Attached are plots of dust counts > .3 microns and > .5 microns in particles per cubic foot requested from 5 PM Feb. 20 to 5 PM Feb 21. Also attached are plots of the modes to show when they were running/acquiring data. Data was taken from h1nds0. 1440.0 minutes of trend displayed
The ALS SHG oven is assembled without the crystal and the temperature controlled. I added washers between the 5 axis stage and the aluminum base for the ALS SHG, now with the vertical adjustment screws all the way in the crystal is just at four inches. I think if Bram adds 3 mm to the aluminum base plate for the rest of the units they should have the crystal at 4 inches when the screws are in the center of the adjustment, without any extra washers. The temperature controller is working. The TEC is mounted for this unit in a way that seems upside down when you look at it, the larger face is on top, this requires crossing the wires that drive the TEC. I did that because the data sheet says that the less wide face of the TEC should be the cool face. One last warning about assembling it, I thought I was using a very small amount of thermal paste, but I wish I had used even less. The thermal paste in the hole for the thermistor was not a problem, but when I lightly tightened the bolt that holds the copper holder in place, the small amount of paste I had on the TEC came oozing out. I was glad that I did this without the crystal installed. The TwinCAT library is called TECController. Daniel Set up the corner 5 chassis for the third interferometer in end X (really the MSR for now) and there is a PLC called TEST on it. We configured this system manager to control the TEC, and it is in the SVN at C:SlowControlsTwinCATTargetH1ECATX1H1ECATX1.tsm revision 684 So far none of the variables are in EPICS, but I had a look at the step response using a trend in the TwinCAT visualization. 1 Volt sent towards the TEC raises the temperature by about 18.3 C, and the time constant is roughly 50 seconds. The library has a servo, the filter has a pole at zero, a zero at 0.02Hz, and you can adjust the UGF with the user interface. It seems to work for ugf settings up to 9 Hz, you can push the UGF up to 15 Hz if it is already locked and you aren't changing the temperature, but I don't think that's necessary. I will try to post some step responses once we have the channels in EPICS. Sheila
Here are some pictures of the SHG temperature controller, with the TEC mounted with the wider side up. The fig file has some step responses recorded using strip tool, zoomed in on one that is a 1 degree step with the UGF at 5Hz. The overshoot is around 20% when the ugf is at 5 Hz, and as you can see once things have partially settleded the in loop sensor see fluctuations of less than 0.05 C peak. The step resposes settings were: Set Temp UGF 27 5Hz (tuning servo on) 29 5Hz 26 5 Hz 28 10 Hz 27 10 Hz 28 7 Hz 27 3Hz 28 3Hz 27 5Hz 28 5Hz
Today, Travis and I (and some Arnaud) used both Genie lifts to move the PR3 from the chamberside work table to the HAM install arm. With the arm mounted to the NE corner of the chamber, we could not get the PR3 exactly where we wanted it so we had to slide the sus around a bit to locate it in the cookie cutter (we recall hearing that this would be a small issue). We then found that the safety pins in new HLTS brackets which mount the PR3 to the HAM install arm were very bound up when we tried to deinstall them. After loosening lots of stuff, we finally got them free and were able to remove the arm from the suspension - we're having the locating pins bored out to a larger clearance since they don't need to be so tight. We added dog clamps, removed the cookie cutter and will continue with the PRM install tomorrow.
In the morning, the Apollo crew installed "The Arm" on HAM2's East side
9:20 Hugh started work at BSC2 (HEPI Bellows & dial indicator ) & BSC1 (cable strain relief & moving dial indicators); this work went off and on through out the day.
10:15 Rodruck looking for hardware at MY
2:00 Filiberto/Steven modifying EY ISC racks per work permit
We installed the ham install arm and attached the elevator. Moved a stairway from ham 7 area where it was tested and approved by Jodi and Cheryl for use at ham 2-3. Began assembly of the work platform around bsc 2, several different configurations to choose from (and of course a galled bolt here and there). Will continue the work platform saga tomorrow. ICC at bsc 10 going quite well, brushing complete down to floor and started removing floor to begin brushing below.
