show the damage of the leftmost HR optic seen from the beam entry point (i.e. array PDs are facing you). There appears to be a big chip where the adjustment cam is supposed to touch, but the cam was found detatched from the assembly and was on the transport container base plate.

The fourth picture shows the chip at the corner of the middle optic (BS). It also highlights that what seems to be the deep scuff marks or maybe grinding marks from the manufacturing process on the high reflector to the left (which is a different optics from the first three pictures as you're looking at the assembly from the array PD position so to speak) seem to have accumulated black stuff. That optic also has bad chipping on the front edge, which is more clear on the fifth picture.

The 6th picture shows one of the bigger glass pieces found on the surface of the transport container base plate. Note the black smudge on the glass (if it is glass).

Images attached to this comment
H1 ISC (DetChar, ISC, OpsInfo)
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:38, Monday 10 February 2025 - last comment - 12:26, Tuesday 11 February 2025(82728)
low frequency nonstationary noise returned

Sheila, Matt Todd

We are having more incidences of the nonstationary noise 20-60 Hz that correlates with the CO2 ISS channel. 

Here's a collection of links related to this issue in the past: 

Here is a Lasso result for the noisy lock from this weekend: lasso Feb 9. Jane Glanzer is working on running lasso for some of the recent noisy times including the max as well as mean channels, so that may provide additional clues. We still see the ITMX CO2 ISS channel correlated with range.  Note, on Feb 7th Lasso chooses  H1:IOP-OAF_L0_MADC2_EPICS_CH15 which is the same thing as ITMX_CO2_ISS_CTRL2_INMON,

For the 9th the Rayleigh statistic also clearly shows this issue: summary page for Feb 9th, but comparing this to one of our normal days (range just below 160 and stable on Feb 4th) we also see nonstationarity at these frequencies.  So, it is possible that we normally have this non stationary noise at a lower level and it is always limiting our sensitivity.

Feb st we had an incident where the ISS CO2 channel was correlated with the range, screenshot.  Feb 1st there was also a remarkable change in the FC length control signal peak to peak, which has not shown any correlation with these range drops in the last week and a half, but did last may (78485).  Matt found this alog about squeezer issues on the 1st, 82581, we adjusted the SHG temperature, and fiber polarization, and there was a temperature excursion in the FCES. The FC length control signal was noisy from Jan 2nd to Feb 1st, and has been back to normal since. 

Operator request:  If operators see the range fluctuating with lots of noise between 20-40 Hz, (similar to Feb 9th), could you drop out of observing and go to no squeezing for 10 minutes or so?  We would like to see if this problem comes and goes with squeezing as it did last May. 

 

 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jane.glanzer@LIGO.ORG - 12:26, Tuesday 11 February 2025 (82748)DetChar

I have run lasso for four different time periods as suggested by Sheila. As mentioned, these lasso runs differ from a traditional run in that I am using .max trends of the auxiliary channels to model the bns range. Below are links to each run, along with brief comments on what I saw.

Feb 1st 10:20 - 18:40: The top channel is a SQZ channel, H1:SQZ-PMC_TRANS_DC_NORMALIZED.  H1:ASC-POP_X_RF_Q4_OUTPUT and H1:TCS-ITMX_CO2_ISS_CTRL2_OUT_DQ were also picked out. The CO2 channel is correlated with the bigger dip around ~15 UTC.

Feb 7th 12:21:58 - 15:17:03: For some reason, lasso only runs until 15 UTC, when I have specified it run until 18:30 UTC. I am not 100% sure why this happens. I think it may be because of a large range drop around 15 UTC. I have still included what lasso found for the initial  3 hours or so. Some top channels picked out are H1:SUS-ITMY_M0_OSEMINF_F2_OUT16 & H1:ASC-AS_A_RF45_Q2_OUT16. These are new channels that I don't think have been picked out before. I will say that farther down the list of correlated channels H1:PSL-ISS_SECONDLOOP_QPD_SUM_OUT16.

Feb 7th 21:55:32 - Feb 8th 01:40:00: Top channel is H1:TCS_ITMX_CO2_ISS_CTRL2_OUT_DQ.

