[Luis]

The vacuum system is being baked. I disconnected the digital gages and the magnets, opened the Ar leak and started the bake by taking the temperature from 60C-90C-125C waiting about 15-20 minutes between each interval. The RGA electronics were left on since the temperature of the flange was 36.6C (bellow the 60C threshold)

[Luis, Luke]

RGA Volume: T = 23°C, P = 3.0e-9 Torr
Main Volume: T = 22°C, P = 9.90e-9 Torr

After letting the vacuum cool down for a couple days, we reattached the magnets and sensors, then we performed a RGA scan of the vacuum system, now containing the MR sample. The results are attached below. Something to notice is that we are technically not under UHV, though Luke and I believe the reading of the sensor is not completely accurate since it was still coming to a steady state, further test will be performed when the physics building is open again.

[Luis, Luke]

RGA Volume: T = 22°C, P = 2.10e-9 Torr
Main Volume: T = 21°C, P = 5.71e-9 Torr

Measurements of the current state of the vacuum systems were taken today, now that the system had reached UHV status, the results are attached bellow. The first plot overlays the data of the empty chamber taken on 12/16/24 before inserting the MR material, and the data of the system today, with the MR inside. The second plot displays the S/N Ratio of the system. The last plot displays the data of the system with the Ar leak open and closed. Notice that it is common for the Ar leak close data to fail due to the calculation of the gas flux per unit ion current, which is dependent on the Ar peak.

[Luis, Ma]

Feb/10/25 4:00pm

Bake was stopped.

[Luis]

Feb/11/25 9:30am

Pressure gages were connected.

[Luis, Luke, Ma]

February 12, 2025 - 4:00 PM

We performed an RGA scan with the vacuum system containing the heater elements. The results are attached below.

As we can see, we are not yet under cleanliness standards. The passing threshold is 4 × 10⁻¹⁰, and we are currently measuring nearly double this value. We will continue performing scans to monitor any changes in these readings.

[Ma, Luis]

February 20, 2025 - 3:30 PM

Ma performed an RGA scan with the vacuum system containing the heater elements. The results are attached below.

As we can see, we are not yet under cleanliness standards. The passing threshold is 4 × 10⁻¹⁰, we are very close to it.

[Ma, Luis]

February 24, 2025 - 1:00PM

Ma performed an RGA scan with the vacuum system containing the heater elements. The results are attached below.

[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.

[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.

I have been looking at the feasibility of an alternative heater element design for FROSTI that replaces the original ring-like heater elements with n rectangular elements with straight edges. They form an n-sided regular polygon that could well approximate the original annular ring if n is large enough. This eliminates curved surfaces requirement for the heater elements, which was the source of the many month production delay for the prototype parts.

This design was implemented in COMSOL, shown in the attached. From the face on view, each element has a trapezoid shape with straight edges. The edges between neighboring elements are parallel, with a space of 2 mm in between them.

The ray tracing and thermal analysis obtained from COMSOL are shown in the attached pdf.

In particular, the 2D irradiance profiles were obtained from the ray tracing (so far from the front heating surfaces only). The 1D radial profiles were integrated and shown in the attached. The power delivery efficiency for the original ring-like heater element design is integrated to be roughly 65%, for comparison. The plot also shows the radial irradiance profiles for three different straight-edge designs, which correspond to 16 edges, 18 edges, and 24 edges. We see that with the straight-edge designs, the irradiance profiles stay in a good Gaussian shape. In addition, with a larger number of edges, the power efficiency increases, but is always less than the case for the optimized ring-like design.

The thermal distortions for the TM were also obtained from COMSOL, using the irradiance profiles at the TM HR. As shown in the attached, with the straight-edge design, the effects on the thermal lens OPD and the HR surface deformation are similar to the ring design, but with less severe edge roll-off for instance.

In the previous post, we saw that for the heater element design with straight edges in replacement of the current eight-element ring-like design, it provides the similar Gaussian-like irradiance profiles, but with smaller power delivery efficiencies, as shown in the plot. This turned out to result in similar but less prominent thermal effects.

They only differ from the original baseline design by a source power rescaling, however, as shown in the plot, where we see the power-rescaled irradiance profiles for the straight edge designs are close to that for the ring design. The resulting temperature profiles and thermal distortions are shown in plot and plot. The thermal effects for the 16 straight-edge design with renormalized source power for instance are strikingly similar to that for the original ring design.

