Reports of 26714
PEM (Center)
tatsuki.washimi - 22:45 Friday 29 March 2024 (29021) Print this report
Comment to OMC vibration study (29020)

We generated the ground vibration noise by continuously tapping the PC table outside of the OMC booth.

We need more investigations, but just for memo.

Images attached to this comment
PEM (Center)
tatsuki.washimi - 22:07 Friday 29 March 2024 (29020) Print this report
OMC vibration study

See also
https://klog.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/osl/?r=18434
https://klog.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/osl/?r=18495
https://klog.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/osl/?r=27364
https://klog.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/osl/?r=28985
https://klog.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/osl/?r=28999

 

[YokozaWashimi]

We located a 3-axial accelerometer below the OMC chamber, near a seismometer.
Used channel names are 

K1:PEM-PORTABLE_OMC_RACK_OMC1_ADC0_DSUB13_OUT_DQ
K1:PEM-PORTABLE_OMC_RACK_OMC1_ADC0_DSUB14_OUT_DQ
K1:PEM-PORTABLE_OMC_RACK_OMC1_ADC0_DSUB15_OUT_DQ

and the signal unit is calibrated to m/s2. 

 

Plots attached here are reference data (21 JST,) no one inside the mine.

The shape and value of the Geophone's ASD is similar to the seismometers at 40-130 Hz and to the accelerometers at 50-130, and 160-250 Hz.
From these results, the in-vac table may not reduce the ground vibration.

The peak around 30 Hz is only found in the geophone signal and is larger than the seismometer and accelerometer.
Something inside the vacuum makes amplification?
For this peak frequency, the coherence with SEIS Z is very large.

 

Images attached to this report
Comments to this report:
tatsuki.washimi - 22:45 Friday 29 March 2024 (29021) Print this report

We generated the ground vibration noise by continuously tapping the PC table outside of the OMC booth.

We need more investigations, but just for memo.

Images attached to this comment
IOO (IMC)
kenta.tanaka - 20:59 Friday 29 March 2024 (29018) Print this report
IMC LSC came back

Ushiba, Tanaka

### Abstract

We succeeded LSC lock of IMC with IO guardian. The transmitted beam from MCE seems not to hit trans PD. So we aligned IMC to minimize the REFL power and to hit on the camera position reported in klog28978 manually. We found when the error signals of REFL WFS are 0, the IMC alignment got bad. So we need more investigation whether the beam clip or not on the REFLWFS path.   

### What we did

  • We aligned IMC with MCO and MCE, and then we could observe TEM00 flash on MCE trans camera. However, we could not see any signal from MCE trans PD. Maybe the transmitted beam from MCE seems to be out of the PD.
  • We requested IMC_LSC_LOCKED to IO guardian. IO guardian succeeded IMC lock easily.
  • We tried to make IMC alignment much better by aligning MCO and MCE so that the error signal from REFL WFS got 0. However, IMC alignment seems to become bad from view of reflection power and REFL camera even though the error signals became nearly 0. So it means the error signals have something wrong. we need moree investigation, for example, whether the beam toward REFL WFSs clip or not. Therefore we aligned IMC to minimize the REFL power and and to hit on the camera position reported in klog28978 manually.
  • Fig. 1 shows the camera image on the trans and refl camera and the REFL power after we finished today's work.
Images attached to this report
PEM (Center)
tatsuki.washimi - 20:57 Friday 29 March 2024 (29019) Print this report
Comment to MCF/MCE shaking/tapping test (28943)

Today I checked how our portable shaker could generate vibration using the 3-axial accelerometer, near the MCF chamber.

The output signal was the same as in the last week's work.

Because the shaker moves vertically, the Z signal was the largest, but an excess of around 70 Hs was found in X&Y.

Even though the shaker was OFF (blue), the peak at 60 Hz and 58.8 Hz was much larger than last week. Due to vacuum evacuation?

 

After this work, I moved this accelerometer to the OMC area.

Images attached to this comment
VIS (IX)
ryutaro.takahashi - 18:05 Friday 29 March 2024 (29017) Print this report
Comment to Height adjustment of ITMX (29013)

I changed the setpoints of the GAS filters for the height adjustment.

  Before After
F0 4422 4444
F1 -1970 -1406
F2 -1460 -1311
F3 554 710

 

CRY (Cryostat EX)
takashi.uchiyama - 17:59 Friday 29 March 2024 (29015) Print this report
Comment to Cleaning of windows in EXC (28976)
2024/03/29

Tamaki, Nakagaki, mTakahashi, Uchiyama

We reinstalled 16 windows which were removed before.
https://klog.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/osl/?r=28976

Before the installation, Uchiyama inspected the windows used on the +Y side in EXC.
I found scratches on the window for MN_in+X+Y and MN_out-X+Y.