Feb 9th 07:04:07 - 11:59:26: Top correlated channels are H1:PSL-ISS_SECONDLOOP_PDSUMOUTER_INMON & H1:TCS-ITMX_CO2_ISS_CTRL2_OUT_DQ. These are also the top two channels from the regular lasso run (with .mean trends) as viewed from the summary pages.

The most consistently picked out channel is the ITMX_CO2 channel, but the .max trend method also seems to pick up some PSL, SQZ, SUS, and ASC channels as well.
 

H1 General
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:28, Monday 10 February 2025 (82729)
OPS Monday EVE shift start

TITLE: 02/10 Eve Shift: 0030-0600 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 156Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: TJ
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 7mph Gusts, 4mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.39 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

LHO General
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:41, Monday 10 February 2025 (82716)
Ops Day Shift End

TITLE: 02/10 Day Shift: 1530-0030 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 155Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan C
SHIFT SUMMARY: Commissioning this morning and a few lock losses. The PR2 spot was moved again so the lock reacquisition was slower since Sheila needed to pico for POP QPDs. Other than that relocking has been automated.
LOG:

H1 General
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:23, Monday 10 February 2025 (82727)
H1 Back to Observing

H1 back to observing at 21:18 UTC following commissioning time. Were getting some DIAG_MAIN notifications after going to max power about the POP X PZT being railed; Sheila says we should fix this but can wait for now. The TMS_SERVO Guardian has a note about this being due to different PR3 alignment.

Accepted new POP_A offsets of 0 in ASC OBSERVE.snap table once at NLN (screenshot attached).

Images attached to this report
H1 SUS (SEI, SUS)
joshua.freed@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:18, Monday 10 February 2025 (82726)
ETMX BOSEM Noise Injections

J. Freed

ETMX shows strong coupling of BOSEM noise between 10-20Hz by about a factor of 30 below DARM from most sensors.

Today I did damping loop injections on all 6 BOSEMs on the ETMX M0. This is a continuation of the work done previously for ITMX, ITMY, PR2, PR3, PRM, SR2, SR3, and SRM. As with PRM, gains of 300 and 600 were collected for SR3 (300 is labled as ln or L).  Calibration lines were off.

The plots, code, and flagged frequencies are located at /ligo/home/joshua.freed/bosem/ETMX/scripts. While the diaggui files are at /ligo/home/joshua.freed/bosem/ETMX/data for ETMX. I used Sheila code located under /ligo/home/joshua.freed/bosem/ETMX/scripts/osem_budgeting.py to produce the sum of all contributions as well as the individual plots.
 
ETMX.png Is a plot of ETMX estimated contributions to DARM using only the 600 gain data. All F sensors have a strang effect.
main.png Shows the current noise plot for most of the suspensions done so far
 
reference number in diaggui files for ETMX
Background time: (ref0 DARM, ref1 F1_out, ref2 F2_out, ref3 F3_out, ref4 LF_out, ref5 RT_out, ref6 SD_out)
F1L time:                (ref7 DARM, ref8 F1_out)
F1 time:                  (ref9 DARM, ref10 F1_out)
F2L time:               (ref11 DARM, ref12 F2_out)
F2 time:                 (ref13 DARM, ref14 F2_out)
F3L time:              (ref15 DARM, ref16 F3_out)
F3 time:                (ref17 DARM, ref18 F3_out)
LFL time:              (ref19 DARM, ref20 LF_out)
LF time:                (ref21 DARM, ref22 LF_out)
RTL time:              (ref23 DARM, ref24 RT_out)
RT time:                (ref25 DARM, ref26 RT_out)
SDL time:             (ref27 DARM, ref28 SD_out)
SD time:               (ref29 DARM, ref30 SD_out)

 

Images attached to this report
H1 ISC (PEM)
jennifer.wright@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:22, Monday 10 February 2025 - last comment - 13:06, Monday 10 February 2025(82722)
PR2 moves today out of lock during Commissioning

Sheila, Matt T, Mayank, Jennie W

 

tl;dr: After previous PR2 moves last week, we measured the spot clipping on scraper baffle (and exiting HAM3 viewport) to be 8mW in lock. After measuring this we unlocked for unknown reason and so team PR2 moved 6mm towards the centre of PR2 in yaw while unlocked. We estimate we are roughly centred on PR2 now.

