Test 1: Adapter Board Connected to Filter Board

• Setup: AI Chassis is powered on. Signal is measured directly from the adapter board. All other ports on the adapter board are connected to the filter board.
• Observation: Two distinct spikes observed at the beginning of the measurement.

Test 2: Adapter Board Disconnected from Filter Board

• Setup: AI Chassis remains powered on. Signal is again measured directly from the adapter board. This time, the remaining ports on the adapter board are not connected to the filter board.
• Observation: Multiple spikes observed, distributed evenly across the entire measurement.

Test 3: Isolation Test with Spare Adapter Board (ongoing)

• Setup: Suspecting the original adapter board may be faulty, a spare adapter board is used for comparison. Signal is measured directly from this spare board.

Update, 04/08/25, Tue 17:30

Took the old adapter board out of the AI chassis and and used it to connect DAC to AA chassis. If no spikes are seen, it means that the glitches are not originating from this board.

Also checked al the previous spikes using the raw data (65536 Hz sample rate). The duration of the glitches are ~1 second, despite the previous guess that they are happening in the Milli-second scale.

Test 4: AI Chassis ground isolation

• Setup: AI Chassis isolated from the ground with readout directly connected to adapter board
• Observation: No spike observed.

Test 5: Ribbon cable check

• Setup: AI Chassis remains isolated from the ground. The signal is measured after the ribbon cable. (Attachment 3)
• Observation: No spike observed.

Test 6: Single ground connection check

• Setup: AI chassis powered on but remains isolated from the frame. The signal is measured from the output of the AI Chassis. (Attachment 1 ,2)
• Observation: No spike observed.

I have redone the width and location optimization with a 40kg test mass. This was to see where the nominal ring heater would fall in this optimization map see attached.

There are two concerns I have with this modeling:

1. I am using normalized power only imparting 1W, which may effect the single pass scattering used for optimization.
2. I am only looking at the surface deformation and I believe that looking at OPD may also be something that is important to consider. 

Note z_RH is measured from the HR surface and w_RH is the half width of the target plane

Test 7: Reconnect ribbon cables

• Setup: Reconnect all the ribbon cables, and turned on the AI Chassis while isolated rack
• Observation: No spike observed.

Test 8: Reconnect to rack

• Setup: Reconnect the AI Chassis to the rack.
• Observation: No spike observed.

Test 9: Restore to original position.

• Setup: CLose up the AI Chassis, and put it back to its original location.
• Observation: No spike observed.

I have created two more plots. One on the transmitted power for a specific configuration. This was done by taking the product of the efficiency and the power released by surface area of the source plane for a configuration assuming it is at 300C. The second is a plot of how close the reflector is to the test mass I have included a contour line at 2mm the nominal proximity constraint. Both of these plots are generated for a 2cm wide target plane.

Somethings of note: Because the proximity requires no modeling and can be determined purely mathematically it is easy to re-generate this plot of other target widths. If you increase the target width the proximity contour moves upward and downwards if reduced.

[Ma, Luke, Luis]

April 24, 2025

3:00 PM
Ma and Luis attempted to connect to the RGA to initialize the leak test but encountered some difficulties.

3:20 PM
After restarting both the computer and the RGA, we realized that the DB9 cable was not connected to Spica. After connecting it, we had no further issues communicating with the RGA.

3:30 PM
Luke and Luis performed the leak test. There were no significant leaks in the vacuum system. The highest leak rates we found are listed in the table below; the rest of the entries were limited by noise, as we could not detect any change in the program after spraying the ports with He.

[Ma, Luke, Luis]

April 29, 2025

3:30 PM
We performed another leak test on the vacuum system, this time focusing on the welds around the main cylinder. The leaks from these junctions were in the mid 10⁻¹¹ range, but we noticed some strange behavior after completing the test. The partial pressure of He kept rising at a slow, constant rate for a while—even after stopping the test for about 15–20 minutes and restarting the measurement. We're not sure what’s causing this and wanted to check in before moving forward with the bake.

4:30 PM
We performed an RGA of the system (see below) and the findings are that there was a higher contraction of He than usual. We have attached another scan from 2/24/25 for reference.

