TITLE: 07/25 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 153Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 12mph Gusts, 5mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.05 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Very easy and nice transition hand-off from Ibrahim. H1 has been locked quite a bit since the big EQ 25hrs ago. (The forecasts note winds picking up from 6-10pm locally, so we'll be watching for that!)
TITLE: 07/25 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 154Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Corey
SHIFT SUMMARY:
IFO is in NLN and OBSERVING as of 20:44 UTC (2 hr 50 min lock)
H1 has been very well behaved and required 0 operator intervention (other than the standard TLC).
One Lockloss (Lockloss alog 85989)
LOG:
None
For FAMIS #26410: There is a notable step in most channels, but this corresponds to Tues Maintenance (922amPDT), but other than that, all trends are atleast flat FWIW.
Unknown cause lockloss. Lockloss tool flags the wind but given gusts are generally under 20mph, this is unlikely. IFO is at MOVE_SPOTS now after doing an initial alignment. Everything automatic so far.
..
Using my model for the propagation from OM2 to the OMC I discussed in alog #84255, I made a contour plot for the mode overlap (O(q1,q2 ))c between the mode propagated through cold OM2 to the OMC, q1 and the fundamental mode of the OMC, q2 divided by the mode propagated through hot OM2 overlapped with the OMC mode, (O(q1,q2 ))h .
This is so I could comnpare it to measurements I made of the drop in optical gain, G when the curvature of OM2 was changed. Its hard to predict how much loss in total there is with the full interferomter locked but the optical gain change can tell us the change in optical loss between these two states which we assume to be due to mode-mis-match.
O' / O = (G' / G)2
In the plot I have used overlap ratio percentage, O % on the z axis, the real part of of the q I started with between OM1 and OM2 on the x-axis, and the imaginary part of this q on the y-axis.
O % = (O(q1,q2 ))h / (O(q1,q2 ))c × 100
The white line gives the square ratio of the optical gains measured in full-lock (alog #82559) for each of these states. The code to run this is in OM2_to_OMC_comp_full_IFO.m found at this respository on ligo gitlab.
The white line contains a contour of possible values of the q parameter between OM1 and OM2 for the full-locked state of the interferometer bar any changes since the end of January 2025 when I took these measurements.
The limit on mode-matching to the OMC with OM2 hot is 96.2% of the mode-matching to the OMC with OM2 cold. This means in full-lock our mode-matching should be better with a cold OM2.
The q value before OM2 should lie somewhere on this white curve in full-lock but we don't have any direct mode measurements with the interferometer in full-lock to constrain this yet.
Fri Jul 25 10:09:47 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 9min 43secs
TITLE: 07/25 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 153Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Oli
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 4mph Gusts, 2mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.06 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
IFO is in NLN and OBSERVING as of 10:38 UTC (4 hr lock)
H1 survived 2 strong earthquakes (5.7 and 6.2) near NZ.
TITLE: 07/25 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 151Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Oli
SHIFT SUMMARY: We had an early evening full of Earthquakes, a lockloss from an ETMX glitch then a double candidate detection at the end of the shift.
LOG:
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21:06 | SAF | LVEA IS LASER HAZARD | LVEA | Y | LVEA IS LASER HAZARD | 22:03 |
| 23:50 | EE | Fil, Jackie | EndX | N | SAT amp box swap | 00:17 |
02:18 UTC lockloss after only 27 minutes, looks like an ETMX glitch.
03:24 UTC Observing
M. Todd, E. Capote, C. Compton, S. Dwyer
After the vent, beam profiles were taken at REFL and POP (single-bounce) which are of interest to modeling efforts to gain some confidence in model parameters. Using a-la-mode to model the beam throughout the IFO and compare it to the measurements, we are able to confirm most of the parameters in the finesse yamlfile for the IFO model. See Figure 1 and Figure 2 for measured profiles of REFL and POP compared to the model beam parameters.
Now that we have more confidence in the model, we feel more comfortable looking at figures of merit that the model can provide -- such as the beam overlaps of different modes. Of particular interest was the input beam overlap with the PRC and ARM eigenmodes -- it seems the input beam is not super well mode-matched the PRC.
| Mode1 | Mode2 | Overlap: v, h [%] |
|---|---|---|
| Input beam [IMC] | PRCx | 94.98 , 97.00 |
| Input beam [IMC] | PRCy | 96.99 , 98.32 |
| Input beam [IMC] | ARMx | 98.57 , 98.91 |
| Input beam [IMC] | ARMy | 99.03 , 99.31 |
| PRCx | ARMx | 96.71 , 98.11 |
| PRCy | ARMy | 97.96 , 98.87 |
There are plenty of interesting figures of merit that we can calculate using this model that help us understand more about the mode-matching state of our interferometer, and hopefully inform steps to correct mismatch.