Today Sheila and I measured the spot coming out of the HAM3 viewport as was done by Robert in this entry. The process is replace the black glass guillotine with lexan guillotine, take off the illuminator, clip a lens on a stalk to the top of the guillotine and align this with the beam coming out of the viewport. Not all the light is now captured by the lens as the spot is now more a semi-circle of a clipped beam. We moved the power metre behind the lens till we found the max power we could get on the power metre. This was 8mW and the PR3 yaw slider was at around -74 microradians.


After we came back to control room the IFO lost lock so it was decided to move towards the centre of PR2 which had been measured by Sheila using an A2L measurement at the start of the commissioning period.

Matt tuned down on PR3 yaw in 3 microradian steps to -232.4 microradians. Each step he tuned the 8X picomotor to bring back the DIFF and COMM ALS beatnotes. Every so often it is also neccessary to step up the pitch on PR3 to compensate for the cross-coupling of yaw to pitch. The ndscope image for the moves is here. Matt left the picomotor like this and the sliders like this.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 13:06, Monday 10 February 2025 (82725)

Before today's move PR3 yaw slider was at -74, where we measured the Y2L coefficent to be -3, which corresponds to 6 mm. 

We moved using the procedure in 82670, and we decided to move to -230urad on the PR3 yaw slider based on the table in 82688

We did go to ISCT1 ad fix up the beatnotes, and TJ stopped at PREP_DC_READOUT where I pico'd to center on the POP QPDs.  The centering actually could be better, with POP A well centered POP B is at -0.5 in pitch and -0.1 in yaw at 2W with all ASC on.  We can fix this another day, but didn't want to take the time today.

I've set the POP A offsets to 0, accepted this in safe.snap, and added PRC1 and PRC2 in the guardian.

H1 PSL
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:57, Monday 10 February 2025 (82721)
PSL 10-Day Trends

FAMIS 31072

Since our work in the enclosure last week taking pump diode slope measurements (alogs 82636 and 82635), several trends have changes. A majority of the pump diode monitors are at different levels, power out of both amplifiers is higher (AMP2 seems slightly noisier), PMC transmitted power is higher, PMC reflected power is lower and has not been increasing since last week. This is the first time I can recall it not having a steady increase since immediately after the last NPRO swap late last year.

Images attached to this report
LHO VE
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:21, Monday 10 February 2025 (82720)
Mon CP1 Fill

Mon Feb 10 10:18:24 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 18min 21secs

Gerardo confirmed a good fill curbside. TCmins [-38C, -37C] OAT (-3C, 26F) DeltaTempTime 10:18:24

Images attached to this report
H1 General
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:20, Monday 10 February 2025 (82719)
Lock loss 1807 UTC

1423246039

The lock loss occurred during commissioning time but no activity was going on at the time.

H1 TCS (TCS)
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:51, Wednesday 05 February 2025 - last comment - 09:41, Monday 10 February 2025(82659)
TCS Monthly Trends (FAMIS #28457)

Attached are monthly TCS trends for CO2 and HWS lasers.  (FAMIS link)

Comments related to this report
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - 09:41, Monday 10 February 2025 (82717)TCS

Whoops!  Forgot to attach the actual trends!! (thanks for catching this, Camilla!)  Attachements are now attached!

Images attached to this comment
H1 ISC
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:17, Wednesday 05 February 2025 - last comment - 14:28, Tuesday 11 February 2025(82656)
Quick check of POP A LF calibration

Sheila and I are continuing to check various PD calibrations (82260). Today we checked the POP A LF calibration.

Currently there is a filter labeled "to_uW" that is a gain of 4.015. After some searching, Sheila tracked this to an alog by Kiwamu, 13905, with [cnts/W] = 0.76 [A/W] x 200 [Ohm] x 216 / 40 [cnts/V]. Invert this number and multiply by 1e6 to get uW/ct.