5:00 PM
We turned off the electron multiplier and closed the RGA Program.

[Luke, Ma, Tyler]

The vacuum chamber is currently baking. 

Current state as of 5:00

The gate valve is open, and the filament of the RGA is on. Argon leak is opened

The temperatures are as follows:

PID right barrel upper: 99°C,  RGA volume: 120°C

PID left barrel lower: 123°C, Lid: 92°C

The vacuum chamber has stopped baking. 

Current state as of 12:30, 5/2/2025:

The gate valve is open, and the filament of the RGA is on.

The temperatures were steady at:

PID right: barrel upper: 108°C,  RGA volume: 120°C

PID left: barrel lower: 120°C, Lid: 91°C

Slides

I have changed some properties of the thermal model and am re-running the thermal sweeping

I have also been messing around with making a logo

[Ma, Luis]

After taking the RGA scans of the new system, here are the results of the raw and normalized data.We can see that in the post baked system the He peak is way lower, and the peaks around 20AMU are also significantly lower.

Slides

I have re-run the optimization plots with the changes mentioned last week. 

I have added the heat maps of the HOM scattering from HR deformation and the HOM scattering due to the OPD difference as well as the curvature actuation of the surface. 

Slides

slideshow

Using the configuration in section 2.11.1 in the Sorensen installation and operation manual (attached below), I'm able to remote control the Sorensen power supply.

I use DAC VEXC8 as the external voltage source and a breakout board to match the configuration of connector J3.

I have recorded 7 cycles (attached below), and am now working on analyzing the data.

Slides

I have added some slides to my meeting updates. The updates include: my choice in position and width, some figures I have added to my write up, and what I think my immediate steps are to wrap up.

I have also made a new FROSTI model that conducts its raytracing in real time. Something that was severely lacking in the previous model.

There are three major issues with the lab's CDS system that should be addressed. They are ordered from the highest priority to the lowest.

• CyMAC has stopped serving the fast channels (65k Hz)
  The channels are still there, and the data from the slow (16 Hz) channels is served correctly, but the fast data is not served. As a result, diagggui can not retrieve any information at the moment.
  Probably the issue is the same as the version conflict between daqd and nds2-server. After installing nds2-server on CyMAC and realizing that the conflict can not be resolved, I reverted the changes so that the CyMAC could be compatible with daqd, but there is a chance that there are still version conflicts that block the fast channels.
  I suspect that we have broken the MSC model when adding the new button. This could explain both the fasr-channels fault and the unexpected crashes.
  
  UPDATE 6/5
  Fixes this by rebuilding the models.
  Note for the future: The c1iop and c1msc models should be rebuilt together, even if no change has been made to c1iop.
• The fast channels were not saved to the frames
  Reviewing the frame files showed that the daqd was only saving the 16 Hz data in the .gwf frame files. I had missed this because I only checked the existence and the integrity of the raw frame files, but never retrieved the high-frequency data itself to check it.
• NDS2-server is installed, but does not distribute the data
  I managed to install the nds2-server and its satellite programs on the Chimay, and NFS mount the frame files on it. The server successfully chaches the channel names, frame files, and the data, but fails to list the channels for distribution.

Note: CyMAC machine was strangely disconnected from the network, and required manual reboot. I couldn't find any abnormal logs that could explain what happened.

We currently have the parts for a DB9 connector but need parts for a DB25 connector, where did we get the parts for the DB9 connector? We may be able to use the same company for the DB25 connector.

Also need a cable for the connectors. Find a DB9 to DB9 cable in 1129, not sure if I can disassemble it and use just the cable.

The pressure in the vacuum chamber rises to 2.12e-8 torr, which needs baking.

• The MEDM models issue was fixed. The issue was that building the c1msc model alone was not enough and we had to re-build the c1iop as well, although no changes has been made to the c1iop. Added a note in the wiki on this for future reference.
• For writing the fast channels to the frame files, our CDS system should have a GDS broadcaster. I followed this wiki page to set one, but it breaks the current daqd system. Asked about it earlier today on the CDS Mattermost channel and waiting for a response. 
• Maybe I should continue the distributed scheme we have been trying for the nds2-server and let another machine on the network do this. 
• Question: daqd has a feature to zero-out the bad data (NaNs), and it is currently on for our system. I don't think that it's a good idea to have this. Should I turn it off? 

