00:28 UTC lockloss potentially from a 5.5 from the eastern Russian peninsula.
WP12691 Install production GC/CDS network switch
Jonathan, Nyath:
The production Juniper GC/CDS network switch was installed and the temporary Brocade switch removed. The control room phones were transferred one at a time to verify the switch port configuration.
WP12690 Vacuum HAM1 Ion Pump Readout
Gerardo, Patrick:
For the past few months the IP13 EPICS channels have actually been reading out IP1_B's signals, and IP7_A which has actually been reading out the new IP13 signals.
Patrick made the internal hardware mapping Beckhoff changes on h0vacmr to map IP13 with its signals.
In the new system there is no IP7, but we elected to keep these channels in place so that recent HAM1's Ion Pump data can be trended using the IP7_A chans.
Attached plot shows IP13 (blue) transistioning from IP1_B (orange) to IP7_A (green)
WP12689 Add two 512Hz fast channels for HLTS PR3,SR3
Jeff, Brian, Edgard, Oli, Dave:
This morning we started updating the h1suspr3 and h1sussr3 models but the number of DAQ changes was significantly more than the expected two additional fast channels per model so we needed to review the changes in detail. Here is what I found
In sus/common/models three files were changed (svn version numbers shown):
HLTS_MASTER_W_EST.mdl production=r31259 new=32426
SIXOSEM_T_STAGE_MASTER_W_EST.mdl production=r31287 new=32426
ESTIMATOR_PARTS.mdl production=r31241 new=32426
HLTS_MASTER_W_EST.mdl:
only change is to the DAQ_Channels list, added two chans M1_ADD_[P,Y]_TOTAL
SIXOSEM_T_STAGE_MASTER_W_EST.mdl:
At top level, change the names of the two ESTIMATOR_HXTS_M1_ONLY blocks:
PIT -> EST_P
YAW -> EST_Y
Inside the ADD block:
Add two testpoints P_TOTAL, Y_TOTAL (referenced by HLTS mdl)
ESTIMATOR_PARTS.mdl:
Rename block EST -> FUSION
Rename filtermodule DAMP_EST -> DAMP_FUSION
Rename epicspart DAMP_SIGMON -> OUT_DRIVEMON
Rename testpoint DAMP_SIG -> OUT_DRIVE
DAQ_Channels list changed according to the above renames.
DAQ Changes:
This results in a large number of DAQ changes for SR3 and PR3. For each model:
+496 slow chans, -496 slow chans (rename of 496 channels).
+64 fast chans, -62 fast chans (add 2 chans, rename 62 chans).
Work Rescheduled:
We ran out of time this morning so the h1suspr3, h1sussr3 model restarts and DAQ restart has been rescheduled for next Tuesday, 29th July.
The ETMY Sat Amp swap this morning was completed in 15 minutes, meaning the HWWD did not complete its 20 minute count-down.
It appears that the false-positive HWWD rate for ETMY increased with the new Sat Amps, unlike ETMX where they have disappeared, or the ITMs where the rates were unchanged.
ETMY HWWD STAT and COUNTDOWN trends show below.
Elenna, Camilla, TJ, Matt, Oli
A few hours into a lock stretch we suddenly had a couple of large oscillations come in (ndscope1). They happened at 1437260896 for 2 seconds and at 1437260919 for 2 seconds. There were no saturations and our range did not drop more than 10 Mpc the next minute.
In DARM (ndscope2), the frequency of these oscillations is between 5.7-6 Hz. In the QUAD MASTER_OUT (ndscope3) and ASC (ndscope4, ndscope5) channels, the oscillation frequency is around 2.5 Hz. In the QUAD oplev channels (ndscope6), the oscillation frequency is around 2.5 Hz, and it's seen in all quads except ITMX. There is also a slight delay between when the quads move, with ITMY looking like it moved first.
TITLE: 07/22 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 150Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan C
SHIFT SUMMARY: Long list of maintenance activities checked off for the day (Trello board). Relocking was uneventful, I tried playing with some gains and timers to help catch DRMI faster but I'm unsure this actually helped. We've been observing for 3.5 hours.