I took power spectra for the India HSTS suspension I1-MC2 yesterday. The data files are posted below and have been written to the SVN repository. I will wait for Stuart A. and Jeff K. to review before removing this suspension from the test system.
Strain relieved all the cables coming to the Chamber. That is, zip tied all cables to the feedthru protection. I did not unplug any cables and only molested them as required. SUS & SEI would be wise to check no harm was inflicted.
Attached are plots of PR3 comparing power spectra from L1 PR3 (June 2012), H1 PR3 (Feb 14th 2013 before Betsy changed the brackets), H1 PR3 (Feb 19th 2013 after changing the brackets), and H1 PR3 (Feb 20th 2013 after recentering M2 UL OSEM and moving one of the top EQ stops).
To sum up, some investigation has been done to understand why some peaks from Feb 13th PR3 power spectra has been shifted in frequency (see the ~3.2 Hz peak on the red curve for M2 Pitch page 18 on allhltss_2013-02-20_Phase2b_PR3_ALL_Spectra_Doff ). After making few changes as described above, the new power spectra taken yesterday (Feb 20th) look consistent.
PR3 is now ready to get installed in the chamber.
Chamber cleaning started on Tuesday, 19 Feb. BSC10 has very robust color and staining from the original bake for strain relief. Please see attached PDF for pix. Note the deep brown/black background color of the chamber, the yellow and orange trails and splotches and other colorful artifacts visible on the chamber’s interior surface. (Upper photos) Some concern has been expressed with regard to the quality of the brushed sections. I inspected progress this morning (21 Feb) and am satisfied that the ICC process is working as intended. Although the results are not as “pretty” or “shiny” as we would like, there is ample evidence that the surface layer is being removed (Lower photos). Notice the change in surface color to a silver/whitish background and the absence of orange and yellow trails.
Yesterdays report! We moved some BSC plates to mid x and a BSC cartdridge container back to the corner station for Hugh. The top section and collar of the BSC 10 chamber was brushed. We installed the stiffener backing ring and o-ring protectors on HAM 2 with the install arm to follow today.
Attached are plots of dust counts > .3 microns and > .5 microns in particles per cubic foot requested from 5 PM Feb. 19 to 5 PM Feb 20. Also attached are plots of the modes to show when they were running/acquiring data. Data was taken from h1nds0. 1440.0 minutes of trend displayed
The spectra taken since the M2 stage AOSEM bracket swap last Friday (15th) show slightly anomolous peaks (not glaringly wrong, but not great). This morning we attempted to remedy the mis-centering of the M1 UL AOSEM which we thought might be brushing the magnet. After deeming it ok, Arnaud's spectra revealed it still to be bad. This time I went in and played with both the UL and LL attempting to center the AOEM with it buried over the magnet blocking all of the light. This old standby technique was not very helpful though because as you draw the AOSEM back out to 50% open light, the AOSEM walks all over in the bracket nulling the alignment. The stackup of brackets at this stage are not very nice (putting it nicely).
The picture below shows how all 4 AOSEM brackets are crooked relative to the structure and the suspended mass with the "modified" brackets. We needed to make new brackets here. Too late. (Although I have Tyler making a fresh set for SR3, now that I am aware of the problem.)
I also found that one of the 4 top mass EQ stops was brushing the top mass. This could have been the culprit the whole time, but nevertheless, the M2 stage brackets don't look right.
Yesterday, Travis did this. PR3 is the first one we need, however but it's good to get this work done.
- 8:15 meeting Richard mention alarm ITMY OSEM3 was on
- 10:00 Filiberto shut down ITMY electronics - turned on at 12:00, followed by oscillation on OSEM5 and OSEM6, solved by Pele and Mark
- 11:30 Patrick activated DUST monitor 9
Yesterday, I powered down the ITMY coil drivers. I disconnected and reconnected field cables at the SAT units inside SUS H1-R6. This was done to help finish dressing cabling inside the rack. When units were reconnected and powered up, we saw a high frequency oscillation as described by Pablo. We were able to remove the oscillation by power cycling the AA units.
Both the upper and lower mirrors of the ALS-PSL periscope were installed this morning.
