J. Kissel, B. Lantz, E. Bonilla, O. Patane

Very alarmed but how *apparently* different the in-air vs. in-vac TFs for H1SUSSR3 were -- see original plots in LHO:83818, and alarmed commentary in LHO:83819 -- Brian suggested "are you *sure* you've plotted the same DOF to DOF comparison on some of these plots?"

He was right. I re-exported both the 2024-08-01 in-air transfer function set and 2024-08-08 in-vacuum set from the DTT templates. The in-air TF's exported text files showed a diff with what was in the svn on the L, T, V, and Y drives. So, all the TFs that were "very interesting" in the above mentioned commentary were "very interesting" because they were comparing apples to oranges, and treating that orange as an apple.

So, here, I attach the same comparison for SR3, but with the fixed in-air data set.


                 D R I V E   D O F 
          L     T     V     R     P     Y

     L    --    meh   nd    meh   eand  YI
 
R    T    meh    --   meh   eand  meh    meh
E 
S    V    YI    YI    --    YI   nd    YI
P
     R    YI    eand  YI    --    YI    meh
D 
O    P    eand  VI    YI    meh   --    meh
F
     Y    YI    nd    meh    nd    nd   --

Recall the legend is 
  VI = Very Interesting (and unmodeled); very different between vac and air.
esVI = Modeled, but Still Very Interesting; very different between vac and air
  YI = Yes, Interesting. DC response magnitude is a bit different between vac and air, but not by much and all the resonances show up at roughly the same magnitude.
 meh = The resonant structure is different in magnitude, but probably just a difference in measurement coherence
eand = The cross coupling is expected, and not different between air and vac.
  nd = Not Different (and unmodeled). The cross-coupling is there, but it doesn't change from air to vac.


Thankfully, 
- there are WAY less "very interesting," only the T to P (page 22) remains.
- the matrix is more symmetric, and
- the changes between air and vac are LOT less dramatic.

We'll continue to discuss.