The code used in this modeling is held in the 'ligo-commissioning-modeling' repo folder:
Fil, Elenna, Oli
In an effort to find and solve the ASC excursion locklosses that seem to be linked to TMSX (85973), Fil swapped out the satellite amplifier that he had installed last Tuesday (85770) that had serial number S1100150 with another modified satamp that he had on hand, S1100122 (originally meant for OMC T1 T2 T3 LF). We are hoping this fixes the problem. Since this is partially for testing and since we originally were planning to use this satellite amplifier for the OMC, for now I've replaced the OSEMINF compensation filters for TMSX (which had the specific tuned filters) with the generic 5.31:0.0969 zp filters. We can update these later when we figure out which satamp will be staying there. I've loaded these filters in and brought TMSX back.
taken out: S1100150
put in: S1100122 (originally meant for OMC T1 T2 T3 LF)
Filters updated to best possible for this new satamp: 86071
TITLE: 07/24 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Earthquake
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan C
SHIFT SUMMARY: Calibration and commissioning time today. We had one lock loss that ended a 21 hour lock, and now an earthquake is rolling through delaying relocking.
LOG:
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21:06 | SAF | LVEA IS LASER HAZARD | LVEA | Y | LVEA IS LASER HAZARD | 22:03 |
| 16:29 | - | Corey | Opt Lab | n | Parts hunt | 16:48 |
| 17:01 | - | Corey | MX | n | Parts hunt | 17:23 |
| 17:06 | VAC | Janos, Anna | MX | n | Looking around, checks | 18:28 |
| 21:50 | CDS | Dave | Mech room | N | Take down temporary camera | 22:58 |
| 22:45 | VAC | Gerardo, Jordan | FCTE | n | Checking on vac things | 23:05 |
I reported in a comment to alog 85961 that I pushed a new calibration today based on report 20250719T225835Z. However, I made a mistake: I did not load the CAL CS model after this push. This load includes changes to gains and filters in the CAL CS model that are important for the calibration. We went back into observing because an unloaded model does not prevent us from observing, and I was not aware that I needed to do this! I found out about this mistake when Dave brought the unloaded filter changes to my attention.
Overall, the differences were small, but they were clearly enough to make a difference. With permission, we left observing, loaded the model, and TJ ran a broadband PCAL measurement. I have attached a comparison of the three broadbands from today. Green is the failed push of the 6/28 report, blue was what I thought was a successful push of the 7/19 report, and then red shows the result after we loaded the model.
Therefore, the 2% uncertainty at 20 Hz that I noted in my previous alog was due to having the wrong filters in CAL CS, and we don't have any problems with the L2/L3 crossover.
So, as a note to myself for the future, make sure to load the CAL CS model before observing.
We have been reporting in various alogs about locklosses where the yaw ASC signals have a large motion right before lockloss (85935, 85841, 85948). I have narrowed it down to the TMSX suspension moving largely in yaw. TMSX yaw moves first, and the ASC signals follow. The TMS servo, which adjusts the TMSX TEST offsets to center the beam on the TMS QPDs follows the TMSX yaw motion. We can see that the F2, F3 and F1 oseminf outputs move by about a half a micron just before these locklosses. However, the MASTER OUTs don't see a large drive, so this is something that the sensor is seeing.
There is also no movement in the HEPI IPS, ISI GS13 or ISI CPSs, which leads us to believe this is due to something at the suspension level.
TITLE: 07/24 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Earthquake
OUTGOING OPERATOR: TJ
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: EARTHQUAKE
Wind: 22mph Gusts, 12mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 1.49 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.24 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Looking just in the last 10 days where we feel we've been having more locklosses:
In 85846 on Friday 18th, Elenna notes a lockloss after YAW ASC excursion, we have been having very short locks and I see evidence of two more of these yaw excursion in the last 24 hours:
Seen in CSOFT, SRC1, PRC2 and mainly on the L2 stage of quads. In the last 1-2 seconds before LL.
The lockloss that Ryan S. reports as being from a sitewide power glitch in this alog had a similar behavior in the suspension channels and yaw loops. Apparently the power glitch that caused the lockloss also tripped the HEPI pumps, but I'm not sure how that relates to the control loop behavior. I'm not sure if this is useful to link with these other locklosses or not.
Generally, every yaw ASC loops sees this behavior, but it's hard to tell what is moving first, or the most, since the channels are not calibrated into useful units. As a note, the soft loops are not DC coupled, so I imagine they are just following the other loops. Our lockloss scopes plot the very slow ASC channels, so here is a faster plot of some of the ASC channels before one of these locklosses. The centering loop signals are moving away from zero, but not large enough that the beam is at the edge of the WFS.