An alternative straightened heater element design has also been investigated with COMSOL FEA simulation. As shown in the attached, in this new design each heater element component is cut with multiple straight edges but remains connected, shown in the same colors (green and red). In the example, four straight edges are cut from each of the four heater components (4x4=16 edges in total). There is no spacing between the neighboring edges from the same element component, but the edges from different components are separated by 2mm, as can be seen in the attached. This new N-in-one straight edge design offers similar irradiance compared to that for the evenly-spaced N-sided regular polygon straight edge design with the same number of edges, as shown in the plot. It however has fewer heater components, four in this case, which makes it easier to implement in assembly and wiring, and less vulnerable to electrical and thermal shorts with their fewer heater element pins.

Drawings and CAD models of the straight-edge designs are exported, and are visualized in SOLIDWORKS. Two are attached. One is a single edge of the evenly spaced polygon design with 16 edges, and the other is the 8x2 design, with two neighboring edges grouped together to replace the original single curved heater.

For the straight edge design in COMSOL, ray power detectors were placed at the heater's front surface. The irradiance is shown in figure. The amount of light rays deposited back to the heater is small when close to the center, where it is closer to the original ring. The ray power increases as we move further away from the center toward the edges. In addition, the total power integrated at the heater's front surfaces is about 21% of the original heater's emitted power. This could account for the power efficiency difference between the straight edge design and the ring design, as shown in plot for instance.

For this study, we looked at a simple case with an aLIGO-like test mass geometry (R=0.17m, H=0.2m) plus a barrel RH with 0.02m width at 0.03m from the AR surface with FEniCSx. The irradiance profiles are constant inside the width along the longitudinal direction, and zero outside the width. For the baseline non-astigmatic actuation with constant irradiance azimuthally. We have obtained roughly equal quadratic actuations along the x and y directions, as shown in figure. The total delivered power on the entire barrel is normalized to 1 W. The actuation on the curvature per power Delta S/Delta P in this non-astigmatic case thus is 0.835 uD/W.

For the astigmatic case however, the irradiance for the regions from one diagonal is increased by a given amount, compared to the non-astigmatic case, whereas for the other diagonal regions is decreased by the same amount (thus the total power is unchanged at 1 W). The HR deformation when the power is changed by 50%, for instance, is shown in picture, where the deformation along the x direction is larger than the y direction. The deformation in each direction however remains quadratic, with different curvature per powers for the x and y components, as shown in plot. The actuation on the curvature per power for an increasing amount of astigmatism is shown in plot. In terms of Zernike polynomials, the maximum amount of Z22 (astigmatism) for 1 W of total power is 2um while the remaining curvature content (Z20) is 6nm. This is shown in plot.

For a quick projection for the resonant frequencies going from aLIGO to CE, the height and width of the BS are increased assuming the mass is increased from 14 kg to 70 kg, while keeping the aspect ratio fixed. The resonant frequencies for the two mechanical modes as a result becomes smaller, to 1.43 kHz and 2.11 kHz respectively, risking getting in the detection band.

Next step is to implement a mechanical ring with high stiffness outside the BS barrel to combat the decrement of the resonant frequencies of the relevant mechanical modes.

This is to optimize the FROSTI heating profile for ETM, by minimizing the residual RMSE of the HR surface deformation after the beam size weighted curvature is removed by the current RH. The parameters of the profile being explored are the location, width, and total power for the Gaussian Annulus. As shown in the attached series of plots, the optimal location is 9.9 cm, with a width of 7.7 cm, and a total FROSTI power of 12.7 W (for 1 W of Gaussian beam absorption). The residual RMSE is 1.2 nm. About 0.5% of the FROSTI power is lost at the edges of the TM.

For comparison, without FROSTI, the residual RMSE after the beam size weighted curvature removed by the current RH is 44.5 nm. When the width of the Annulus is set to be 3 cm however, the residual RMS is 3.1 nm, with much smaller FROSTI power needed at 4.7 W, and less power loss at 0.02%.

Avoiding Thread Contention When Using Multiprocessing with Finesse and Cython

When running Monte Carlo simulations or other computational workloads, it's common to use Python's ProcessPoolExecutor to parallelize multiple independent tasks. This approach works well—until it interacts with low-level libraries that themselves use multi-threading under the hood.

The Problem: Thread Over-Subscription

In a recent project, I ran into a significant performance issue while executing a large number of Monte Carlo trials using a process pool with 30 worker processes on Megatron (with 48 cores). Each trial ran a function that internally used cython.parallel.prange for fast, element-wise operations, which is what Finesse uses under the hood for many internal numerical calculations. Cython, via OpenMP, was configured to use all available CPU threads per process by default.