Also I have spent some times to align the entire ALS path on the table so that the beam can nicely climb up the periscope and hit the center of the penetration hole and duct on the PSL enclosure wall (see attached picture). This work required the WP #3723 and the metal cap of the penetration hole was put back on afterward. The ALS beam is ready to enter the HAM1 chamber (although a light pipe will be required).
/* some notes on the beam power */
before ALS-Faraday = 125.8 mW
after ALS-Faraday = 123.9 mW
Jodi and I inspected HAM2 withness plates and surfaces, and found a lot of articulate. Wafers also have visible finger prints, that I put there installing them - good reason to use our nifty wafer tweezers. Particulate found on all wafers. Examples include but are not limited to white fibers, black flecks, white flecks, metal flecks, bright red stuff, and a bit of First Contact.
- Jodi, Cheryl Observations of witness plates and other in-chamber surfaces goes as follows: Every surface we looked at had particulate, including table top, optic structures, etc. Optics, both small fixed 2" and the larger 4" IM2 and IM4, show particulate. Witness Plates: - Worst contamination: One 4" witness plate on the HAM2 table top: Exposed during IO installation, pump down and vent. Significant particulate, and my gloved hand print. - Competing for the next worst contamination: Two 4" witness plates in the beam tube, North and South of HAM2: Exposed during pump down and vent. Large particulate easily seen from about 1.5m away. Two 4" witness plates in the bottom of HAM2: Exposed during pump down and vent. Large particulate easily seen from about 1.5m away. - The winners, showing the least contamination: 4" witness plates in the beam tube, West side of HAM2 on ISI level-0, positioned North, Center, and South: Exposed during pump down and vent. Small particulate easily seen by eye. - The three 1 optics had some particulate but were very hard to evaluate in-chamber, so hard to say how much contamination is on their surfaces until we can pick them up. There was a piece of First Contact, about 1mm square, on one of the 3 optics - it was missed by at least two sets of eyes before pump down. The up-side is that this does show that FC stayed put on an optic during pump down and venting. Current State of Witness Plates in HAM2: We did not have containers to remove wafers or 1" optics, so new wafers were installed along side the old wafers, (in every position, the new wafer is installed in the counter-clockwise direction from the old wafer). Two new wafers replaced the old table top wafer, and the old wafer was moved across the table, to prevent it from contaminating the new wafers.
On Nov 21st, 2013: Calum and I picked up a few witness plates in HAM2 and 3 since we had so many in there. We picked up the 2 that were in the HAM2-HAM1 spool floor, and both that were in front of the PR3. We placed a new one near the center of the table behind PR3.
Arnaud P. Betsy W. Did B&K hammer measurements on Friday feb 8th on the BeamSplitter that will be installed in BSC2. Config: BSC-ISI Unlocked, QUAD Unlocked, Baffles ON, Vibration Absorbers ON, Damping ON. Attached, pictures describing the position of hammer impacts, and accelerometer + corresponding pulse files.
Raw data has been exported from the B&K Pulse files, in accordance with the procedure outlined in the SUS Operations Manual (see How to do B&K Hammer Testing). Exported ASCII data files have been committed to the SUS svn at the following location, ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BSFM/H1/BS/BandK$, these files include the following (n.b. files have been renamed to comply with convention detailed in the Op's Manual) :- SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-Bottom-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Yimpact.pls SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-Bottom-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Yimpact.txt SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-BottomLeft-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Ximpact.pls SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-BottomLeft-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Ximpact.txt SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-BottomRight-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Ximpact.pls SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-BottomRight-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Ximpact.txt SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-TopLeft-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Ximpact.pls SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-TopLeft-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Ximpact.txt SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-TopLeft-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Yimpact.pls SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-TopLeft-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Yimpact.txt SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-TopMiddle-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Ximpact.pls SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-TopMiddle-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Ximpact.txt SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-TopMiddle-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Yimpact.pls SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-TopMiddle-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Yimpact.txt SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-TopRight-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Ximpact.pls SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-TopRight-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Ximpact.txt SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-TopRight-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Yimpact.pls SimpleHammerDisplay3-BS-TopRight-SUSunlocked-ISIunlocked-VAfitted-Yimpact.txt The above B&K data has been processed using v12 of the "BandK_plot.m" Matlab script, available in the /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/Common/MatlabTools$ directory. The merged plot attached below shows:- pg1 - Y response of the structure to Y hammer impact excitations at various locations, from 1Hz to 400Hz. pg2 - X response of the structure to X hammer impact excitations at various locations, from 1Hz to 400Hz. pg3 - X response of the structure to X hammer impact excitations at various locations, ZOOMED IN from 50Hz to 400Hz. n.b. hammer impact locations are viewable in the attachment to the original aLOG entry above see "Hammer_Impacts.pdf".
