Eleonora, Xinghui

Today we shaked the OFI suspension in the longitudinal direction by leaving the OSEM2EULER matrix to [ 1 0 0, 0 1 0, 0 0 1 ] and setting the EULER2OSEM matrix to [ 0 0 0, 0 0 0, 1 0 0 ]. We tried to send a signal also on RT to balance for YAW, but it turned out that it was not better. The residual coupling is 6% between SD (side = longitudinal) and LF (transverse left) and 3% between SD (side = longitudinal) and RT (transverse right). This is good enough for our measurement.

We took clean data between 00h50 UTC 23 April 2023 for 10 mins without squeezing.

We injected a sine noise in the OFI longitudinal suspension at 0.65 Hz and gain = 10000 which corresponds to a motion in LF = 0.72 um, RT = 0.33 um, SD = 11.3 um at 1h10m00 UTC for 10 mins.

In Fig. 1, the scattered light noise shelf is shown in blue (we can see both the first and second orders) and the reference in magenta.

We tried to inject more noise, with a gain of 12000, but the interferometer unlocked.

As reported before, we see very often bumps in DARM spaced at 4.05 Hz.

I wrote a script to look at all 6000+ DQ'ed channels and look for peaks at 2 Hz and at 4 Hz. A peak is defined in this case as a spectral feature where the ratio of the ASD at 4 +- 0.3 Hz over the ASD at 4 Hz is at least 1/5.

The interesting result is that many PEM signals have a large peak at 4.05 Hz: mostly magnetometers and radio antennas, but also other PEM channels

This is the list of ALL Dq'ed channels that have a peak at 4.0x Hz:

           H1:PEM-CS_ACC_ISCT1_REFL_Y_DQ 4.060 Hz
            H1:PEM-CS_ADC_5_29_2K_OUT_DQ 4.060 Hz
         H1:PEM-CS_MAG_EBAY_LSCRACK_Z_DQ 4.060 Hz
         H1:PEM-CS_MAG_EBAY_SUSRACK_Y_DQ 4.060 Hz
          H1:PEM-CS_MAG_LVEA_VERTEX_Z_DQ 4.045 Hz
    H1:PEM-CS_RADIO_EBAY_NARROWBAND_1_DQ 4.060 Hz
    H1:PEM-CS_RADIO_EBAY_NARROWBAND_2_DQ 4.060 Hz
    H1:PEM-CS_RADIO_LVEA_NARROWBAND_1_DQ 4.060 Hz
    H1:PEM-CS_RADIO_LVEA_NARROWBAND_2_DQ 4.060 Hz
         H1:PEM-CS_TILT_LVEA_VERTEX_T_DQ 4.060 Hz
               H1:PEM-EX_ADC_0_09_OUT_DQ 4.040 Hz
          H1:PEM-EX_LOWFMIC_VEA_FLOOR_DQ 4.040 Hz
         H1:PEM-EX_MAG_EBAY_SUSRACK_Y_DQ 4.040 Hz
      H1:PEM-EX_TEMPERATURE_BSC9_ETMX_DQ 4.040 Hz
               H1:PEM-EY_ADC_0_14_OUT_DQ 4.045 Hz
         H1:PEM-EY_MAG_EBAY_SEIRACK_X_DQ 4.045 Hz
         H1:PEM-EY_MAG_EBAY_SEIRACK_Y_DQ 4.045 Hz
         H1:PEM-EY_MAG_EBAY_SEIRACK_Z_DQ 4.045 Hz
         H1:PEM-EY_MAG_EBAY_SUSRACK_X_DQ 4.045 Hz
         H1:PEM-EY_MAG_EBAY_SUSRACK_Y_DQ 4.045 Hz

Some of them have a narrow peak at 4.040 Hz, most have a narrow peak at 4.045 Hz, and a few have a broader peak at 4.06 Hz.

I could not find any change in the peak amplitudes in those channels when we see the bumps in DARM. This might suggest that 1) the peaks are a coincidence 2) there is some non-linear effect implied, for example if the radio antennas are measuring noise around some VCO frequency, and the VCO drift around and downconvert the noise from time to time.