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 |
| 14:58 | CDS/GC | Jonathan | MSR | n | GC switch swap | 15:24 |
| 15:01 | PCAL | Tony, Francisco | PCAL lab | yes | Prep for todays meas | 15:18 |
| 15:02 | FAC | Chris, Eric | Ends, Mids, Mech room | n | Fan lubing | 16:36 |
| 15:05 | FAC | Nelly | LVEA | yes | Tech clean | 16:16 |
| 15:06 | SEI | Jim | EY, EX | n | HEPI accumulator checks | 17:32 |
| 15:07 | FAC | Randy, Mitchell | high bay | n | Fork lift and crane equipment | 17:29 |
| 15:09 | VAC | Jordan, Janos | MY, EY | n | Turbopump functionality testing | 18:09 |
| 15:11 | - | Betsy | LVEA | yes | Parts hunt | 15:47 |
| 15:12 | IAS | Jason | LVEA | yes | FARO health check | 18:01 |
| 15:16 | CDS/SUS | Fil | EY | n | sat amp swap | 16:02 |
| 15:17 | SUS | Oli | CR | n | Sat amp swap tests, SR3 meas. | 18:26 |
| 15:22 | VAC | Norco | EX | n | LN2 fill | 17:17 |
| 15:26 | VAC | Gerardo | FCTE | n | Measuring cables | 16:03 |
| 15:28 | PCAL | Tony, Francisco, Tooba | EY | YES | PCAL meas. | 17:38 |
| 15:31 | CDS | Richard | CER Mezz, LVEA | Yes | Check on OMC PZT power supply | 16:03 |
| 15:32 | SQZ | Camilla, Leo, Jennie | LVEA | YES | SQZT7 work | 19:18 |
| 15:33 | CDS | Marc, Erik | CER Mezz | yes | Power supply swap for ITM esds | 16:26 |
| 15:42 | VAC | Janos | MX | n | Looking at LN2 with contractor | 16:06 |
| 15:47 | - | Betsy | EY, EX | n | Checking on safety space | 16:02 |
| 15:51 | CDS/VAC | Patrick | Office | n | PLC code update on h0vacmr | 16:31 |
| 16:06 | VAC | Janos | MY, MX | n | Checking on vac stuffs | 17:29 |
| 16:07 | VAC | Gerardo | EX | n | Checking and maybe fixing vac stuff | 16:36 |
| 16:17 | FAC | Nelly | EX | n | Tech clean | 17:16 |
| 16:38 | CDS/SUS | Fil, Marc | LVEA | yes | MC1,MC3 sat amp swap | 17:02 |
| 16:44 | FAC | Eric | MY | n | Damper fix | 18:02 |
| 17:13 | FAC | Chris | Mids, Ends, LVEA | YES | Checking for tanks | 18:45 |
| 17:16 | FAC | Nelly | FCES | n | Tech clean | 18:02 |
| 17:19 | - | Mike, Kim, guest | LVEA | yes | Tour | 18:36 |
| 17:28 | VAC | Gerardo, Jordan | LVEA | yes | Checking on AIP BSC | 18:03 |
| 17:34 | CDS | Fil, Marc | CER | yes | OMC PZT power supply swap | 18:02 |
| 17:34 | FAC | Tyler | Mids | n | 3IFO checks | 18:34 |
| 17:53 | PCAL | Tony, Francisco | PCAL lab | yes | Setup meas. | 18:06 |
| 18:11 | CDS | Marc | LVEA | yes | Check on beir garten sat boxes | 18:59 |
| 18:14 | FAC | Nelly | EY | n | Tech clean | 18:48 |
| 18:54 | OPS | Tony | LVEA | yes | LVEA sweep | 18:59 |
| 20:00 | FAC | Eric | EY | n | Check on hvac | 20:40 |
| 22:46 | - | Camilla, Leo, Leo's family | OSB roof | n | Looking out from the roof | 23:02 |
TITLE: 07/22 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 152Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: TJ
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 12mph Gusts, 6mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.07 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Closes FAMIS28415, last checked in alog85784.