For acceptance review, I reprocessed the data for the beamsplitter, after seeing a legend mismatch between the plotted results and the raw data from PULSE software.
Therefore the attached results below are the ones to look at, and are following the accelerometer axis convention represented on the last attachement
(1) BandK_results_X_Exc.pdf
(2) BandK_results_Y_Exc.pdf
(3) Picture of BS with axis convention and hammer impact location
The X and Y hits have been chosen to correspond to the "Top Middle" hits on the picture
Those results in X to X (blue of 1st pdf) and Y to Y (green of 2nd pdf) are not showing any high Q resonnances below 150Hz, meaning the vibration absorbers are working as expected, and the test passed succesfully.
[Rodica, Kiwamu, Dick, Michael R., Keita, Paul]
Last night and today we finally managed to get what looked like a good measurement of the IMC pole response. Here is a brief description of the measurement setup:
Swept sine signal applied directly from the SRS785 to the AOM driver box inside the PSL. Frequency range was 1kHz to 100kHz, signal amplitude was 400mV pkpk. 1000 intergration cycles, and 101.56ms integration time. Measurement was a transfer function from the DCPD on the PSL installed recently (PDA55) to the DCPD on the IOT2L table (DET100A). ~200mW injected to modecleaner.
The PDA55 on the PSL table didn't give us an observable signal from the amplitude modulation previously when we tried on Wednesday. Rodica checked the Thorlabs recommendation for best linear performance, which states that the maximum intensity should be less than 10mW/cm^2. Even with a very low beam power we may have been exceeding this value due to the very small beam size. The PD was therefore moved to have a larger incident beam size.
We were struggling to get a decent signal on the SRS785 until Kiwamu suggested reducing the light power reaching the PDs to less than 1V. Once we brought the power down to less than 600mV, we were able to see a decent signals on the SRS785 and began taking TFs.
The first attached transfer function is directly from the PSL PD to the IOT2L PD. In the event that the response of both PDs is linear, this should just give the cavity response. However, we noticed that the phase dropped below -90deg on the TF, indicating the presence of another pole - likely that of one of the PDs. We therefore took a TF from the PSL PD to the IOT2L PD, with the IOT2L PD repositioned in the IMC REFL path and the cavity misaligned (as Giacomo did previously). This TF is the second attached plot, and shows the pole of the IOT2L PD. Finally, we then divided the first transfer function by the second to eliminate the different PD response, leaving us just with the cavity response. This transfer function, along with a fit, is shown in the third attached plot.
For now, I just fitted the phase of the pole measurement, which gave the result 8812.36 Hz for the cavity pole. I'll try a complex data fitting routine soon and post the result.
Puzzled by the fact that my previous measurement of the cavity pole didn't make much sense, I spent some time playing with differnt fitting algorithm and writing a simple rountine to fit complex valued functions. It didn't help with my data (there's apparently something I'm missing in the response of some of the compoenents...), but I got a chance to fit this measurement.
Of the attached figure, the two plots on the right don't need any explanation. The one on the left, intead, its a bit odd and needs some explanation (but I like it!). It is built by plotting the complex TF experimental data points and the LP filter fitting function both divided by the magnitude of the fitting function itself. The fitting parameters are obtained by minimizing the quantity:
abs( ( data(f) - fitfunt(f) ) / fitfunc(f) )^2
The reason for normalizing by the value of the fitted function is that, in this way, the points with very small magnitude have the same relative weight of the ones with large magnitude (analogous as fitting in dB scale with uniform weighting), that wouldn't be true otherwise. For the same reason I plotted the normalized quantitites instead of the normal ones, so it is easier to see how "relatively" far the fitting function is from the data, regardless fo their absolute magnitude.