Today squeezing did not inject at the "inject squeezing" ISC_LOCK guardian state. First, I saw that the sqz CLF guardian said the pump ISS was down due to multiple failed locking attempts. I noticed that the "SQZ-OPO_REFL_REJECTED" PD was in error, saying "voltage readback saturated". I reduced the gain settings to 20 (dB I assume), and the error message went away. Then, I took the CLF guardian to down and re-requested locked, which removed the guardian error message. That worked, but we still did not make it to "sqz ready ifo". The "SQZ-FC" guardian was failing to find IR over and over. I am not sure if that is because of the updates to the FC mirror offloading (alog 68914). I took the SQZ guardian to "no squeezing" for now.

Kevin, Vicky

I've been working with Kevin on the full quantum noise budget for H1 using gwinc. Running this for Elenna's noise budget times from Wednesday at 76W (LHO:68869), this quantum noise budget is what I have so far, it still needs work. One takeaway so far is that - there is possibly some low-frequency quantum noise contribution to DARM above 40 Hz, but we need to be careful calculating the squeezing parameters to be sure. This is a work in progress. But, it would be interesting to understand if some of the low-frequency excess is really attributable to quantum noise, and if so what to do about it; I think reducing generated sqz levels will generally help us here. Another major reason to budget the quantum noise, is to understand in what ways we need to optimize, and how much squeezing we can still realistically optimize for. 

One comment: this low frequency 40-100 Hz band is where quantum shot noise and radiation pressure noise are similar magnitude effects (frequency at which the "standard quantum limit" piles up). This is basically where FC was designed to operate at, and (I think) where a bunch of strange squeezer effects (like coherent misrotations), could thus really factor in. So, it'd be nice to accurately understand the full quantum noise calculation in this low frequency range, where DARM at higher power now sees excess mystery noise, to understand if it's related to squeezing. Below is how I (and I think generally, squeezers) am approaching the quantum noise budget.

1) Understand interferometer quantum noise without squeezing. Here's an example of gwinc's full quantum calcuation on no-squeeze data at 76W. Sheila has done this previously for 60W (LHO:67610) to understand IFO output losses. I'm following through her analysis now at 76W. One major takeaway at 60W, was that the interferometer losses may be high, for example ~10-25%. I second Sheila's recommendations, that we should better constrain our homodyne angle (aka measure the contrast defect) and SRCL detuning throughout thermalization, and optimize the optical gain in the IFO, to reduce/ understand IFO output losses better. And, we should try operating at higher DCPD currents like 30 mA to improve the readout angle for squeezing. At higher power, maybe we can also measure these two during thermalization. I believe the losses are still high when thermalized at 76W, most likely 15%, maybe up to even 30%. But, IFO output losses also seemed high (10-25%) before TCS tuning at 60W, so this could improve still. Our best squeezing at 60W, 4.5 dB, was observed after TCS optimizations to increase IFO optical gain and reduce high-freq laser noise. I think reducing IFO output losses and technical noise is our best path forward to observe / reveal more total DARM noise reduction from squeezing. 

Budgeting IFO output losses -- from the squeezing loss wiki,

• ~8% IFO readout losses (IFO --> OMC:  1xOFI, OM1+3, OMC losses, DCPD QE).
• ~7% squeezer injection losses (SQZ --> IFO:   3xSFI, HAM7 losses, 1% pickoff to lock FC, 1xOFI).
• ~15% Expected squeezing losses total. (this limit could allow up to 6.5-7dB sqz.)
  However, 4.5 dB squeezing corresponds to ~33% total loss (~15% mystery). 4 dB is about 37% total loss (~22% mystery). 6dB would be about 22% total loss (7% mystery). We are trying to understand the excess 15-25% mystery loss that limits observed squeezing. In part, wondering what is squeezer loss, and what is IFO output loss. The latter can be understood using the no-sqz spectrum.

