Displaying reports 2061-2080 of 85593.Go to page Start 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 End
Reports until 16:31, Friday 25 July 2025
LHO General
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:31, Friday 25 July 2025 (85992)
Fri Ops Eve Transition

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!)

LHO General
ibrahim.abouelfettouh@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:30, Friday 25 July 2025 (85991)
OPS Day Shift Summary

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

H1 PEM (PEM)
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:25, Friday 25 July 2025 (85990)
HVAC Fan Vibrometers FAMIS Check (FAMIS 26410)

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.

Images attached to this report
H1 General (Lockloss)
ibrahim.abouelfettouh@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:26, Friday 25 July 2025 (85989)
Lockloss 19:12 UTC

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.

..

H1 ISC (SQZ)
jennifer.wright@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:45, Friday 25 July 2025 - last comment - 12:06, Monday 28 July 2025(85986)
Putting Limits on OMC/Arm mis-match

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, qdivided by the mode propagated through hot OM2 overlapped with the OMC mode, (O(q1,q2 )).

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 ))/ (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.

 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jennifer.wright@LIGO.ORG - 12:06, Monday 28 July 2025 (86024)

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.

LHO VE
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:24, Friday 25 July 2025 (85987)
Fri CP1 Fill

Fri Jul 25 10:09:47 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 9min 43secs

 

Images attached to this report
LHO General
ibrahim.abouelfettouh@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:41, Friday 25 July 2025 (85985)
OPS Day Shift Start

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.

H1 General
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:01, Thursday 24 July 2025 (85978)
OPS Thursday EVE shift summary

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
H1 General (Lockloss)
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 19:22, Thursday 24 July 2025 - last comment - 20:25, Thursday 24 July 2025(85982)
02:18 UTC lockloss

02:18 UTC lockloss after only 27 minutes, looks like an ETMX glitch.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - 20:25, Thursday 24 July 2025 (85983)

03:24 UTC Observing

H1 General
matthewrichard.todd@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:33, Thursday 24 July 2025 (85979)
A-la-Mode Modeling Efforts to understand the IFO

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.

Table 1: Overlaps calculated using model for vertical and horizontal directions.
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:

/ligo/home/matthewrichard.todd/repos/ligo-commissioning-modeling/analysis/O4/LHO/mode_matching/alm/main.m
Images attached to this report
H1 SUS
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:26, Thursday 24 July 2025 - last comment - 13:32, Tuesday 29 July 2025(85980)
TMSX F1/F2/F3/LF satamp box swapped

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)

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 13:32, Tuesday 29 July 2025 (86072)

Filters updated to best possible for this new satamp: 86071

LHO General
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:35, Thursday 24 July 2025 (85965)
Ops Day Shift End

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
H1 CAL
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:27, Thursday 24 July 2025 (85974)
Mistake in push of calibration report 20250719T225835Z

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.

Images attached to this report
H1 SUS (ISC, Lockloss)
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:15, Thursday 24 July 2025 (85973)
ASC yaw excursion locklosses appear to be due to TMSX osems

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.

Images attached to this report
H1 General
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:12, Thursday 24 July 2025 (85972)
OPS Thursday EVE shift start

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:

H1 ISC (ISC, Lockloss)
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:42, Thursday 24 July 2025 - last comment - 17:07, Thursday 24 July 2025(85968)
Amount of Locklosses per day and percentage of ETM GLITCH Locklosses has not significantly increased
Between Dec 2024 and Feb 2025, 20% of our Observe locklosses were tagged ETM_GLITCH, see 82609.
Since then we've roughly had the same amount of OBSERVE locklosses per day, and the same percentage of ETM_GLICH locklossses. 
The amount of locklosses per day in the last 10 days is slightly increased, but not much.

Looking just in the last 10 days where we feel we've been having more locklosses:

Comments related to this report
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 17:07, Thursday 24 July 2025 (85977)
Images attached to this comment
H1 ISC (Lockloss)
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:47, Wednesday 23 July 2025 - last comment - 17:00, Thursday 24 July 2025(85935)
Locklosses with YAW ASC Excursion

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.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 17:48, Wednesday 23 July 2025 (85950)

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.

Images attached to this comment
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - 20:32, Wednesday 23 July 2025 (85955)

Both of these YAW ASC locklosses saw TMSX_Y start oscillating a few seconds before the lockloss.

Images attached to this comment
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 17:00, Thursday 24 July 2025 (85976)

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.

Images attached to this comment
H1 SUS
filiberto.clara@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:02, Tuesday 15 July 2025 - last comment - 15:19, Monday 28 July 2025(85770)
Top Sat Amps Modified: MC2/PR2/ETMX (MO, RO, UIM, and TMS)

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

Comments related to this report
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 17:29, Thursday 24 July 2025 (85981)

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

jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 14:16, Monday 28 July 2025 (86028)
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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 14:16, Monday 28 July 2025 (86029)
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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 14:33, Monday 28 July 2025 (86030)
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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 14:50, Monday 28 July 2025 (86031)
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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 14:55, Monday 28 July 2025 (86032)
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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 15:06, Monday 28 July 2025 (86033)
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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 15:11, Monday 28 July 2025 (86034)
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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 15:15, Monday 28 July 2025 (86035)
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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 15:19, Monday 28 July 2025 (86036)
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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
LHO VE (VE)
gerardo.moreno@LIGO.ORG - posted 02:14, Wednesday 25 June 2025 - last comment - 16:55, Thursday 24 July 2025(85317)
Annulus Ion Pump for BSC1 Rails

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.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
gerardo.moreno@LIGO.ORG - 04:00, Friday 27 June 2025 (85382)VE

Well, it appears as if the pump still has some life, just a few minutes ago started to pump the annulus system, for now.

Images attached to this comment
gerardo.moreno@LIGO.ORG - 16:55, Thursday 24 July 2025 (85975)VE

(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.

Images attached to this comment
Displaying reports 2061-2080 of 85593.Go to page Start 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 End