The pressure in the HEPI Hardlines have been constant at 125psi since Wednesday afternoon after repairing the small leak at HAM4. I did not check the gauge over the weekend but today it remains at 125. The hardlines will be vented next and a few changes made: add pressure transducers at BSC2 and a drain valve under BSC1. Then let the filling begin!
Installed: - all baffles are on the table in a position that will only change slightly to align to the beam - all dog clamps are swapped/added on all components, except - IM1-3 dog clamps have been OK'd by Guido, but Calum wants to,see BK hammering test data, however - IM1-3 sus vs sys dog clamps are likely about the same weight, and IMs aren't moving To Do: - vet sus dog clamps with BK hammering test Desired work: - if possible, float and ballance the table and relock, to vet the table alignment and elliminate it as a block to locking the IMC in air
I installed irises on the PSL in January, and looked at them yesterday. I found that the beam coming from the PMC is about a beam diameter from center on it's alignment iris, and the transmitted beam from the bottom periscope mirror was also about a beam diameter from center. Attached is a drawing of the beam paths for these two irises, and where I found the beams.
A possible explanation for the alignment drift might be that the shutdown of the PSL chilled water has caused some thermal motion either of the PSL table or some components on the table. I would expect some watercooled components are thermally anchored to the table so even small changes in termperature might cause some local deformation of the table surface. There may be large time constants associated with this.
- Deepak, Jeff K, Keita, Cheryl A lot of activity around HAM2 today, working toward locking the IMC in air. The IMC is ready to go, in HAM2 and ISCT2L, but we have an alignment issue from the PSL that will require the PSL top periscope mirror and the HAM2 Pico Motor actuated mirror to correct, before we can resume IMC flashing and locking. When we went to laser hazard, I saw that the beam from the PSL was misaligned to the HAM2 periscope. Iterations of aligning the PSL beam to the IMC alignment irises were unsuccessful, in that there is no way to align the input beam with just the top periscope mirror, and get a beam through the IMC that is centered on all the irises. Many different attempts to rectify this were all unsuccessful, including significant realignment of IMC mirrors. While in the PSL, I checked my alignment irises and found that two of the irises on the PSL no longer have a centered beams,, both by about a beam diameter, so there has been some significant beam pointing change. This means that aligning the PSL beam to the IMC will require the use of the top periscope mirror in the PSL, and the pico motor mirror in HAM2. Other details on HAM2/IMC work: IOT2L electronics were reattached and signals are coming through. The table is sitting further from HAM2 than normal, since it gives us more room in the clean room, and REFL PD is not adversely effected by the additional distance. The IMC REFL beam is aligned to the table, and we have a beam on REFL PD and can see the beam on the camera. The semi-end of baffle installation/rework was today. Jeff K, at my OK, used iLigo dog clamps on two baffles, HA1 and some other one he alogged - pictures to come. Deepak and I installed the IM4 baffle. There were a couple issues with the IM4 baffle, which are that it cannot be installed without loosening the EQ stop brackets, and when the EQ stop brackets are retightened, they are in direct contact with the baffle. Picture attached. IMC alignment irises were assembled and installed in HAM2, back to their locations from Dec. 2012, in front of MC1 and MC3, and behind MC3. This fully defines the input beam used for the alignment of the IMC in air. LVEA is back to laser safe. HAM2 West door is rocking a 4-door-cover look to allow the IMC REFL to escape the vacuum system without exposing more of the chamber than necessary.
When you press some button in any MEDM window to open another MEDM window, and if that screen is already open somewhere but behind another window, in KDE the correct window pops up to the front.
Cheryl V, Jeff K, Keita, Deepak K
The offsets of the Mode Cleaner Suspensions are currently at
MC1 Pitch : -360
MC1 Yaw : 420
MC2 Pitch : -9.8
MC2 Yaw : 367.9
MC3 Pitch : 710
MC3 Yaw : 220
- Clean room moved from BSC10 to BSC6 - Feed throughs being installed - Transition to laser hazard by IO - PEM timing fix requires reboot of H1OAF - Dust monitor vendor on site - EY transfer function on SUS in BSC6
Mark B. (posted under Arnaud's name by mistake)
In response to a question by Dennis and Norna, I set out to confirm that the magnets for the L1 and L2 OSEMs on the ITMy and ETMy were installed with the proper checkerboard pattern called out in E1000617. The sensing at these levels has had some attention from Szymon but the actuation less so.