All 4 charge measurements were able to run this morning. ETMX has a fairly large error for it Veff and Veff2, everything else looks similar to the last measurement.
WP 12696
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 EY PUM and UIM SAT Amps were NOT upgraded.
| Suspension | Old | New | OSEM |
| ETMY MO | S1100098 | S1100088 | F1F2F3SD |
| ETMY MO/RO | S1100079 | S1100083 | RTLF/RTLF |
| ETMY RO | S1100087 | S1000281 | F1F2F3SD |
| TMSY | S1100172 | S1100148 | F1F2F3LF |
| TMSY | S1100107 | S1100172 | RTSD |
| MC1 | S1100128 | S1100118 | T1T2T3LF |
| MC1/MC3 | S1000292 | S1000287 | RTSD/T1T2 |
| MC3 | S1000297 | S1100119 | T3LFRTSD |
F. Clara, J. Kissel, O. Patane, M. Pirello
Once the new satamps were installed, I ran the script satampswap_bestpossible_filterupdate_ECR_E2400330.py to update the compensation filters for these suspensions. These 'best possible' compensation gains come from the tests Jeff did on each satamp before installation, which are found in /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Results/.
My input and the corresponding output is below:
oli.patane@cdsws27:/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/Common/PythonTools$ py satampswap_bestpossible_filterupdate_ECR_E2400330.py -o TMSY ETMY_M0_R0
All updated filters grabbed for TMSY
TMSY M1 F1 compensation filter updated to zpk([5.3],[0.0969],1,"n")
TMSY M1 F2 compensation filter updated to zpk([5.28],[0.0964],1,"n")
TMSY M1 F3 compensation filter updated to zpk([5.2],[0.095],1,"n")
TMSY M1 LF compensation filter updated to zpk([5.26],[0.096],1,"n")
TMSY M1 RT compensation filter updated to zpk([5.17],[0.0945],1,"n")
TMSY M1 SD compensation filter updated to zpk([5.26],[0.0961],1,"n")
write /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sus/h1/filterfiles/H1SUSTMSY.txt
Done writing updated filters for TMSY
All updated filters grabbed for ETMY
ETMY R0 F1 compensation filter updated to zpk([5.2],[0.0951],1,"n")
ETMY R0 F2 compensation filter updated to zpk([5.2],[0.0951],1,"n")
ETMY R0 F3 compensation filter updated to zpk([5.25],[0.0959],1,"n")
ETMY R0 SD compensation filter updated to zpk([5.35],[0.098],1,"n")
ETMY M0 F1 compensation filter updated to zpk([5.31],[0.0971],1,"n")
ETMY M0 F2 compensation filter updated to zpk([5.27],[0.0965],1,"n")
ETMY M0 F3 compensation filter updated to zpk([5.22],[0.0955],1,"n")
ETMY M0 SD compensation filter updated to zpk([5.17],[0.0946],1,"n")
ETMY M0 LF compensation filter updated to zpk([5.2],[0.0951],1,"n")
ETMY M0 RT compensation filter updated to zpk([5.28],[0.0965],1,"n")
ETMY R0 LF compensation filter updated to zpk([5.29],[0.0967],1,"n")
ETMY R0 RT compensation filter updated to zpk([5.26],[0.0962],1,"n")
write /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sus/h1/filterfiles/H1SUSETMY.txt
Done writing updated filters for ETMY
All done! Remember to double check and load in the filters for ['TMSY', 'ETMY_M0_R0']
oli.patane@cdsws27:/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/Common/PythonTools$ py satampswap_bestpossible_filterupdate_ECR_E2400330.py -o MC1 MC3
All updated filters grabbed for MC1
MC1 M1 RT compensation filter updated to zpk([5.13],[0.0937],1,"n")
MC1 M1 SD compensation filter updated to zpk([5.25],[0.096],1,"n")
MC1 M1 T1 compensation filter updated to zpk([5.26],[0.0962],1,"n")
MC1 M1 T2 compensation filter updated to zpk([5.18],[0.0947],1,"n")
