Displaying report 1-1 of 1.
Reports until 15:31, Monday 31 August 2026
H1 SPI
jim.warner@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:31, Monday 31 August 2026 - last comment - 10:17, Tuesday 01 September 2026(91754)
SPI QPDA & QPDB pitch and yaw calibration measurements

It took a couple tries last week, but I have taken HAM2&3 calibration transfer functions for SPI QPA and QPDB for pitch and yaw. I did this by using the  excitation in awggui that we have used for the CRS calibration using amplitudes similar to what Huyen used recently, located at /ligo/svncommon/SeiSVN/seismic/HAM-ISI/H1/HAM3/CRS/Templates/dtt/ryexc2.txt. For RY I used an amplitude of 7e3, for RZ I used an amplitude of 10e3. Isolation loops were engaged on both ISI's and they were running nominal blends (no crs on HAM3), but sensor correction and cps diff were both off.  For each measurement I've saved the excitation and relevant sensors timeseries into mat files that I am adding to SeiSVN/seismic/Common/SPI/DATA, as well as scripts for each excitation to get the data, save the timeseries structure and plot the tfs.

The four attach plots are the tfs for each excitation in the order HAM2 RY, HAM2 RZ, HAM3 RY, HAM3 RZ. For each tf, the SPI and CPS seem to agree very well over a few mhz to ~.2hz, the gs13s go a bit higher in frequency, but aren't good witnesses much below .1hz. On each plot I've indicated amplitude  of the spi to cps tf at one frequency point, I think the calibration should be the inverse of these values. I don't remember the units of the QPD channels, it's not cts. 

From those numbers I get:

HAM2 pitch calibration for QPDB is 19829 nrad/?

HAM2 yaw calibration for QPDB is 20400 nrad/?

HAM3 pitch calibration for QPDA is 231430 nrad/?

HAM3 yaw calibration for QPDA is 237700 nrad?

I think the HAM3 pit calibration is roughly inline with the one Arnaud calculated.

Excitations were all ~40minutes long. The timestamps for each injection are:

HAM2 RY: aug 28 2026 0:29:55 utc

HAM2 RZ: aug 28 2026 1:07:29 utc

HAM3 RY: aug 28 2026 2:00:00 utc

HAM3 RZ: aug 28 2026 2:49:14 utc

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 09:12, Tuesday 01 September 2026 (91768)SEI
The question keeps coming up whether the QPDs were centered during these calibration runs, and whether the amplitude of the excitation was too large, pushing the spots outside of "centered" during the calibration excitation run.

Here, I attach a trend of the SPI optical levers' QPDA and QPDB during Jim's excitation. For a little more detail, the excitation points used were at the input to the isolation filter banks;
    H1:ISI-HAM2_ISO_RY_EXC_DQ >> PIT excitation
    H1:ISI-HAM3_ISO_RY_EXC_DQ
    H1:ISI-HAM2_ISO_RZ_EXC_DQ >> YAW excitation 
    H1:ISI-HAM3_ISO_RZ_EXC_DQ
and thus the units of the amplitude of the excitation he quotes are in nanoradians.

The response channels that Jim used are 
    H1:SPI-H23_OL_QPD_A_PIT_OUT_DQ
    H1:SPI-H23_OL_QPD_B_PIT_OUT_DQ
    H1:SPI-H23_OL_QPD_A_PIT_OUT_DQ
    H1:SPI-H23_OL_QPD_B_PIT_OUT_DQ
As discussed in, e.g. LHO:91210, these channels are records of the normalized spot displacement at the face of the QPD. Thus, the units of these channels are [V/V] ***, because we've chose to calibrate each QPD segment into ADC input voltage (in [V]). These are the units in the denominator of the transfer function Jim quotes "?" above.

The QPDs were relatively centered during these measurements (mean each less than +/- 0.02 [V/V]), and during the excitation, the response amplitude did not exceed +/- 0.15 [V/V].
As such, we can safely use the linearized version of the error function -- erf(z) -- to interpret the calibration of the optical lever QPD as linear (again, as discussed in, e.g. LHO:91210; erf(z) ~ 2 z / sqrt(pi) for  z less than ~0.5 ).

*** Because it's the ratio of identical units, the normalized signal will sometimes be labeled with "dimensionless" units, or "[radians]" I've even seen "[abs]," which may be a version (or typo) of "[arb.]" for "arbitrary units" which is a misnomer for "this signal is the ratio of two identical dimension-full signals, so *technically* you can label it with any ratio of identical units; [V/V], [m/m], or [elephants/elephants]. Don't be fooled. This signal is the ratio of dimension-full signals which started out as having units, and while arbitrary, we *chose* those units to be ADC input [V].
Images attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 10:17, Tuesday 01 September 2026 (91770)SEI
Also, Jim committed the raw calibration data and processing scripts to the SeiSVN -- see 
    /ligo/svncommon/SeiSVN/seismic/Common/SPI/Data/
        ham2_ry_injection_spi_data.mat
        ham2_rz_injection_spi_data.mat
        ham3_ry_injection_spi_data.mat
        ham3_rz_injection_spi_data.mat
and 
    /ligo/svncommon/SeiSVN/seismic/Common/SPI/Data/
        ham2_ry_spi_calibration.m
        ham2_rz_spi_calibration.m
        ham3_ry_spi_calibration.m
        ham3_rz_spi_calibration.m
    
Displaying report 1-1 of 1.