The plot is actually a 3D plot seen from above (you can rotate it in the ".fig", obviously not in the ".png"), with the z axis being the log(frequency). log(frequency) also set the color of the points, so that when you look at the graph projected on a plane (i.e. from above) you can still somehow see the frequency dependence. If the fit is good, the fitted points and the measured ones should be close in both position on the plane AND color.
I excluded the points <2.5e3 Hz and >7e4 Hz from the plot for direct comparison with similar fits done at LLO. The result is definitely close to the expected cavity pole value (8.717 kHz), but I should point out that the choice of the fitting range could change this value by a couple hunderd Hz (for example it increases to about 8950 Hz if I include the entire range of data), so we should pay attention not to take this result to be more accurate that it actually is.
Attached is a plot of the calibrated IMC control signals for the following relevant control loop settings:
- Common Mode Board: common gain = 20 db, compensation and 1st common boost on, fast gain = -2 db.
- MC2_M3_LOCK_L filters: gain -1000, FM5 (150:4) and FM8 (CLP100) enabled, limt to 400k.
- MC2_M2_LOCK_L filters: gain = 0.03, FM1 (0.01:0.1), FM2 (0.03:1), FM3 (Stab8:2), FM4 (300:1) and FM10 (ELF80) enabled, limit to 300k.
The signals have been calibrated following L1 example. Details on the calibration follow (both for clarity and to check that I correctly interpreted what they has been done at L1).
---- IMC_F ----
- The fast path control signal is directly acquired from the Common Mode Board and becomes the input to the H1IMC-F filter bank (H1:IMC_F_INMON)
- the filter bank contains the following (enabled) filters:
- "cts2V" that converts ADC counts in volts (0.000610016 V/ct)
- "InvGenFilt" that compensates for the withening filter at the output of the Common Mode Board (double pole at 10 Hz, double zero at 100 Hz, DC gain = 0.5)
- "VCO" that accounts for the VCO DC gain (365714 Hz/V, obtained from the test report of unit D0900605-S1200558 and multiplied by 2 to account for the AOM double pass) and filter (pole at 1.6 Hz, zero at 40 Hz)
- "FtoL" (I added this at H1) that converts the frequency variations dF into equivalent modecleaner round-trip variations dL using dL = dF * L * lambda / c, where L is the length of the IMC (16.47 m nominal), lambda = 1064e-9 m, c=3*10^8 m/s.
---- IMC_X ----
- the output of the MC2_[M3/M2]_LOCK_L filters are input in the IMC-X_[M2/M3] filters bank, respectively
- the MC3 filter bank contains the following enabled filters:
- "dc_cal" that converts the length actuation into mass displacement at DC
- "sus_d" that accounts for the TF from force on M3 to displacement of M3 (rescaled for 0 dB DC gain because of the existence of "dc_cal"). Note that this TF has been calculated for L1 in the case of velocity damping; although we are still using velocity damping here at H1, it need to be verified that we are using the same setting that L1 was using when the TF was calculated.
- "white", a whitening filter (two 0.2 Hz poles and two 1000 Hz zeros) used to get rid of digitization noise. It need to be tken into account when analyzing data.
- the MC2 filter bank contains similar filters, except that "sus_d" is replaced by the combination of "sus_d1" an "sus_d2", that account for the TF from force on M2 to displacement of M3.
- the outputs of both filter banks are summed to estimate the actual M3 motion.
There has been a bit of discussion about the value of the VCO gain used here, as it seemd to be different enough from the one used a LLO (as much as peple suspected the double pass had been ignored, thus missing a factor 2).
After a bit of back and forth by e-mail, Anamaria spotted the problem: in obtaining this facor from the testing documentation I had very naively assumed a linear response over the tested range, thus calculating the gain as [range of output frequency] / [range of input voltage].
Plotting the data points reported in the abovementioned documentation for the units in use at LHO (S1200558) and LLO (S1200580) reveals instead that the two units behave very similarly, but not linearly. The gain in the linear region around 0 V is ~ 0.27 MHz/V, versus the ~0.18 MHz/V calculated over the entire range (see attached plot). The gain can be as low as 100 kHz/V in the region around 5V (or -5V).