By measuring the resistance of the ladder, I obtained a graph of resistance as a function of voltage.
All the heater elements behave consistently, showing only a small standard deviation.
However, heater element 5 shows a significantly larger standard deviation.
Upon examining the initial ladder graph, I noticed that the resistance of heater element 5 increases following a power outage that resets the system.
At this point, I am unsure why this behavior occurs.

• Fast channels recorded to .gwf frame files
  • Had to add a DAQ Channels block to the c1msc model for those channel to be recorded in the .gwf frame files. The block is in the CDS_PARTS, and I just had to copy it to our model. Here is the example text for the channels:
    
    

    #DAQ Channels

    ONE_DAQ_CHANNEL 2048
ANOTHER_DAQ_CHANNEL 1024
SCIENCE_FRAME_CHAN* 1024
UINT32_CHAN uint32 2048
DAQ_CHANNEL_AT_DEFAULT_RATE

    I added two channels to the list (V0 and V1). Remember that the channel name should not be the full name, but just the part's name. In this case, I added these two channel names:
    
    V0_OUT
V1_OUT
    
    with the default sample rate. 
• The fast channels are recorded with an extra _DQ in their names. So, in ndscope and diaggui these two channels should be addressed as
  • C1:MSC-V0_OUT_DQ
  • C1:MSC-V1_OUT_DQ

• Update 6/13: enabled recording of all the ADC voltage channels so that Tyler can use all the data for the noise floor calculation. attached is an example of diagggui with almost 30 hrs of data.

• TODO: Enable daqd_wiper

• Hosted Lukes model on Chimay. It's available at https://richardsonlab.ucr.edu/real-time-frosti
• The sourcecode is at Github. It is clones at /var/www/html/real-time-frosti, and this is the block added to nginx config file at /etc/nginx/sites-available/default :
  
  location /real-time-frosti {

root /var/www/html;
index index.html index.htm index.php;
}
• Also added this line to the crontab, so the code will be checked for updated from the sourcecode every five minutes. 
  
  */5 * * * * cd /var/www/html/real-time-frosti/ && git pull 
  
  
• TODO: Move the sourcecode from Github to git.ligo.org, and make the repository public. 

CYMAC Remote Control Cable Assembly

Cable Functions

The custom cable assembly serves two primary functions:

Note: All connections are verified with a multimeter.

Updated ADC noise spectra measurements using diaggui.

NOTE: Will update plots with proper axes

[Luke, Luis, Tyler, Ma, Christina, Maple]

We started by cleaning outside of the cleanroom wiping down the cable channel and working our way down. We replaced the air filter in the HEPA filter with what seemed to be the last one in storage. We then vacuumed outside, before wiping down the inside of the cleanroom. We then vacuumed, mopped, and wiped down the floor inside the cleanroom.

We are ready for venting the vacuum chamber which is planned to take place 6/26/25 at 10am. 

Particle Count Measurements:

• Pre-cleaning (12:00 pm):
  • Zone 3:
    • 0.3 µm: 2517
    • 0.5 µm: 662
    • 1.0 µm: 176
  • Zone 4:
    • 0.3 µm: 177
    • 0.5 µm: 44
    • 1.0 µm: 0

• Post-cleaning (1:45 pm):
  • Zone 3:
    • 0.3 µm: 619
    • 0.5 µm: 88
    • 1.0 µm: 0
  • Zone 4:
    • 0.3 µm: 177
    • 0.5 µm: 88
    • 1.0 µm: 0

[Tyler, Ma, Christina, Luke]

We threaded the wiring of the heater elements through the reflective surfaces and were able to attach each piece with the Macor spacers and connect both sides. We used the guide rails and screws to ensure proper alignment. The only necessary step left is to add the additional external screws for the reconstruction.

We have tested the heater to find emissivity, mounted the heater system to the optical table, and have taken irradiance maps of the heater projected onto the screen.

