Reports until 14:48, Tuesday 28 October 2025
H1 SUS (SEI)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:48, Tuesday 28 October 2025 - last comment - 13:45, Tuesday 04 November 2025(87801)
H1SUSPRM M3, M2, and M1 Drive to M1 Response TFs to inform Estimator Models
J. Kissel

Gathered H1SUSPRM M3, M2, and M1 Drive to M1 Response TFs to inform the "drive" models for a future H1SUSPRM estimator. I'll post the locations / file names in the comments. Here in the main entry, I discuss the state of the control system for H1 SUS PRM so we understand with how much salt would should take these measurements.

Executive summary :: there are some side quests we can launch -- especially on the actuation side of this suspension -- if we think that these measurements reveal "way too much cross coupling for an estimator to work." The first things I'd attack would be 
    - the frequency-dependent and scalar gain differences *between* the nominal low noise state of the coil drivers and the state we need to characterize the suspension. 
    - the very old coil balancing, which was done *without* first compensating for any frequency-dependent gain differences in the channels at the frequency used to balance the coils (see LHO:9453 for measurement technique.)

Here's the detailed summary of all the relevant things for these measurements:
    - The suspension was ALIGNED, with alignment offsets ON, with slider values (P,Y) = (-1629.783, -59.868) ["urad"] 
        :: ALIGNED is needed (rather than just DAMPED [where the alignment sliders are OFF] or MISALIGNED where extra large alignment offsets are ON; per discussion of how the alignment impacts the calibration in LHO:87102)
        :: the usual caveats about the slider calibration, which is still using the [DAC ct / "urad"] gains from LHO:4563).

    - The M1 damping loop were converted to Level 2.0 loop shaping in Jan 2023; LHO:66859, nominally designed to have an EPICs gain of -1.0. However in Aug 2023, the EPICs gains were lowered to -0.5, and have been that way for most of O4, and remain that way now. For all of these measurements, I set the L, P and Y gains to -0.1; the "20% of nominal" gain mantra we've used for the HLTS estimators. I also gathered *almost* all the measurements again with only the Y gain at -0.1, but ran out of time to complete that set for comparison. 

    - Even though it was maintenance day, when we typically turn site-wide sensor correction OFF, I manually turned ON sensor correction for ISI HAM2 to get better coherence below 1 Hz (using instructions in LHO:87790)

    - The M3 L to M3 P filter (and gain) in the M3 DRIVEALIGN frequency-dependent matrix is OFF, per LHO:87523. 

    - There are (M3 P to M3 L) = 1.7 and (M3 Y to M3 L) = 0.52 scalar gains ON in to off-diagonal elements of the M3 DRIVEALIGN matrix whose purpose is change the center of P and Y actuation to be around where the IFO's beam spot typically is.

    - There is a set of M1 L to M1 P filters, "M1L_M3P" and "invM1P_M3P," in the M1 DRIVEALIGN matrix, with a EPICs gain of -1. I think these came from LHO:42549. The measurements I took aren't impacted by this, as I drove from the M1 TEST bank which does not send excitation through the DRIVEALIGN Matrix. HOWEVER, we'll definitely need to consider this when we model the ISC drive which *does* go through the M1 DRIVEALIGN matrix.

    - All M1, M2, and M3 stages of OSEM PDs sat amp whitening filters have been upgraded with ECR E2400330's filter design, and compensated accordingly. 
        :: M1 stage LHO:85463
        :: M2 & M3 stages LHO:87103

    - All M1, M2, and M3 stages of OSEM PDs have been calibrated via the ISI GS13s, and calibrated in the ALIGNED state (LHO:87231)

    - In order to get decent coherence over the band of interest for the M3, M2, and M1 drives, I had to drive the suspension actuators in their highest range state, which is different from the state the IFO usually needs.
        :: M1 = State 1 "LP OFF" (a Triple TOP Driver)
        :: M2 = State 2 "Acq ON, LP OFF" (An ECR E1400369 Triple Acquisition Driver "TACQ" modified for an extra 10x actuation strength. Modified in Sep 2013 LHO:7630)
        :: M3 = State 2 "Acq ON, LP OFF" (An ECR E1400369 Triple Acquisition Driver "TACQ" modified for an extra 10x actuation strength. Modified in Sep 2014 LHO:13956)

        :: The nominal state for the switches are M1 = State 2 "LP ON," M2 = M3 = State 3 "ACQ OFF, LP ON."

    - No actuator channels have had any precise compensation for their coil driver's frequency response in any state.
        :: M1 state 1 channels are all compensated with (z:p) = (0.9 : 30.9996) Hz
        :: M2 state 2 channels are all compensated with (z:p) = (64.9966 : 13) Hz
        :: M3 state 2 channels are all compensated with (z:p) = (64.9966 : 13) Hz

    - There are scalar "coil balancing" non-unity magnitude gains on each of the M2 and M3 stage channels, but it's the same values that have been in play since Jan 2014 (LHO:9419; so, after the M2 TACQ driver mod, but before the M3 TACQ driver mod). There is no coil balancing gains on the M1 stage, they're all either +/- 1.0.

Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 14:52, Tuesday 28 October 2025 (87808)SEI
Here's the complete data set with L, P, and Y damping loop gains set to -0.1, with the T, V, and R gains at -0.5.

    /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PRM/SAGM1/Data/
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M1toM1_CDState1_M1LPYDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M1toM1_CDState1_M1LPYDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M1toM1_CDState1_M1LPYDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M1toM1_CDState1_M1LPYDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M1toM1_CDState1_M1LPYDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M1toM1_CDState1_M1LPYDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml

    /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PRM/SAGM2/Data/
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M2toM1_CDState2_M1LPYDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M2toM1_CDState2_M1LPYDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M2toM1_CDState2_M1LPYDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml

    /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PRM/SAGM3/Data/
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M3toM1_CDState2_M1LPYDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M3toM1_CDState2_M1LPYDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M3toM1_CDState2_M1LPYDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 14:53, Tuesday 28 October 2025 (87809)
Here's the almost entirely complete data set for *only* the Y damping loop gain set to -0.1, and L, T, V, R, P set to -0.5.

    /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PRM/SAGM1/Data/
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M1toM1_CDState1_M1YawDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M1toM1_CDState1_M1YawDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to50Hz.xml
        [did not get V]
        [did not get R]
        [did not get P]
        [did not get Y]

    /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PRM/SAGM2/Data/
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M2toM1_CDState2_M1YawDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M2toM1_CDState2_M1YawDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M2toM1_CDState2_M1YawDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml

    /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PRM/SAGM3/Data/
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M3toM1_CDState2_M1YawDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M3toM1_CDState2_M1YawDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2025-10-28_H1SUSPRM_M3toM1_CDState2_M1YawDampingGain0p1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 13:45, Tuesday 04 November 2025 (87951)

Took some more of the meaurements for PRM estimator here: 87950

Those four M1 to M1 with DAMP Y at 20% for V R P and Y are still needed