*TM_out+X+Y: The front side was thin stains. I cleaned the window.
*TM_in+X+Y: both sides were clean. I cleaned the window.
*PF_out+X+Y: The front side was thin stains. I cleaned the window.
*PF_in+X+Y: both sides were clean. I cleaned the window.
*MN_out+X+Y: both sides were clean. There was a point-like dirt on the back side of the window. I cleaned the window.
*MN_in+X+Y: both sides were clean. There is a line-like scratch on the front side. There is a point-like scratch on the backside. I cleaned the window except for the scratches.
*MN_out-X+Y: both sides were clean. There are point-like scratches on both sides. I cleaned the window except for the scratches.
*MN_in-X+Y: both sides were clean. I cleaned the window.

4 windows were not used for optical levers. We removed them.
The positions of the windows are followings.
TM_out-X+Y, TM_out-X-Y, PF_out-X+Y, PF_out+X+Y.







Images attached to this comment
VIS (BS)
tatsuki.washimi - 15:51 Friday 29 March 2024 (29014) Print this report
Comment to Replacement of feedthrough flange (29004)

Photo of the inside. (white tapes are temporary attached)

Images attached to this comment
VIS (IX)
takafumi.ushiba - 15:33 Friday 29 March 2024 (29013) Print this report
Height adjustment of ITMX

[Takahashi, Ushiba]

We adjusted the mirror height with respect to the target marker on chamber flange center.
Fortunately, ITMX height can be easily recovered by changing the GAS setpoint to the ones just before vacuum evacuation before O4.
Figure 1 and 2 show the photos around magnets with laser leveler, which was set at target mirror height.

Note:
ITMX is slightly tilted in roll, so laser hits slightly high position in fig1 and low in fig2.

Images attached to this report
Comments to this report:
ryutaro.takahashi - 18:05 Friday 29 March 2024 (29017) Print this report

I changed the setpoints of the GAS filters for the height adjustment.

  Before After
F0 4422 4444
F1 -1970 -1406
F2 -1460 -1311
F3 554 710

 

VIS (PR3)
naoatsu.hirata - 12:50 Friday 29 March 2024 (29012) Print this report
Comment to PR3 recovery work (28509)

When we adjusted PR3 height(klog:28800), we used reference point which was copied from target seal at chamber +X+Y side. (pic.1)

Images attached to this comment
IOO (Laser Bench)
osamu.miyakawa - 12:45 Friday 29 March 2024 (29008) Print this report
Removing HWP at PSL

I removed the half-wave plate (HWP) that changed the polarization and was located between the shutter and the periscope at the very end of the PLS table (before Fig.1, after Fig.2).

Now the polarization is back to S.

I left the HWP on the PSL table just the side of the shutter. I saw a beam to RFAM and was careful not to block it by the HWP.

By the way, I noticed that the aperture of the HWP was only .5 inch. The beam diameter looked more than 1cm on the sensor card. Was there no clipping?

Images attached to this report
Comments to this report:
tomotada.akutsu - 12:36 Friday 29 March 2024 (29011) Print this report

> I noticed that the aparture of the HWP was only .5 inch. Beam diameter looked more than 1cm on the sensor card. Was there no clipping?

Some of us have already known it (for example 28776). We have been worried about this, and so sometimes this point was discussed in some morning meetings. In any case, please prepare the better HWP for the next case.

IOO (Laser Bench)
tomotada.akutsu - 12:36 Friday 29 March 2024 (29011) Print this report
Comment to Removing HWP at PSL (29008)

> I noticed that the aparture of the HWP was only .5 inch. Beam diameter looked more than 1cm on the sensor card. Was there no clipping?

Some of us have already known it (for example 28776). We have been worried about this, and so sometimes this point was discussed in some morning meetings. In any case, please prepare the better HWP for the next case.

MIF (General)
takaaki.yokozawa - 12:04 Friday 29 March 2024 (29010) Print this report
Comment to Noise hunting: tapping around OMC chamber (28985)
I also checked by replacing the Dsub-9 cable from permanent one to temporal one.
This cable for between geophone distributor and cross cable for feedthrough.
Situation did NOT change.
Images attached to this comment
MIF (General)
takaaki.yokozawa - 11:42 Friday 29 March 2024 (29009) Print this report
Comment to Noise hunting: tapping around OMC chamber (28985)
I checked the dependence of port for the geophone distributor.
With one circuit of the geophone distrubutor, we can operate for geophones at maximum.
And from the RTM, we used OMC0-ADC1-CH12 was used for OMC geophone
So, I checked the signal using CH13 and CH14.
But situation didn't change, that means this reason may NOT come from the circuit of the geophone distributor.
Images attached to this comment
CAL (XPcal)
dan.chen - 9:03 Friday 29 March 2024 (29007) Print this report
Comment to Alignment recovery of Pcal-X (28796)

I attached a graph showing the time change of beam position analysis result.