Trusting our recalibration of IM4 trans, we have 56.6 W incident on PRM. We trust our PRG is about 50 at this time, so 2.83 kW are in the PRC. PR2 transmission is 229 ppm (see galaxy optics page). Then, the HAM1 splitter is 5.4% to POP (see logs like 63523, 63625). So we expect 34 mW on POP. At this time, there was about 30.5 mW measured on POP according to Kiwamu's calibration.

Comments related to this report
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 12:56, Monday 10 February 2025 (82724)

I have added another filter to the POP_A_LF bank called "to_W_PRC", that should calibrate the readout of this PD to Watts of power in the PRC.

POP_A_LF = T_PR2 * T_M12 * PRC_W, and T_PR2 is 229 ppm and T_M12 is 0.054. I also added a gain of 1e-6 since FM10 calibrates to uW of power on the PD.

Both FM9 (to_W_PRC) and FM10 (to_uW) should be engaged so that POP_A_LF_OUT reads out the power in the PRC.

I loaded the filter but did not engage it.

elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 14:28, Tuesday 11 February 2025 (82755)

More thoughts about these calibrations!

I trended back to last Wednesday to get more exact numbers.

input power = 56.8 W

PRG = 51.3

POP A LF (Kiwamu calibration) = 30.7 mW

predicted POP A LF = 0.054 * 229 ppm * 56.8 W * 51.3 W/W = 36 mW

ratio = 30.7 mW / 36 mW = 0.852

If the above calibrations of PRG and input power are correct, we are missing about 15% of the power on POP.

H1 ISC
jim.warner@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:19, Monday 03 February 2025 - last comment - 10:32, Monday 03 March 2025(82608)
ESD glitch limit added to ISC_LOCK

During commisioning this morning, we added the final part of the ESD glitch limiting, by adding the actual limit part to ISC_LOCK. I added a limit value of 524188 to ETMX_L3_ESD_UR/UL/LL/LR filter banks, which are the upstream part of the 28 bit dac configuration for SUS ETMX. These limits are engaged in LOWNOISE_ESD_ETMX, but turned off again in PREP_FOR_LOCKING.

In LOWNOISE_ESD_ETMX I added:

            log('turning on esd limits to reduce ETMX glitches')
            for limits in ['UL','UR','LL','LR']:
                ezca.get_LIGOFilter('SUS-ETMX_L3_ESD_%s'%limits).switch_on('LIMIT')

So if we start losing lock at this step, these lines could be commented out. The limit turn-off in PREP_FOR_LOCKING is probably benign.

Diffs have been accepted in sdf.

I think the only way to tell if this is working is to wait and see if we have fewer ETMX glitch locklosses, or if we start riding through glitches that has caused locklosses in the past.

Comments related to this report
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - 11:48, Monday 03 February 2025 (82609)

Using the lockloss tool, we've had 115 Observe locklosses since Dec 01, 23 of those were also tagged ETM glitch, which is around 20%.

camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - 12:15, Monday 10 February 2025 (82723)SEI

Since Feb 4th, we've had 13 locklosses from Observing, 6 of these tagged ETM_GLITCH: 02/1002/0902/0902/0802/0802/06

sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 11:30, Tuesday 11 February 2025 (82743)

Jim, Sheila, Oli, TJ

We are thinking about how to evaluate this change.  In the meantime we made a comparison similar to Camilla's: In the 7 days since this change, we've had 13 locklosses from observing, with 7 tagged by the lockloss tool as ETM glitch (and more than that identified by operators), compare to 7 days before the change we had 19 observe locklosses of which 3 had the tag. 

We will leave the change in for another week at least to get more data of what it's impact is.

jim.warner@LIGO.ORG - 10:32, Monday 03 March 2025 (83138)

I forgot to post this at the time, we took the limit turn on out of the guardian on Feb 12, with the last lock ending at 14:30 PST, so locks since that date have had the filters engaged, but since they multiply to 1, they shouldn't have an effect without the limit. We ran this scheme between Feb 3 17:40 utc until Feb 12 22:15 utc.