With our squeezing observations of up to 4.5 dB (LHO:68251), we can constrain IFO readout losses as -- more than the known 8%, and likely less than < 25% for compatibility w/4dB sqz losses.

Looking at a no-sqz quiet time noise budget (GPS = 1366017765, span = 2400s), we can consider an arm power of 400kW, and readout losses of 20%. Higher arm powers (ASC_{X,Y}_CIRC_OUT reads ~430kW) will require more IFO readout losses to give our observed shot-noise-limited-displacement sensitivity -- that is, higher readout losses can explain the discrepancy between the circulating arm power and calibrated m/rtHz sensitivity of DARM, in the range where DARM quantum-noise-limited. Note: it seems LLO can operate with about 75% the circulating arm power, and yet reach almost similar shot-noise-limited displacement sensitivity, without squeezing. This suggests their IFO output losses are lower; if that is true, it would allow for higher observed squeezing levels, given similar squeezing-specific losses.

As external measurements of relevant IFO parameters, I'm considering the following for the noise budget:

• SRCL detuning around -0.2 deg. I'd guess it ranges between -0.1 to -0.4 degrees depending on thermalization, but this can be measured. I've been referencing Jeff's measurements of DARM sensing function vs. SRCL offset (LHO:67613) to interpret how the digital offset and DARM sensing function corresponds to physical parameters.
  • Comparing Camilla's DARM sensing function from today, with Jeff's plots of H1 Sensing function vs. physical SRCL offsets, today's measurement looks like a SRCL detuning of about -0.35 deg early on in the lock (between orange and yellow).
    • SRCL offset changes recently:  After Jeff's measurements at 60W LHO:67613 on 2/24, the digital offset was set to -175. Recently on 4/10 at 78W, it was set to -165 to flatten the sensing function for calibration LHO:68554.
• IFO readout / homodyne angle = -17 degrees, from contrast defect measurement LHO:68859. Unsure if this changes with TCS tuning at noise budget time, or what it is now.

2) Now calculate the quantum noise with frequency-dependent squeezing. With this model of the IFO's ambient quantum noise without squeezing, we can now estimate the quantum noise with freq-dep squeezing, and begin to add it fully into the H1 noise budget. Full quantum noise calculation is more involved than the semiclassical quantum noise calculation typically calculated in the gwinc noise budget.

To summarize, for IFO parameters, I'm using 400kW, homodyne angle at -17 deg, SRCL @ -0.2 deg, and considering IFO readout losses of 20% (mid-range ish). For SQZ, I'm considering 16.5 dB generated sqz, FC detuning -35 Hz, and 15% excess sqz injection losses (for ~20% total). To start, injection losses are just broadband loss, ignoring all the complexity from coherent mode-matching interference, which can cause loss (~few %) and squeezing misrotations (~few degrees).

• After finding IFO no-sqz parameters that make sense, first we have to scan the squeeze angle to get to squeezing. This is a bit tedious/slow. For each IFO configuration, I made a squeeze angle .gif to see squeezing angles. I then sanity check whether the losses make sense, and choose the most likely squeezing angle. I then use this angle in the quantum noise budget, using gwinc to calculate quantum noise with FDS. I would like to fit / use mcmc to better estimate squeezing parameters eventually, but this is at least a start.
  • By find "squeezing", I mean find the sqz angle which improves quantum noise near 100 Hz. In practice, this is where we've typically left the sqz angle (LHO:68814), to optimize quantum noise in the bucket. However, this the high-frequency squeeze angle to thermalize down with the SRCL detuning (it rotates ~15-20 deg in 1-2 hours). So, probably high-freq sqz will look wrong in the first 1-2 hours of thermalization, but it squeezing should always look good in the bucket from the start, and so the range shouldn't be too adversely impacted by this.
• Losses are somewhat degenerate between SQZ injection losses and IFO readout losses. I need to further understand how parameters are co-varied, and what we measure/do to tease things apart. But, it seems that with 15% readout losses, ~10-15% excess squeeze losses are compatible. With 20% readout losses, needs 5-10% sqz loss; with 25-30% readout losses, this could basically make up all of our sqz losses at 4.5 dB. I'm inclined to think the latter, higher IFO output loss case, is likely-- given that our squeezing levels have varied so much with simply IFO TCS / output loss optimizations.
• We expect to see laser (frequency) noise creep up as early as 1kHz, and start limiting darm above 4kHz, LHO:68737. It'd be great to look at laser-noise-subtracted squeezing levels.
• Whether or not it is quantum noise, this suggests operating with lower generated squeezing levels, maybe the minimum we need, could help if squeezing mis-rotations are hurting us at low frequencies. Generating too much squeezing is essentially asking for trouble in controlling the sqz angle through the bucket, given the amount of frequency-dependent rotations plausibly going on in the IFO.