The heater's emissivity was determined by using a thermocouple in conjunction with the FLIR's temperature calibration. To attach the thermocouple to the heater initially, I used Kapton tape and ran both the wires of the heater and the thermocouple through the heater bridge. This allowed for the heater to rest on an optical post and be observed without anyone directly holding it, but there were some measurement issues. The thermocouple had a very wide range of temperatures it was reading, which may have been due to intermittent contact or a short between the two legs of the thermocouple. To solve this and make the temperature measurements more stable, we pried apart the two ends of the thermocouple (to ensure there was no short) and put tape on either side, leaving the end connection bare. This was then taped to the heater, and the thermocouple was much more stable. We also used a K-type thermocouple that has an adhesive tape on it already, which assisted with the intermittent contact as well. With the thermocouple measuring the temperature of the heater, we could point the FLIR directly at the heater and calibrate the emissivity until the FLIR and the thermocouple agreed. Cassidy's emissivity calculator was also used, as I could input a temperature and observe what the emissivity of an area was based on that temperature. We found the emissivity of the heater to be 0.57.

As a note, when observing the heater with the FLIR, it appeared that there was a hot spot in the center, where the Kapton tape sat. Because the Kapton has a different emissivity than the 304 stainless steel of the heater, the FLIR will read it as having a different temperature than it actually does. When using the FLIR in the future, be sure to ascertain whether there is a temperature difference somewhere or if there may be different emissivities.

Additionally, the first heater that I used was taken to a very high temperature and oxidized. The emissivity of this oxidized heater is not known, but could be good information for knowing how oxidation affects these heaters specifically.

To mount the heater system in front of the screen, I used 1/2'' optical posts and the mount I designed using COMSOL's CAD program. The heater was originally 2.5 inches away from the screen, and has since been moved back by an additional two inches so that we could observe the heater side of the screen with the FLIR. We wanted to see what temperature the heater side of the screen was when irradiated by the heater, and how that compared to the camera side of the screen. When the heater ran at 1.12 W of input power, the heater side of the screen had a max temperature of around 29.7 C, and the camera side of the screen read at about 29.5 C. This means that there is very little thermal loss between the two sides of the screen, and any insulation that the screen's adhesive may have is largely negligible. Additionally, the camera was placed at an angle and undetermined distance for these tests, confirming that the temperature measurements compensate well/don’t depend on changes in angle or distance between the camera and the screen. However, there was spots on the back of the screen that the camera was measuring as hot spots where there shouldn’t have been any. I have included an example below. It would be useful to run a test where the camera is directly on the back of the screen without the heater to characterize the screen and see if the hot spots are physically present on the screen or if this is an artifice of the camera because of something like angle of viewing.

Taking irradiance maps of the screen was straightforward. After checking that the emissivity of the screen is 0.99 by viewing it at room temperature, we monitored the max temperature while slowing increasing the wattage the heater was running at. There is not a large change until the heater is at around 95 C, at which point the screen began to rise in temperature from 27 C to 28 C. We took measurements of this while the heater was 2.5 and 4.5 inches away from the screen. The irradiance map has a very symmetrical and circular shape, but does not have the ring pattern that we expected. There may be a few reasons for this: there could be some conduction between the two sides of the screen that is causing the pattern to spread further, the heater setup may not be as ideal as it was modeled to be, or there could be a different, unknown issue.

TO DO:

- It would be useful to run a test of the camera in multiple different positions to ensure our conclusion that the camera’s measurements don’t depend on angle or distance (or that these factors are well accounted for in the current temperature calculations) is correct.

- Measure the back of the screen straight on to identify bright spots and possible reasons as to their appearance.

- Recalibrate camera to ensure it is still correct after testing in multiple positions.

- Take another irradiance map of the screen at a higher input power, as well as moving the heater close/further away to try and replicate the COMSOL irradiance maps. It would be useful to also redo the COMSOL modeling at lower powers and variable distances.

Pictures included of full table setup, the heater mount, the heater with Kapton tape attaching the thermocouple as well as FLIR's measured irradiance map.