Camilla asked about turning this back on, I think we should do that. All that needs to be done is uncommenting out the lines (currently 5462-5464 in ISC_LOCK.py):

            #log('turning on esd limits to reduce ETMX glitches')
            #for limits in ['UL','UR','LL','LR']:
            #    ezca.get_LIGOFilter('SUS-ETMX_L3_ESD_%s'%limits).switch_on('LIMIT')

The turn off of the limit is still in one of the very early states is ISC_LOCK, so nothing beyond accepting new sdfs should be needed.

X1 SUS (SUS)
rahul.kumar@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:24, Tuesday 28 January 2025 - last comment - 16:59, Monday 10 February 2025(82499)
A+ O5 HRTS report - all 12 HRTS assembled (with dummy optic), balanced and characterised.

Ryan Crouch, Rahul Kumar

The assembly, balancing and testing of all 12 HRTS (Ham Relay Triple Suspension) for O5 is now complete. Currently all 12 HRTS has dummy optic installed at the bottom stage and once the mirrors are ready (with prisms bonded) then it will be replaced (later this year). I am attaching several pictures from the lab which shows all 12 HRTS staged on the optical bench. Later, six of the suspensions will be transported to LLO.

This plot compares the of transfer function performance of all 12 HRTS for all 6 degrees of freedom. We are still analyzing this data and there is scope for improving a couple of them (especially highlighted in green trace). Sometimes, it is as simple as adjusting the flag position wrt to LED/PD in bosems, and other times further fine tuning the balance and alignment of the blade springs.

The final two HRTS which were assembled by us are of OM0 configuration. This has bottom mass (M3 stage) actuation using AOSEM standoff assembly (as per D2300180_v2) as shows in the picture over here. The magnets used at M3 stage is 2.0 mm D x 0.5 mm T, SmCo. The transfer function results for both the OM0 configurations are as follows - attachment01 and attachment02. Both of them look healthy, when compared with the model.

Given below are the OLC, offsets and gains of the bosems attached to OM0 sn02,

s/n 622  31669 15834 0.947
s/n 639  32414 16207 0.925
s/n 637  28430 14215 1.055
s/n 632  27399 13699 1.094
s/n 684  26138 13069 1.147
s/n 698  32767 16383 0.915
Images attached to this report
Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - 16:59, Monday 10 February 2025 (82730)SUS

I remeasured the associated suspension with the lime green trace (2024-9-16), a suspended version of the HRTS with structure s/n 012. Through adjusting the flags centering and position I was able to improve the measurement results, especially the verticle DOF, yaw also looks better. Previous measurement vs new measurement.

Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 AOS
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:51, Wednesday 23 November 2022 - last comment - 17:21, Monday 10 February 2025(66011)
ETM HWSs reflecting off ITM surface

In alog 65804 Ross, Mitchell and I adjusted and dithered ITMX to see how much reflection off the ITM the ETM Hartmann sees. See attached for the ETMX HWS beam refected off the ITMX. This is a known issue in both ETM HWSs. It may explain why ETM ring heater tests look okay but not powerups.  

How much 520nm ETM HWS beam do we expect to refect off the ITM vs ETM: 
Assuming beam in 520nm but it is really 520+/-10nm M1900163. Using spec sheets C1103238 for ETM and C1103261 for ITM. 
Reflection from ETM HR for 520nm: (T ETM_AR )2 . R ETM_HR = 0.932 . 0.25 = 20%
Reflection from ITM HR for 520nm: (T ETM_AR  . T ETM_HR)2 . R ITM_HR = (0.93 x 0.75)2 . 0.99 = 48%
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - 17:21, Monday 10 February 2025 (82732)

Re-calculating for current 530nm M530F2 HWS beams, you can clearly see why the retrofections off the ITM are less of an issue with the 530nm source.

Using spec sheets C1103238 for ETM and C1103261 for ITM. 

Reflection from ETM HR for 520nm: (T ETM_AR )2 . R ETM_HR = 0.932 . 0.75 = 65%
Reflection from ITM HR for 520nm: (T ETM_AR  . T ETM_HR)2 . R ITM_HR = (0.93 x 0.25)2 . 0.99 = 5%
Displaying reports 3061-3080 of 83410.Go to page Start 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 End