Some thoughts on SQZ optimizations going into ER15.

Squeezer mode-matching and alignment: I don't think this is the biggest limiting effect on observed squeezing yet. I think we need to better understand the IFO output losses, given the serious circulating arm power vs. darm m/rtHz discrepancy. But, I do think with mode-matching and alignment, we can win a bit of squeezing if we check with classical noise (esp laser noise) subtraction. Overall, I think we've had conflicting observations on this front.

1. We got 4.5 dB FDS after TCS tuning at 60W, LHO:68236. Getting more squeezing then was "easy", in the sense that it was not so sensitive to sqz alignment, psams, clf levels, generated sqz levels, etc. Then, our PSAMS were at ZM4/ZM5 = 120V/130V. I suspect what's happening is that, TCS tuning is reducing IFO losses (aka, increasing optical gain LHO:68177), and squeezing sees the same improved throughput. And in addition (maybe the same?), the readout angle got closer to 0, aka closer to optimal for squeezing.
2. Getting >4dB of squeezing is also "easy" with the IFO cold at 2W, I think this has been consistently observed. For example, at 2W, Jan 18, 2023, LHO:66877, setting ZM4/5 = 110V/110V was better and we got up to 3.8 dB by moving PSAMS. In the same lock, when we powered up to 60W, the same PSAMS settings gave only 3.3 dB sqz. Since, whenever we inject squeezing at 2W, we can typically see over 4dB regardless of our PSAMS situation now. So, at 2W it seems lower PSAMS might've been more optimal. This all is compatible with a story that IFO output losses are low in the cold state, and thus squeezing losses are low, and thus there is more sqz.
3. On the other hand, high PSAMS like 200/200 have consistently led to improved SQZ-OMC mode-matchings by metrics such as ADF transmission through the OMC (68665), or OMC mode scans of the squeezer seed beam (66946), which I think probe a similar mode-matching. We only use half the range of our PSAMS, between 100-200V; this range changes the ZM4/5 optics by ~100 uD according to the calibration (eg. H1:AWC-ZM{4,5}_PSAMS_DEFOCUS_MON_MDIOPTER). I wonder if, comparing to e.g. the ITM ROC changes measured by TCS for ITM deformation during thermalization, any interesting information exists here. 
4. The problem is, it's hard to know our IFO or OMC mode-matching at full lock, with a thermalized IFO, since there are limited in-situ diagnostics available. The ADF should be able to help us diagnose mode matching and alignment. Even for squeeze (mis)-rotation, the ADF would be helpful, but we need to re-do ADF calibration after all TCS tuning on a later Tuesday, to start running sweeps again.
5. Further, our diagnostics and SQZ-IFO ASC (based on AS42 = IFO's RF45 xx SQZ RF3) are both run using squeezer sidebands, which could possibly be misaligned from the main IFO squeezed light. We've observed (e.g. by walking OMC ASC QPD offsets 67994, or walking SQZ ASC offsets 66756), that our SQZ ASC may not bring us to the most optimal alignment, but at least close; LLO:64458 has now observed similar offsets, possibly due to the different sqz-sideband alignments, are needed to fully optimize squeezer alignment.