Since the 25th, there are occasional changes of 1 or 2 mm, which are thought to be due to changes in scattered light caused by slight changes in the orientation and position of the mirror.
Overall, there appears to be no significant shift changes on the Pcal beam position.

Images attached to this comment
CAL (XPcal)
dan.chen - 6:59 Friday 29 March 2024 (29005) Print this report
Comment to Alignment recovery of Pcal-X (28796)

Date: 2024/3/29

I checked the alignment change from the last alignment adjustment on 25th.
This time, I requested "ISOLATED" state to the suspension for taking the pictures.
Then I compared a picture on 3/25 taken just after the alignment adjustment, and a picture today.

  • TCam_ETMX_00001_2024_0325_145559.png
  • TCam_ETMX_00001_2024_0329_052158.png

I can not see any change.
Before this, I confirmed that the ETM position on the Tcam pictures did not change.

Images attached to this comment
VIS (BS)
ryutaro.takahashi - 23:53 Thursday 28 March 2024 (29004) Print this report
Replacement of feedthrough flange

[Ikeda, Washimi, Takahashi]

We replaced the P2 feedthrough flange.

  1. Checked the resistance between all pins in each Dsub connecter on the present flange (leaked previously) without the flip cables.
  2. Removed the present flange.
  3. Tagged a number and name to all Dsub connectors on the new flange.
  4. Connected the in-vacuum cables to the Dsub connectors.
  5. Closed the flange with two screws temporally.
  6. Checked the resistance between all pins in each Dsub connecter on the new flange without the flip cables.
  Old New Inductance

1:PI LV1

1-6

2-7

3-8

4-9

5-G

 

317Ω

248Ω

146Ω

OL

5.3Ω

 

317Ω

248Ω

146Ω

OL

OL

35.38mH

52.41mH

61.53mH

 

2:SF LV

1-6

2-7

3-8

4-9

5,6-G

 

198Ω

78.6Ω

111Ω

OL

3,6Ω

 

198Ω

78.7Ω

111Ω

OL

0,0.4Ω

39.21mH

10.12mH

68.95mH

 

3:TM H2

1-6

2-7

3-8

4-9

5-G

 

OL

18.5Ω

OL

OL

1.4Ω

 

OL

18.6Ω

OL

OL

OL

 

8.631mH

 

 

4:F0 LV

1-6

2-7

3-8

4-9

5-G

 

196Ω

77.3Ω

114Ω

OL

1.7Ω

 

196Ω

77.1Ω

114Ω

OL

0.5Ω

42.59mH

10.56mH

73.79mH

 

5:PI FR

1-6

2-7

3-8

4-9

 

5.0Ω

4.7Ω

3.2Ω

3.3Ω

 

4.8Ω

4.8Ω

3.2Ω

3.3Ω

 

 

 

 

 

6:IM H1

1-6

2-7

3-8

4-9

5-G

 

5.8MΩ

17.8Ω

OL

OL

2.3Ω

 

5.8MΩ

17.7Ω

OL

OL

4.3Ω

0.531V(6+)

8.357mH

1.70V(3+)

 

7:TM H3

1-6

2-7

3-8

4-9

5-G

 

OL

18.5Ω

OL

OL

10.6Ω

 

OL

18.5Ω

OL

OL

OL

 

8.662mH

 

 

8:PI SM

1-6

2-7

3-8

4-9

 

6.3Ω

6.9Ω

6.1Ω

5.1Ω

 

6.6Ω

6.8Ω

6.1Ω

5.2Ω

 

 

 

 

 

The Pin-6 in P2-2(SF LV) was grounded. There were not any other cross-connections. Though the Pin-5 in P2-1, P2-3, and P2-7 were grounded, they were floated after the flange replacement. It may be due to the condition of the aluminum foil covering the Dsub connectors.

Images attached to this report
Comments to this report:
tatsuki.washimi - 15:51 Friday 29 March 2024 (29014) Print this report

Photo of the inside. (white tapes are temporary attached)

Images attached to this comment
VIS (EY)
ryutaro.takahashi - 21:03 Thursday 28 March 2024 (29003) Print this report
Re-cabling of BF damper

[Ikeda, Washimi, Takahashi]

We applied new cabling to the primary coils for the BF damper. The lead wires were re-cabled on the side of the coil bobbin with the PEEK tie-anchor or the PEEK plate. Additionally, the lead wires were fixed on the coil bobbins with an adhesive (TRA-BOND 2116).

Images attached to this report
PEM (EY)
tatsuki.washimi - 18:49 Thursday 28 March 2024 (29002) Print this report
Maintenance of the Y-end water fluid meter

Since about 2 weeks ago, I could not access the Y-end water fluid meter via the network.
(The cause is not understood, but its web server sometimes hangs up.)