I broke out my old TMS servo scope to see if we are being pulled off the TMS QPDs. Clearly the X TR B yaw signal is increasing, but it may be because it's trying to follow a large movement in the hard loops. TMS X yaw moves about 1 urad before the lockloss as well.
In the first yaw excursion lockloss Camilla notes above, the ETMX HEPI RZ appears to oscillate in the two seconds before lockloss. I don't see that in the other yaw excursion lockloss though.
Both of these YAW ASC locklosses saw TMSX_Y start oscillating a few seconds before the lockloss.
Follow up to add that although the lockloss that Ryan S noted on 7/13 had an ASC excursion, the TMSX yaw suspension did not have the similar strange behavior that these other few locklosses have (ndscope). It's possible that this TMSX yaw behavior is linked to the sat amp change on 7/15, 85770.
WP 12675
WP 12676
ECR E2400330
Drawing D0901284-v5
Modified List T2500232
The following SUS SAT Amps were upgraded per ECR E2400330. Modification improves the whitening stage to reduce ADC noise from 0.05 to 10 Hz. The EX PUM SAT Amp was NOT upgraded.
| Suspension | Old | New | OSEM |
| ETMX MO | S1100128 | S1100075 | F1F2F3SD |
| ETMX MO/RO | S1100079 | S1100163 | RTLF/RTLF |
| ETMX RO | S1100149 | S1100132 | F1F2F3SD |
| ETMX UIM | S1000297 | S1100140 | ULLLURLR |
| TMSX | S1100098 | S1100150 | F1F2F3LF |
| TMSX | S1000292 | S1100058 | RTSD |
| MC2 | S1100107 | S1100071 | T1T2T3LF |
| MC2/PR2 | S1100087 | S1100147 | RTSD/T1T2 |
| PR2 | S1100172 | S1100121 | T3LFRTSD |
F. Clara, J. Kissel
As of 2025/07/25 00:00 UTC, the TMSX satamp box for F1/F2/F3/LF has been swapped from S1100150 to S1100122
See 85980 for more info
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100075 , assigned to ETMX M0's F1F2F3SD OSEMs (Fil refers to this as ETMX MO F1F2F3SD). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100075_ETMX_M0_F1F2F3SD_20250710.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design ETMX M0 S1100075 CH1 F1 0.0971:5.31 120 zpk([5.31],[0.0971],1,"n") CH2 F2 0.0973:5.33 120 zpk([5.33],[0.0973],1,"n") CH3 F3 0.0979:5.36 120 zpk([5.36],[0.0979],1,"n") CH4 SD 0.0953:5.21 120 zpk([5.21],[0.0953],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ As LHO:85626 discusses, I'm intentionally excluding the fit of transimpedance gain from the foton design string, and so I've stopped using the R_TIA_kOhm as a knob in my by-hand fitting of the zeros and poles. Hence, you'll find that from here on, R_TIA_kOhm will almost always be the default 120 kOhm value I've found that works with the measured data and changing only the zero:pole frequency.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100163 , assigned to ETMX M0/R0's LFRT/LFRT OSEMs (Fil refers to this as ETMX MO/RO RTLF/RTLF above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100163_ETMX_M0R0_LFRTLFRT_20250710.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design ETMX M0R0 S1100163 CH1 LF 0.0948:5.18 120 zpk([5.18],[0.0948],1,"n") CH2 RT 0.0954:5.21 120 zpk([5.21],[0.0954],1,"n") CH3 LF 0.0969:5.30 120 zpk([5.30],[0.0969],1,"n") CH4 RT 0.0947:5.17 120 zpk([5.17],[0.0947],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ As LHO:85626 and the above LHO:86028 discusses, R_TIA_kOhm is the default 120 kOhm.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100132 , assigned to ETMX R0's F1F2F3SD OSEMs (Fil refers to this as ETMX RO F1F2F3SD above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100132_ETMX_R0_F1F2F3SD_20250710.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design ETMX R0 S1100132 CH1 F1 0.0943:5.17 120.75 zpk([5.17],[0.0943],1,"n") CH2 F2 0.0960:5.25 121.00 zpk([5.25],[0.0960],1,"n") CH3 F3 0.0963:5.28 121.25 zpk([5.28],[0.0963],1,"n") CH4 SD 0.0970:5.33 120.75 zpk([5.33],[0.0970],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ This sat amp actually needed some fit transimpedance gain, so I report it here. But, again, it's not used in the compensation filter.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100140 , assigned to ETMX L1's ULLLURLR OSEMs (Fil refers to this as ETMX UIM ULLLURLR above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100140_ETMX_L1_ULLLURLR_20250715.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design ETMX L1 S1100140 CH1 UL 0.0943:5.14 120.5 zpk([5.14],[0.0943],1,"n") CH2 LL 0.0965:5.26 120.5 zpk([5.26],[0.0965],1,"n") CH3 UR 0.0943:5.14 120.5 zpk([5.14],[0.0943],1,"n") CH4 LR 0.0961:5.24 120.5 zpk([5.24],[0.0961],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ Similar to S1100132, I found I needed to slightly adjust the transimpedance to get a good phase fit of the zero frequency while getting magnitude scale to the ~1.000 +/- 0.005 level. Again, this won't be used in the compensation filter.