If the IFO TCS tuning can further optimize optical gain (aka reduce IFO output losses) and reduce laser noise, continuing on from LHO:68875, that would of course be great all around. Once IFO alignment changes / settles, we can re-zero our AS42 offsets, and begin optimizing the SQZ-ASC alignment offsets, and maybe double-check / walk OMC alignment offsets again as Koji did in LHO:67994, again looking to optimize IFO optical gain. In practice, we should probably operate with less generated squeezing than we use now. Additionally, if we can understand /mitigate the issue with higher CLF powers, running with more CLF power should help us in all ways, for example it'd give us more robust ASC alignment signals. Perhaps we can also explore the higher DCPD current (~30mA) as well, and see if the a better readout angle helps for squeezing.

Summary: going into ER, the SQZ automation with ISC_LOCK seems reasonably robust, and we will continue to work through edge cases. At this circulating arm power, we've so far observed up to 4dB FDS LHO:68701, which has been able to give us 20-25 Mpc in range. In ER, with a more settled IFO thermal state and alignment, and with more quiet time for SQZ optimization, we should be able to take on more serious squeezer optimizations, especially focusing on SQZ + IFO optimizations for increasing range. I hope that working through the full quantum gwinc noise budget can help us understand how to make these DARM range optimizations, and that doing these IFO and SQZ optimizations can bring it back up to at least the 4.5 dB noise reduction w/FDS we saw once at lower power, LHO:68251.

At 04:56 it appears we lost communication to the CER Beckhoff system. Timing MEDMs are attached.

Naoki, Vicky, Gabriele

Recently Gabriele improved the M1/M3 crossover of PRM as reported in alog68864 and alog68899. Since the FC2 and PRM are the same HSTS suspensions, we imported his offload filter from PRM to FC2. The FC green can be locked with new filter. We will check if IR can be locked and see the long term stability.

The previous FC2 offload filter was designed by Sheila as reported in alog66092. Fig 1 shows the FC2 M1 LOCK filter bank. The previous filter was using FM1,3,4,6,10. We imported the FM5,7,8,9 filters from PRM M1. The gain of PRM M1 is -0.02 and the gain of PRM M2 is 10, so we set the gain of FC2 M1 as -0.2. Here is the summary of FC2 M1 filter.

old: FM1,3,4,6,10 ON, gain 0.5
new: FM1,5,7,8,9,10 ON, gain -0.2

Fig 2 shows the FC2 M3 LOCK filter bank. We are not sure about the FM2,9 in FC2 M3, but the CLP300 in FM9 seems imported from MC2 M3. Since we want to keep the crossover of green SUS/VCO, we kept these FC2 M3 filters.

Fig 3 shows the crossover of FC2 M1/M3 (purple: old, blue: new). The M1/M3 crossover frequency is 0.8 Hz. In the previous crossover, there was a peak at 1.3 Hz which required us for the wig1.3Hz filter for stable crossover. With the new filter, the peaks at 1.3 Hz and 3 Hz are removed and the crossover looks more reasonable. 

We also measured the FC2 actuation response when FC is down (Fig 4). The template is saved in userapps/sqz/h1/Templates/dtt/FC2/M1M3total.xml. The peak at 3 Hz with old M1+M3 is removed with new M1+M3. 

Eleonora, Xinghui

0. OFI suspension diagonalization attempt

The OFI suspension OSEM matrices turned out to be not diagonalized. We realized this while trying to perform noise injections in the longitudinal (L) and transverse (T) directions in order to study the effect of scattered light.

Refer to Fig. 1 for a schematic of the OFI axis and sensor definitions. The OFI is outfitted with three OSEMs: SD (side), LF (left) and RT (right). Linear combinations of these three OSEMs are used to drive and read out L,T and Y (Yaw, not used here). The transformation for driving L, T and Y is saved in the EUL2OSEM matrix, whereas the transformation to read-out in L,T and Y basis is saved in the OSEM2EUL matrix.