I set up some DTT jobs that applied 0-6 Hz uniform excitation to the EXC test points in the COILOUTF filter blocks (H1:SUS-ITMY_L1_COILOUTF_UL_EXC etc) and looked at the phase, magnitude and coherence to the IN1 test points of the OSEMINF blocks (H1:SUS-ITMY_L_OSEMINF_UL_IN1_DQ etc):
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGL1/Data/20130301-ITMY_L1_SignCheck.xml
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGL2/Data/20130301-ITMY_L2_SignCheck.xml
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1ETMY/SAGL1/Data/20130301-ETMY_L1_SignCheck.xml
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGL2/Data/20130301-ETMY_L2_SignCheck.xml
The four OSEMs at each level were done in parallel. To get good coherence given the weakness of the lower actuators I had to use large excitation levels and increase the WD actuation thresholds temporarily from 25000 to 50000. Damping was off, but preliminary runs showed that it didn't make much difference.
When I found a good combination of settings, the phase below about 0.3 Hz was near either 0 or 180 degrees and tracked the sign of the gain field in the COILOUTF block.
For both ITMY and ETMY the L1 signs to give 0 degrees phase at low frequency (i.e., actuation and sensing with the same sign in the spring-constant dominated regime) were UL=LR=-1, LL=UR=+1. This is consistent with E1000617 with N=+1.
For both ITMY and ETMY the L2 signs to give 0 degrees phase at low frequency were UL=LR=+1, LL=UR=-1. This is consistent with E1000617 with S=+1. Apparently the AOSEMs are wound the opposite direction from the BOSEMs, or there is some similar consistent sign swap. This is _not_ the way the gain had been set - all L2 OSEMs had been configured as pullers rather than pushers as intended. I left the corrected settings in place and updated the safe.snap files.
The only case where the conclusion is marginal is for ETMY:L2:UR, where the OSEM is indpendently suspected to be badly aligned, so the response is weak and the coherence is not as good. We hope to align this OSEM better when the ETMY is reinstalled in the H1 tank.
This study does not constrain the second magnet in each flag assembly, which is supposed to be installed oppositely so that each flag assembly has zero net dipole.
h1oaf0 restarted with new IOP model to match the new IO Chassis (the correct one for H1OAF). The temporary chassis had a 16bit DAC card, the new one has a 18bit DAC.
I started the new IOP models for h1sush56, h1susauxh56 and h1seih45. But this took the GDS system over a 128 node limit, so these IOP models were stopped and we will upgrade the GDS next tuesday.
Cleanroom moved from BSC10 to BSC6. Door removal equipment staged by north door.
Final door returned to chamber. All door and dome bolts torqued and checked. Feedthrough and blank installation started. ICC items continue to be collected and returned to the corner station for storage.
Clean chamber and cleanroom X 2-1 clean completed Test leg jacks Move cleanroom from HAM aux optics table to BSC2-HAM3 for garbing/staging Check cleanroom function Stage garbing/staging cleanrooms Baffle assembly-Solid stack moved to test stand today
Pressure appears to be holding steady. If it holds through Monday, we'll transition to fluid filling.
J. Kissel, D. Nadnakumar, C. Vorvick Given the tight space and sparse optical table hole pattern, I volunteered to help Cheryl and Deepak come up with better dog clamping scheme for HA-1 (D0902385) and P1 (D1003019) baffle (whose locations are specified roughly in D1200694 -- but without all the other components surrounding it). We ended up using the following scheme: For HA-1: - Corrected the attachment of +X-side table bracket (D1003011), such that both are now as shown in D1200694, where the two brackets are mounted to opposing sides of the baffle: -X bracket's foot points toward -Y, and +X bracket's foot points toward +Y. - Securing +X bracket's foot: - Dog Clamp: iLIGO LOS (no S/N), - MT. HOLE: A12, B34 - Contact Point: as shown in D1200694. - Securing -X bracket's foot - Dog Clamp: D1100640-V2, Type 01 (S/N 001) - MT. HOLE: A10, B34 - Contact Point: as shown in D1200694. For P1: - Securing -X bracket's foot: - Removed dog-clamp-on-dog-clamp scheme tried before - iLIGO Dog Clamp (no S/N) - MT. HOLE: A9, B30 - Contact Point: on the other side of the foot that what's shown in D1200694 - Securing +X bracket's foot - (NO CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS ATTEMPT) - Dog Clamp: D1100640-V1, Type 01 (S/N 031) - MT. HOLE: A11, B29 - Contact Point: as shown in D1200694 Attached are images with annotations. As noted in HA1Baffle.pdf --> With this scheme, it's unclear whether the aperture in the HA1 baffle is well centered around the beam path (the whole is appears too far in the +X direction), and currently the fork securing ROM LH4 prevents any further translation in -X.
