J. Kissel

I've taken the first round of all swept sine measurements typically done before an observing run:
(1) Sensing function, C
    (a) DARMOLGTF and Loop Suppression (IN1/IN2 and IN2/EXC); G and 1/(1+G)
    (b) PCAL2DARM (and PCAL2DELTAL); (C/1+G) and [m/m]
(2) Actuation Function, A
    (a) L1 to DARM & associated PCAL2DARM; (C A_uim)/(1+G) and (C/1+G)
    (b) L2 to DARM & associated PCAL2DARM; (C A_pum)/(1+G) and (C/1+G)
    (c) L3 to DARM & associated PCAL2DARM; (C A_tst)/(1+G) and (C/1+G)
where I've taken a separate PCAL2DARM or C/1+G transfer function with every corresponding excitation to destroy any covariance that had plagued us during O1. Also, I've worked to
    (i) reduce the template's measurement time by maximizing drive, 
    (ii) reducing the number of points over all, and
    (iii) keeping integration time in check,
such that each template only takes about 15 minutes. I've also modified the frequency vectors of the actuation functions to go out to 1 kHz, as LLO did for their O1 data sets. In doing so, I made sure to use frequency points that avoided any known high-frequency resonances from wire violin modes (characterized in LHO aLOG 24917). 

There's still some improvements to make, which I'll shoot for in the next round (so don't use/take these templates as cannon yet), but thanks to the high-duty cycle of the IFO, I had the opportunity to make really well-balanced templates tonight.

The data lives here:
/ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER10/H1/Measurements/
(1a) DARMOLGTFs/2016-11-07_H1_DARM_OLGTF_4to1200Hz_fasttemplate.xml
(1b) PCAL/2016-11-07_H1_PCAL2DARMTF_4to1200Hz_fasttemplate.xml

(2)
FullIFOActuatorTFs/2016-11-07/2016-11-07_H1SUSETMY_L1_iEXC2DARM.xml
FullIFOActuatorTFs/2016-11-07/2016-11-07_H1SUSETMY_L1_PCAL2DARM.xml
FullIFOActuatorTFs/2016-11-07/2016-11-07_H1SUSETMY_L2_iEXC2DARM.xml
FullIFOActuatorTFs/2016-11-07/2016-11-07_H1SUSETMY_L2_PCAL2DARM.xml
FullIFOActuatorTFs/2016-11-07/2016-11-07_H1SUSETMY_L3_iEXC2DARM.xml
FullIFOActuatorTFs/2016-11-07/2016-11-07_H1SUSETMY_L3_PCAL2DARM.xml

While it'll be days before we have a model and a complete, traceable uncertainty budget, preliminary results show the *mean* of *one measurement* of PCAL's estimated displacement agrees with the front-end calibrated sensitivity to roughly 5% and 5 [deg]. This confirms that the > 50 Hz discrepancies between PCAL and DELTA L EXTERNAL seen while we were at 50 [W] (e.g. LHO aLOGs 30391 and 30431) were likely a function of the poorly controlled signal recycling cavity, and therefore time-dependent RSE cavity pole that was quite low.
Recall that the uncertainty of the PCAL estimation is around 1%. 

We're right on schedule, and things are looking up. We'll see how the modeling goes...