We sent noise to the OFI suspension coils at a frequency = 0.65Hz. This is true for the whole entry, unless explicitly mentioned.

By sending a current in L, we coupled in T by 20%. By sending a current in T, we excited L 5 times more than T.

We tried:

• to change the gains in the driving filters in L, T, Y to reduce the coupling by checking at the ndscope signals (H1:SUS-OFI_M1_DAMP_{L,T,Y}_INMON)
• to update the sensing matrix by computing a new matrix based on geometrical considerations

however, finding a configuration that acted on L only, didn't yield a decoupled T. Instead, driving T in this configuration resulted in read-out signals with equal amplitudes in L and T. We concluded that the computed L and T directions did not correspond to the true L and T directions. 

Therefore, we decided to check more in detail the input/output. We set the sensing matrix (OSEM2EULER) in a way that we were directly reading the 3 coils LF (left), RT (right), SD (side) instead of L, T, Y: [ 1 0 0;

                                                                                                                                                                  0 1 0;

                                                                                                                                                                  0 0 1 ].

Then, we tried to drive only in the tranverse direction by sending an excitation to H1:SUS-OFI_M1_TEST_T_EXC in order to check the balancing between LF and RT wrt the COM and decouple them from L.

We set the driving matrix (EULER2OSEM) to be [ 0 -1 0;

                                        0 1 0;

                                       0 0 1 ] .

The minus sign is due to the fact that the magnets of the OSEMs have inverted poles (see Fig. 1). By changing the gain on the driver filters (H1: OFI M1 COIL OUTPUT FILTERS) we didn't improve the decoupling, so we left all the gains to 1.

The LF, RT, SD signals should be already calibrated in um.

We measured first the residual motion sensed by the OSEMs without injecting noise: LF = 0.06 um, RT = 0.06 um, SD = 0.03 um).

Then we measured the residual coupling by sending a transverse signal with a gain of 5000: LF = 10.6 um, RT = 9.6 um, SD = 0.2 um. LF and RT are 10% coupled, while SD is couple 2% with LF and RT, which is good enough for our measurements.

In the following, we report 3 different OFI transverse shaking measurements.

1. OFI T shaking with SQZ (injection gain 5000)

During our diagonalization attempts, we noticed (thanks also to the commissioning team) an excess of noise between 6 and 15 Hz that we believe to be scattered light coming from the squeezing port.

• The first evidence was between 17h55 UTC and 17h58 UTC, injecting noise on T with a gain of 5000. In Fig. 2, the signal read by ndscope (NB the plot channel names are INCORRECT due to the change of OSEM2EULER matrix mentioned in (0)) are shown. The effect of the scattering noise on DARM is shown in Fig. 3.

• The second evidence was between 18h20 UTC and 18h30 UTC, injecting noise on T with a gain of 5000 and unbalancing the driver gains (gain_LF = -0.9, gain_RT = 1.5) to have a bigger amplitude: LF = 13.7 um, RT = 12.7 um, SD = 0.2 um. In Fig. 4 the signal read by ndscope (NB the plot channel names are INCORRECT due to the change of OSEM2EULER matrix mentioned in (0)) are shown. The effect of the scattering noise on DARM is shown in Fig. 5.

2. OFI shaking without SQZ (injection gain 15000)

We did the same injection with a higher gain and saw a different response on DARM, which came out from the fact that SQZ was NOT injected in the interferometer.

We injected T noise with a gain of 15000, with balanced driving gains, corresponding to a motion of LF = 31 um, RT = 29 um, SD = 0.55 um.

The noise injection lasted from 23h37 UTC to 23h48 UTC.

Without squeezing injection, we don't see the same scattered light effect as with SQZ, but we introduce some noise between 20 and 30 Hz as shown in Fig. 6.

3. OFI shaking with SQZ with different injection gains

We performed this measurement for G = 5000, 15000, 17000 and 19000. The suspension was saturating for G = 20000. The results are shown in Fig. 7.