MC1 M1 T3 compensation filter updated to zpk([5.32],[0.0972],1,"n")
MC1 M1 LF compensation filter updated to zpk([5.12],[0.0938],1,"n")
write /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sus/h1/filterfiles/H1SUSMC1.txt
Done writing updated filters for MC1
All updated filters grabbed for MC3
MC3 M1 T3 compensation filter updated to zpk([5.32],[0.0972],1,"n")
MC3 M1 LF compensation filter updated to zpk([5.19],[0.0949],1,"n")
MC3 M1 RT compensation filter updated to zpk([5.35],[0.0979],1,"n")
MC3 M1 SD compensation filter updated to zpk([5.19],[0.0949],1,"n")
MC3 M1 T1 compensation filter updated to zpk([5.31],[0.097],1,"n")
MC3 M1 T2 compensation filter updated to zpk([5.24],[0.0958],1,"n")
write /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sus/h1/filterfiles/H1SUSMC3.txt
Done writing updated filters for MC3
All done! Remember to double check and load in the filters for ['MC1', 'MC3']
After this I loaded in these new filters.
The serial numbers in Fil's and OLD and NEW columns are flip flopped in the main aLOG, LHO:85922. Here's the corrected version with the serial number's columns flipped to reflect reality. Suspension Old New OSEM ETMY MO S1100088 S1100098 F1F2F3SD ETMY MO/RO S1100083 S1100079 RTLF/RTLF ETMY RO S1000281 S1100087 F1F2F3SD TMSY S1100148 S1100172 F1F2F3LF TMSY S1100172 S1100107 RTSD MC1 S1100118 S1100128 T1T2T3LF MC1/MC3 S1000287 S1000292 RTSD/T1T2 MC3 S1100119 S1000297 T3LFRTSD
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100098 , assigned to ETMY M0's F1F2F3SD OSEMs (Fil refers to this as ETMY MO 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_S1100098_ETMY_M0_F1F2F3SD_20250717.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 ETMY M0 S1100098 CH1 F1 0.0971:5.31 120 zpk([5.31],[0.0971],1,"n") CH2 F2 0.0965:5.27 120 zpk([5.27],[0.0965],1,"n") CH3 F3 0.0955:5.22 120 zpk([5.22],[0.0955],1,"n") CH4 SD 0.0946:5.17 120 zpk([5.17],[0.0946],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, as it's not used in the compensation filter -- but also because the magnitude of the measurements didn't need me to adjust them; I was able to get a good phase and magnitude fit by just adjusting the zero frequency.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100079 , assigned to ETMY M0/R0's LFRT/LFRT OSEMs (Fil refers to this as ETMY MO/RO RTLF/RTLF above -- note his typo in channel order). 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_S1100079_ETMY_M0R0_LFRTLFRT_20250717.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 ETMY M0 S1100079 CH1 LF 0.0951:5.20 120 zpk([5.20],[0.0951],1,"n") M0 CH2 RT 0.0965:5.28 120 zpk([5.28],[0.0965],1,"n") R0 CH3 LF 0.0967:5.29 120 zpk([5.29],[0.0967],1,"n") R0 CH4 RT 0.0962:5.26 120 zpk([5.26],[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, as it's not used in the compensation filter -- but also because the magnitude of the measurements didn't need me to adjust them; I was able to get a good phase and magnitude fit by just adjusting the zero frequency.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100087 , assigned to ETMY R0's F1F2F3SD OSEMs (Fil refers to this as ETMY 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_S1100087_ETMY_R0_F1F2F3SD_20250717.