J. Kissel, for the CAL team

I've created a representative ASD for the start of O1. For now -- it uses data just before the start of the updates to GDS pipeline were started, at Sep 22 2015 11:29:47 UTC, Tuesday, Sep 22 2015 04:29:47 PDT. Why not after? Because NDS2 from matlab can't get data after the pipeline has been restarted. I'll work with Jonathan and Greg tomorrow to find out the problem. Also, because the comparison with the calibrated PCAL amplitude is within our stated uncertainty thus far (LHO aLOG 21689). Of course, this is just an ASD, and I have not respected the phase. More to come on that.

The strain and displacement ASDs -- and a corresponding ASCII dump of both -- is housed permanently and publically in G1501223, as a part of the collection of ASDs from the Advanced LIGO Sensitivity Plots. 

Techniques for how the ASD was computed can be found in T1500365, but I've used essentially the exact same process as was used for the "best" ASD from ER7 (LHO aLOG 19275).

A new feature this time around is a comparison of the PCAL vs. the GDS pipeline product. Delightfully -- even though the GDS pipeline was not yet updated, and I have not corrected for any time dependence, the GDS pipeline calibration of the PCAL excitation in DARM agree with the displacement calibrated by PCAL itself at all line frequencies, 36.7, 331.9, and 1083.7 [Hz] to better than 5%, which is consistent with our current uncertainty budget (LHO aLOG 21689). 

Now be fore we get all greedy and say "then why did we bother to update the GDS pipeline and why have we bothed to even compute the time dependent factors, remember that this is one measurement, and this is only the amplitude/magnitude. We must make the same comparison over a long period of time (a few days), look at the amplitude and phase, such that we can get a feel for how these track with time and we gather a feel for our remaining systematics.