• G = 5000, corresponding to a motion in LF = 10.6 um, RT = 9.6 um and SD = 0.2 um ( yellow curve ), between 0h47m40 UTC and 0h57m40 UTC (22nd April 2023)
• G = 15000, corresponding to a motion in LF = 31 um, RT = 29 um and SD = 0.5 um ( mint curve ), between 1h01m20 UTC and 1h13m10 UTC (22nd April 2023)
• G = 17000, corresponding to a motion in LF = 35.5 um, RT = 32.5 um and SD = 0.6 um ( green curve ), between 1h13m15 UTC and 1h24m00 UTC (22nd April 2023)
• G = 19000, corresponding to a motion in LF = 39.7 um, RT = 36.6 um and SD = 0.7 um ( blue curve ), between 1h25m40 UTC and 1h35m40 UTC (22nd April 2023)

The scattering shelves are very evident and the cutoff frequencies scale with the scatterer velocity as expected. Moreover, we notice some structures with 3.2 Hz spacing in the plateau region of the shelves, as shown in Fig. 8.

We will analyze the data to extract the amount of recoupled scattered light coming from the squeezing port into DARM.

The sound of the fan chugging was audible from downstairs (this power supply lives on the mezzanine). I didn't hear this yeaterday. Just in case DARM gets noisy over the weekend this guy might be a suspect.

I went to NLN_CAL_MEAS and used the code in  gitcommon/noise_recorder to measure the DARM spring (~1hour after powerup). Plot attahced, the SRCL1 offset was set at -165.

I edited them functions to record a directory name including the time so that on another lock we can schedule the 'python pcal_noise_injection_caller.py; python darm_noise_injection_caller.py' command multiple times in 1 day. This did accidently put the data in two directories but that's an easy fix later.  Hope we could script this to run mutilple times while thermalizing to give more evidence for an evolving DARM spring as Vicky theorized (alog68853) or while doing CO2 steps. Alterative would be lines as Jeff suggests we add next week. 

TITLE: 04/21 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Commissioning
SHIFT SUMMARY: Jim has a new ISI filter for ETMY to mitigate the motion at EY from the wind fence work; we were able to leave it on all day successfully.

• Lockloss @ 16:06 from accidentally turning on PRCL UGF servo incorrectly

Lock Acq #1:

• Relocking via PRMI
• Paused during OMC_WHITENING to damp violin modes
• NLN @ 18:26
• Lockloss @ 20:58 from attempting to switch to new PRM offloading in-lock (it did not work)

Lock Acq #2:

• Turned nominal sensor correction back on at EY as wind fence work had finished
• Adjusted both TMSX and ETMY alignment to lock ALS
• IR DIFF found by hand
• Again paused during OMC_WHITENING to damp violin modes
• NLN @ 23:01

LOG:

I have updated all mode cleaner mirrors (MC1, MC2, MC3) and recycling cavity (SR2, SRM, PR2, PRM) HSTS damping loops to the Level 2 design that Jeff Kissel developed, and we worked on testing and implementing. You can read alog 65310 for a reminder of the implementation of these.

We have done this once before, but faced many stability issues related to the change. However, Jeff and I do not think the problems we faced were actually related to the damping loops. We think the various issues might have been related to the incorrect PRM M1/M3 crossover that Gabriele has noticed (and now fixed), as well as the ITM reaction chain motion. There is a whole saga related to this, but two things remained evident:

• When we reverted the damping loop changes, instability problems persisted
• Measurements of the M1 to M1 and M1 to M3 transfer functions were nominal, and did not indicate any issues with the damping loops themselves (see alog 67266 for more info)

Therefore, Jeff and I think these are fine to implement again, especially given that Gabriele has solved the crossover issue on PRM (and is currently working on updating SRM).

All HSTS damping loops should be using FM1, 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10. All gains should be -1. I have SDFed these filters and gains accordingly. The "old" filters are located in FM6, 7, 8, and 9. (Note: FM9, the BR notches, is common to both configurations.)

We are relocking and there is no sign of the issues we experienced during the past saga of implementation.