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 ETMY R0 S1100087 CH1 F1 0.0951:5.20 120 zpk([5.20],[0.0951],1,"n") CH2 F2 0.0951:5.20 120 zpk([5.20],[0.0951],1,"n") CH3 F3 0.0959:5.25 120 zpk([5.25],[0.0959],1,"n") CH4 SD 0.0980:5.35 120 zpk([5.35],[0.0980],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, as it's not used in the compensation filter -- but also because the magnitude of the measurements didn't need me to adjust them; I was able to get a good phase and magnitude fit by just adjusting the zero frequency.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100172 , assigned to TMSY M1's F1F2F3LF OSEMs (Fil refers to this as TMSY 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_S1100172_TMSY_M1_F1F2F3LF_20250717.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 TMSY M1 S1100172 CH1 F1 0.0969:5.30 120 zpk([5.30],[0.0969],1,"n") CH2 F2 0.0964:5.28 120 zpk([5.28],[0.0964],1,"n") CH3 F3 0.0950:5.20 120 zpk([5.20],[0.0950],1,"n") CH4 LF 0.0960:5.26 120 zpk([5.26],[0.0960],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 S1100107 , assigned to TMSY M1's RTSDxxxx OSEMs (Fil refers to this as TMSY 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_S1100107_TMSY_M1_RTSDxxxx_20250717.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 TMSY M1 S1100107 CH1 RT 0.0945:5.17 120 zpk([5.17],[0.0945],1,"n") CH2 SD 0.0961:5.26 120 zpk([5.26],[0.0961],1,"n") CH3 xx 0.0956:5.23 120 zpk([5.23],[0.0956],1,"n") CH4 xx 0.0957:5.24 120 zpk([5.24],[0.0957],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 S1100128 , assigned to MC1 M1's T1T2T3LF OSEMs (Fil refers to this as MC1 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_S1100128_MC1_M1_T1T2T3LF_20250717.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 MC1 M1 S1100128 CH1 T1 0.0962:5.26 120 zpk([5.26],[0.0962],1,"n") CH2 T2 0.0947:5.18 120 zpk([5.18],[0.0947],1,"n") CH3 T3 0.0972:5.32 120 zpk([5.32],[0.0972],1,"n") CH4 LF 0.0938:5.12 120 zpk([5.12],[0.0938],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 S1000292 , assigned to MC1/MC3 M1's RTSD/T1T2 OSEMs (Fil refers to this as MC1/MC3 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_S1000292_MC1MC3_M1_RTSDT1T2_20250717.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are MC1 M1 S1000292 CH1 RT 0.0937:5.13 120 zpk([5.13],[0.0937],1,"n") MC1 M1 CH2 SD 0.0960:5.25 120 zpk([5.25],[0.0960],1,"n") MC3 M1 CH3 T1 0.0970:5.31 120 zpk([5.31],[0.0970],1,"n") MC3 M1 CH4 T2 0.0958:5.24 120 zpk([5.24],[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 S1000297 , assigned to MC3 M1's T3LFRTSD OSEMs (Fil refers to this as MC3 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_S1000297_MC3_M1_T3LFRTSD_20250721.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are MC3 M1 S1000297 CH1 T3 0.0972:5.32 120 zpk([5.32],[0.0972],1,"n") CH2 LF 0.0949:5.19 120 zpk([5.19],[0.0949],1,"n") CH3 RT 0.0979:5.35 120 zpk([5.35],[0.0979],1,"n") CH4 SD 0.0949:5.19 120 zpk([5.19],[0.0949],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.
TJ noticed the DCPD signals rising ~25 minutes into the lock, we found this was a PI t 10.215kHz. Matt notes that we've seen this at the start of each lock even before we changed the ring heaters last. It just damps down again by itself, we expect as the HOM pass over it. Plots attached. This PI doesn't appear to be in our monitored PI list.
Francisco, Tooba, and I went to EY today to do an End Y PCAL End Station measurement.
We followed the Procedure outlined in T1500062-v19.