Attached are 6 pictures of the same 4 inch wafer which was inside HAM2 for approximately 6 weeks. These pictures were taken with either a Nikon D300 (DSLR with a NIKON F1.8 35mm lens) or a Nikon S8200 (point and shoot). The wafer illumination was accomplished with either a FSI plug-in bar light or an LED flashlight. The illumination was always from the side. The cleanroom lights were also varied from on to mostly off. The goal is to find a lighting method and camera system which can be used by all parties to document the accumulation of dust particles on the 4" wafers. The method needs to be one which can be applied in-chamber without undue difficulty. The method of illumination makes the largest difference in the ability to see particles. The bar light clearly outperforms the flashlight. Calum ordered two different models of inexpensive handheld LED bar lights which will be tried next. Cordless, handheld lighting is the by far the easiest to deal with in-chamber. The room lighting (dark preferred) also made a difference but not nearly as great as the direct lighting. All pictures were handheld (no tripod) because a tripod is not practical inside a chamber. There are some regions of high concentrations of small particles. These are glove prints from moving the wafer around inside the chamber. In one way, they disturb the sample, but in another way they also represent the actual surfaces inside of a chamber. The next tests will use the cordless LED bar lights. The F-stop of the D300 will be increased to increase the depth of field. While we don't have a direct comparison of the amount of dust on the wafer before being hand-carried by Betsy to CIT, the test also shows that a significant amount of dust remained on the wafer during transport. Of course, the amount of dust found on this sample represents the amount of dust which can be expected to be found on all horizontal surfaces in HAM2. Participants: Betsy, Margot, Kate, and Jeff
Attached are plots of dust counts > .3 microns and > .5 microns in particles per cubic foot requested from 5 PM Feb. 27 to 5 PM Feb 28. Also attached are plots of the modes to show when they were running/acquiring data. Data was taken from h1nds1. 1383.0 minutes of trend displayed 'No data output' errors on all plots except 5 microns.
Attached are plots of dust counts > .3 microns and > .5 microns in particles per cubic foot requested from 5 PM Feb. 26 to 5 PM Feb 27. Also attached are plots of the modes to show when they were running/acquiring data. Data was taken from h1nds1. 1437.0 minutes of trend displayed
Today the Apollo crew installed platforms of HAM2 East and West doors. Bubba and I determined yesterday that the original platform prototype would not block our IMC REFL or IMC Trans beams, if installed on HAM2 West. The IOT2L table was moved to a position that isn't the one marked by the red tape, but rather where I think the table needs to go to catch the beams and keep the table enclosure outside of the clean room. Michael says the PSL laser is back, so tomorrow at min. I would like to flash the IMC. If it's possible to hook up the electronics at IOT2L tomorrow, I would try to lock the IMC in air.
- Deepak, Cheryl Installation of IO components on HAM2 is nearly complete. PRM AR and EQ Stop baffles are installed. FI rejected beam beadump is installed. Dog clamps have been swapped, recorded, moved to the correct placements. Some issues still need to be addressed. - IM4 baffle was reworked, and still didn't fit. We looked into anomalies in it's assembly today and found only that it's 0.06" wider than designed. LLO had to loosen the EQ stop plate to install their baffle, the same plate that is preventing our installation, so we'll try that tomorrow. - IM1-3 still have SUS dog clamps. A decision to keep them or swap them out for SYS dog clamps is pending. If we have to swap them out, that's a min. of a few hours work. Deepak assembled and installed the FI rejected beam beamdump. I installed the HAM2 Table Optical Lever Mirror on the North side of HAM2. Still to do: - IM4 baffle - torque to spec. those dog clamps we know are staying