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100122 , which -- per LHO:85981, LHO:85980 and after 2025-07-25, has been assigned to TMSX M1's F1F2F3LF OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just TMSX F1F2F3LF above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100122_TMSX_M1_F1F2F3LF_20250724.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design TMSX M1 S1100122 CH1 F1 0.0962:5.26 120 zpk([5.26],[0.0962],1,"n") CH2 F2 0.0971:5.31 120 zpk([5.31],[0.0971],1,"n") CH3 F3 0.0957:5.24 120 zpk([5.24],[0.0957],1,"n") CH4 LF 0.0951:5.20 120 zpk([5.20],[0.0951],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ As LHO:85626 and the above LHO:86028 discusses, R_TIA_kOhm is the default 120 kOhm.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100058 , assigned to TMSX M1's RTSD OSEMs and CH3CH4 are not connected to any OSEM in-vacuum, hence the "xxxx" place holders (Fil refers to this as just TMSX RTSD above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100058_TMSX_M1_RTSDxxxx_20250708.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design TMSX M1 S1100058 CH1 RT 0.0939:5.11 121 zpk([5.11],[0.0939],1,"n") CH2 SD 0.0960:5.25 120 zpk([5.25],[0.0960],1,"n") CH3 xx 0.0955:5.23 120 zpk([5.23],[0.0955],1,"n") CH4 xx 0.0961:5.25 120 zpk([5.25],[0.0961],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ As LHO:85626 and the above LHO:86028 discusses, R_TIA_kOhm is (mostly) the default 120 kOhm, save for CH1.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100071 , assigned to MC2 M1's T1T2T3LF OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just MC2 T1T2T3LF above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100071_MC2_M1_T1T2T3LF_20250710.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design MC2 M1 S1100071 CH1 T1 0.0977:5.34 120 zpk([5.34],[0.0977],1,"n") CH2 T2 0.0956:5.23 120 zpk([5.23],[0.0956],1,"n") CH3 T3 0.0948:5.18 120 zpk([5.18],[0.0948],1,"n") CH4 LF 0.0958:5.22 120 zpk([5.22],[0.0958],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ As LHO:85626 and the above LHO:86028 discusses, R_TIA_kOhm is the default 120 kOhm.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100147 , assigned to MC2/PR2 M1's RTSD/T1T2 OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just MC2/PR2 RTSD/T1T2 above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100147_MC2PR2_M1_RTSDT1T2_20250710.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design MC2 M1 S1100147 CH1 RT 0.0975:5.33 120 zpk([5.33],[0.0975],1,"n") MC2 M1 CH2 SD 0.0947:5.18 120 zpk([5.18],[0.0947],1,"n") PR2 M1 CH3 T1 0.0969:5.29 120 zpk([5.29],[0.0969],1,"n") PR2 M1 CH4 T2 0.0962:5.25 120 zpk([5.25],[0.0962],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ As LHO:85626 and the above LHO:86028 discusses, R_TIA_kOhm is the default 120 kOhm.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100121 , assigned to PR2 M1's T3LFRTSD OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just PR2 T3LFRTSD above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100121_PR2_M1_T3LFRTSD_20250710.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design PR2 M1 S1100121 CH1 T3 0.0979:5.37 120 zpk([5.37],[0.0979],1,"n") CH2 LF 0.0967:5.29 120 zpk([5.29],[0.0967],1,"n") CH3 RT 0.0958:5.24 120 zpk([5.24],[0.0958],1,"n") CH4 SD 0.0969:5.31 120 zpk([5.31],[0.0969],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ As LHO:85626 and the above LHO:86028 discusses, R_TIA_kOhm is the default 120 kOhm.
Signal railed about 5:18 PM local time, I checked trend data for PT120 and PT180 and no pressure rise noted inside the main volume. Attached is 3 day trend of the pump behavior, very glitchy for a long while already.
System will be evaluated as soon as possible. AIP last replaced on 2015, see aLOG 18261.
Well, it appears as if the pump still has some life, just a few minutes ago started to pump the annulus system, for now.
(Jordan V., Gerardo M.)
Late entry, activity took place last Tuesday 07/22/2025.
The annulus ion pump signal railed again, so this time we decided to replace the controller. It does not seem like the controller improved the ion pump behavior, since the current signal is swinging more than before, see attached plot. We are keeping an eye on this system.