Beamspot before we started
Ran the following script & the out put follows:
(pcal_env) anthony.sanchez@cdsws31: python generate_measurement_data.py --WS PS4 --date 2025-07-21
/ligo/gitcommon/Calibration/pcal/O4/ES/scripts/pcalEndstationPy/generate_measurement_data.py:52: SyntaxWarning: invalid escape sequence '\R'
log_entry = f"{current_time} {command} \Results found here\: {results_path}\n"
Reading in config file from python file in scripts
../../../Common/O4PSparams.yaml
PS4 rho, kappa, u_rel on 2025-07-21 corrected to ES temperature 299.2 K :
-4.702207423037734 -0.0002694340454223 3.166921849830658e-05
Copying the scripts into tD directory...
Connected to nds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu
martel run
reading data at start_time: 1437237350
reading data at start_time: 1437237810
reading data at start_time: 1437238140
reading data at start_time: 1437238500
reading data at start_time: 1437238870
reading data at start_time: 1437239200
reading data at start_time: 1437239330
reading data at start_time: 1437240000
reading data at start_time: 1437240340
Ratios: -0.5346791724911457 -0.543267360018835
writing nds2 data to files
finishing writing
Background Values:
bg1 = 18.235622; Background of TX when WS is at TX
bg2 = 5.180516; Background of WS when WS is at TX
bg3 = 18.271548; Background of TX when WS is at RX
bg4 = 5.304736; Background of WS when WS is at RX
bg5 = 18.324199; Background of TX
bg6 = -0.468829; Background of RX
The uncertainty reported below are Relative Standard Deviation in percent
Intermediate Ratios
RatioWS_TX_it = -0.534679;
RatioWS_TX_ot = -0.543267;
RatioWS_TX_ir = -0.527180;
RatioWS_TX_or = -0.534309;
RatioWS_TX_it_unc = 0.063072;
RatioWS_TX_ot_unc = 0.066352;
RatioWS_TX_ir_unc = 0.058208;
RatioWS_TX_or_unc = 0.055534;
Optical Efficiency
OE_Inner_beam = 0.986071;
OE_Outer_beam = 0.983489;
Weighted_Optical_Efficiency = 0.984780;
OE_Inner_beam_unc = 0.047991;
OE_Outer_beam_unc = 0.047969;
Weighted_Optical_Efficiency_unc = 0.067854;
Martel Voltage fit:
Gradient = 1637.880346;
Intercept = 0.388593;
Power Imbalance = 0.984192;
Endstation Power sensors to WS ratios::
Ratio_WS_TX = -0.927690;
Ratio_WS_RX = -1.383303;
Ratio_WS_TX_unc = 0.053210;
Ratio_WS_RX_unc = 0.043963;
=============================================================
============= Values for Force Coefficients =================
=============================================================
Key Pcal Values :
GS = -5.135100; Gold Standard Value in (V/W)
WS = -4.702207; Working Standard Value
costheta = 0.988362; Angle of incidence
c = 299792458.000000; Speed of Light
End Station Values :
TXWS = -0.927690; Tx to WS Rel responsivity (V/V)
sigma_TXWS = 0.000494; Uncertainity of Tx to WS Rel responsivity (V/V)
RXWS = -1.383303; Rx to WS Rel responsivity (V/V)
sigma_RXWS = 0.000608; Uncertainity of Rx to WS Rel responsivity (V/V)
e = 0.984780; Optical Efficiency
sigma_e = 0.000668; Uncertainity in Optical Efficiency
Martel Voltage fit :
Martel_gradient = 1637.880346; Martel to output channel (C/V)
Martel_intercept = 0.388593; Intercept of fit of Martel to output (C/V)
Power Loss Apportion :
beta = 0.998844; Ratio between input and output (Beta)
E_T = 0.991787; TX Optical efficiency
sigma_E_T = 0.000336; Uncertainity in TX Optical efficiency
E_R = 0.992935; RX Optical Efficiency
sigma_E_R = 0.000337; Uncertainity in RX Optical efficiency
Force Coefficients :
FC_TxPD = 9.152859e-13; TxPD Force Coefficient
FC_RxPD = 6.233084e-13; RxPD Force Coefficient
sigma_FC_TxPD = 5.803098e-16; TxPD Force Coefficient
sigma_FC_RxPD = 3.482293e-16; RxPD Force Coefficient
data written to ../../measurements/LHO_EndY/tD20250722/
This produced:
Martel_Voltage_test.png
WS_at_TX.png
WS_at_RX.png
WS_at_RX_BOTH_BEAMS.png
These dont look unreasonable, so we ran the End station trends report script to give us the LHO_EndY_PD_ReportV5.pdf.