This resulted in severe thread over-subscription. With 30 parallel processes and each process attempting to use all 48 threads, the system was launching over 1,400 threads concurrently. The CPU quickly became saturated, and the tasks stalled. In some cases, the system became unresponsive, and the jobs had to be canceled repeatedly.

This happens because when the function calls into these libraries from within a Python multiprocessing context, each subprocess will attempt to use the full number of threads available to the machine.

The Solution: Limit Threads per Process

The solution is simple: explicitly limit the number of threads each subprocess is allowed to use. This can be done by setting the environment variable at the top of your script, before importing any thread-hungry libraries like Finesse.

      
import os
os.environ["OMP_NUM_THREADS"] = "1"

    

By setting OMP_NUM_THREADS to "1", we ensure that each multiprocessing worker uses only one thread internally, preventing them from overloading the system and allowing the tasks to run more efficiently.

Action items for facilities

• Ceiling lights replacement
• Fume hood cleaned and refurbished
• Sink countertop cleaning
• Floor cleaned and waxed
•  

Today we started re-configuring the vacuum chamber components.

Particle count
• 10:45 am : Starting the particle count in the clean room.
• 11:13 am : Finished the particle count in the clean room.
• Zone 3 :
  • 0.3 u: 2535
  • 0.5 u: 1413
  • 1.0 u: 789
• Zone 4 :
  • 0.3 u: 457
  • 0.5 u: 290
  • 1.0 u: 207
  Starting the reconfiguration.
  • 11:21 am: Started removing up-to-air valve
  • 11:30 am: Finished removing up-to-air valve.
  • 11:33 am: Started removing calibrated Ar Leak and the elbow.
  • 11:35 am: Finished removing calibrated Ar Leak and started assembling the up-to-air valve.
  • 11:47 am: Finished assembling up-to-air valve.
  • 11:48 am: Started removing magnetron gauge.
  • 11:55 am: Finished removing magnetron gauge.
  • 11:57 am: Started installing the elbow and calibrated Ar Leak and started removing the RGA probe
  • 12:13 pm: Finished installing the elbow and calibrated Ar Leak.
  • 12:20 pm: Break for lunch.
  • 01:25 pm: Come back from lunch break.
  • 01:30 pm: Started removing RGA line.
  • 01:39 pm: Finished removing RGA line.
  • 01:39 pm: Started removing gate valve [RGA line] and finished removing gate valve.
  • 02:00 pm: Started installing gate valve in the new position.
  • 02:08 pm: Fished installing gate valve [RGA line].
  • 02:09 pm: Checked the screws in the elbow to gate valve. [RGA line].
  • 02:28 pm: Finished checking the screws in the elbow to gate valve [RGA line].
  • 02:29 pm: Started installing RGA line.
  • 02:39 pm: Finished installing RGA line.
  • 02:50 pm: Started installing magnetron gauge.(In this part we assembled gauge with the used gasket)
  • 03:02 pm: Finished installing magnetron gauge.
  • 03:04 pm: Started installing RGA probe [RGA line].
  • 03:13 pm: Finished installing RGA probe [RGA line].
  • 03:15 pm: Connected the cables to the magnetron gauge.
  • 03:20 pm: Started the testing in the vacuum chamber.
  • 04:30 pm: Started installing the RGA 200 and connected the cables (power cable and DB9 cable).
  • 04:52 pm: Finished installing the RGA 200 and connected the cables (power cable and DB9 cable).
  • 04:53 pm: Started testing the RGA connections. Logrus is able to recognize and connect to RGA unit. We are leaving the turbo pump on for a few hours before checking back for pressure readouts.
  • 05:00 pm : Starting the particle count in the clean room.
    1. Zone 3 :
       • 0.3 u: 2244
       • 0.5 u: 997
       • 1.0 u: 207
    2. Zone 4 :
       • 0.3 u: 2993
       • 0.5 u: 1579
       • 1.0 u: 498
  • 05:30 pm : Finished the particle count in the clean room.
  • 05:34 pm: Test pressure readout from the gauges.
    1. Channel 1 : 1.06E-5 mbar
    2. Channel 2 :8.89E-6 mbar
    3. Channel 3 :5.0E-4 mbar
  • 05:59 pm: Test pressure readout from the gauges.
    1. Channel 1: 9.09E-6 mbar
    2. Channel 2: 7.75E-6 mbar
    3. Channel 3: 5.0E-4 mbar