Today I went to the Y-end and checked it. The measurement was continued.
So I saved the data on the CF memory and rebooted the Y-end water fluid meter, manually.
After that, it worked well and the data was not lost.

Images attached to this report
PEM (Center)
tatsuki.washimi - 18:19 Thursday 28 March 2024 (29001) Print this report
Comment to MCF/MCE shaking/tapping test (28943)

Sorry, "DAC noise" was typo of "ADC noise".

VAC (MCF)
takashi.uchiyama - 18:06 Thursday 28 March 2024 (29000) Print this report
Pumping down of IMC has started
2024/03/28

Uchiyama

I started pumping down of IMC from 9:41.
Finally, TMP was in the normal state at 17:19.
MIF (General)
tomotada.akutsu - 16:29 Thursday 28 March 2024 (28999) Print this report
Invac OMC geophone signal sanity check

Washimi, Akutsu following 28985.

Summary

For the further inspection of the invac OMC geophone that had a strange lower signal boundary (see 28985), the analog output of the geophone distributor was inspected, and we confirmed that the strange lower bound was already there. Is it of specification of this geophone? or some mulfunction?? In any case, it might be nice to open OMM-OMC chamber soon.

Details

  • Setup: [Distributor] - [R. Takahashi-san's Dsub-LEMO convertor (Figs. 1 and 2)] - [Washimi-san's portable oscilloscope driven by a battery]
  • Measurements: tapped (rather touched) a sticking out part (mass spectrometer) as like yesterday, then immediately the oscilloscope showed the signal was strangely bounded in the lower region (Fig. 3). From this figure, you may be able to estimate how large the signal is.

Note

  • We used an battery-driven oscilloscope. Please be careful not to use "usual" oscilloscope that might have its signal GND connected to power supply's GND. KAGRA's analog signals are differential types, and if you connect the negative side of the differential pair signals, the whole system might be, in the worst case, broken. Never do it.
  • In any case, the coupling path from the part touched to the geophone is unknown. This has to be known for the better sensitvity of KAGRA. We need to open the OMM-OMC chambers soon to check the coupling.
  • On the other hand, even when the geophone responded, OSTM's OSEMs are not so much (Fig. 4). In this figure, the lower one shows the invac geophone, and the upper four are of these OSEMs. The signal was made by my light tapping on the floor near this desk. Hmmm... is this due to difference of the frequency range?? I did not take time for this point today so much, so further investigation should be done later by someone.
Images attached to this report
AOS (Baffles & Beam dumps)
tomotada.akutsu - 11:21 Thursday 28 March 2024 (28998) Print this report
NAB check at IYA

Looked around the NAB at IYA, and touched it. I did not find particular issues on the NAB so far, though I inspected it from one side of the IYA flange (though accessible only from the one side).

This should is the last of the NABs that should be checked in the Noto earthquake recovery.

Images attached to this report
AOS (Baffles & Beam dumps)
tomotada.akutsu - 11:20 Thursday 28 March 2024 (28997) Print this report
NAB check at EYA

Looked around the NAB at EYA, and touched it. I did not find particular issues on the NAB so far, though I inspected it from one side of the EYA flange.

Images attached to this report
DetChar (General)
nami.uchikata - 9:11 Thursday 28 March 2024 (28986) Print this report
O4a summary page
I have made dedicated summary page for O4a of KAGRA.
Currently, uploaded to the ICRR cluster and will be moved to the Kamioka cluster.
https://www.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~uchikata/Detchar/O4aSumm/gps/1368975618-1371337218/
PEM (Center)
takafumi.ushiba - 0:48 Thursday 28 March 2024 (28996) Print this report
Comment to MCF/MCE shaking/tapping test (28943)

Washimi-kun

Thank you for your replies.
I have several comments and additional questions.

1. You mentioned injection signals have high pass at 60 Hz, and it means the injected vibration is no frequency response (white noise in frequency region above 60 Hz). However, excess noise around 60 Hz is much smaller than those around 80 Hz. Does it imply vibration inside the chamber around 80 Hz is enhanced somehow from the ground vibration?
2.You said sensor noise and DAC noise are about 2e-6 but I cannot understand what the DAC noise level is. Does it mean DAC noise (~1e-6V/rtHz) is equivalent to 2e-6 m/s^2/rtHz?
3. What I would like to know is not the injected vibration is large enough with respect to the ground motion but the vibration on the optical table is enhanced from the tje injected vibration. If so, the ground vibration is somehow enhanced by the stack (or chamber) and it is so problematic. So, I would like to know the relations between injected signal and vibration on the stack.  

Search Help
×

Warning

×