[Matt, Jenne, Elenna]
Matt and I tried running a new jitter training on CALIB STRAIN CLEAN, and noticed that we could likely subtract a bit more jitter noise from CLEAN, and also probably reinject less noise, especially around the power lines. We then reran a training on NOLINES to prepare to apply the new cleaning today.
Jenne then walked me through how to generate the script which would update the cleaning parameters. I copied over the old observe.snap file, in case I made a mistake and need to revert to the old coefficients.
Once we were in observing, I ran Jenne's template which checks how the cleaning is performing. It definitely looks like it is doing a good job. I accepted the new parameters. Once we are locked for a little longer, I will generate some comparison plots to the old cleaning parameters.
Here is a ratio comparison plot, showing the ratio of CLEAN / NOLINES for an observing time last night and today. We're still thermalizing, so this may change slightly. Matt and I adjusted the plot colors and alpha so the old cleaning is on the bottom and you can see where we are no longer injecting extra noise, and also where the cleaning has improved slightly, especially for the peaks at a few hundreds of Hz.
Ivey used the ISO calibration measurements that I took earlier (85906) to calculate what the OSEMINF gains should be on SR3 (85907), and this script also calculates what it thinks the compensation gain in the DAMP filter bank should be.
The next step is to use OLG TFs to measure what values we would use in the DAMP filter bank to compensate for the change in OSEMINF gains, and we can compare them to the calculated values to see how close they are.
I took two sets of OLG measurements for SR3:
- a set with the nominal OSEMINF gains
T1: 1.478
T2: 0.942
T3: 0.952
LF: 1.302
RT: 1.087
SD: 1.290
- a set with the OSEMINF gains changed to the values in 85907
T1: 3.213
T2: 1.517
T3: 1.494
LF: 1.733
RT: 1.494
SD: 1.793
Measurement settings:
- SR3 in HEALTH_CHECK but with damping loops on
- SR3 damping nominal (all -0.5)
- HAM5 in ISOLATED
Nominal gain set:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/SR3/SAGM1/Data/2025-07-22_1700_H1SUSSR3_M1_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml r12478
New gain set:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/SR3/SAGM1/Data/2025-07-22_1800_H1SUSSR3_M1_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml r12478
Once I had taken these measurements, I exported txt files for each dof's OLG and used one of my scripts, /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/Common/MatlabTools/divide_traces_tfs.m to plot the OLG for each dof to compare the traces between OSEMINF gain differences and then divide the traces and grab an average of that, which will be the compensation gain put in as a filter in the DAMP filter bank (plots). The values I got for the compensation gains are below:
L: 0.740
T: 0.732
V: 0.548
R: 0.550
P: 0.628
Y: 0.757
| DOF | OLTF measured and calculated DAMP Compensation gains | ISO Calibration measurement calculated compensation gains (85907) | Percent difference (%) |
| L | 0.740 | 0.740 | 0.0 |
| T | 0.732 | 0.719 | 1.8 |
| V | 0.548 | 0.545 | 0.5 |
| R | 0.550 | 0.545 | 0.9 |
| P | 0.628 | 0.629 | 0.2 |
| Y | 0.757 | 0.740 | 2.3 |
These are pretty similar to what my script had found them to be last time before the satamp swap (85288), as well as being very similar to the values that Ivey's script had calculated.
Maybe the accuracy from Ivey's script means that in the future we don't need to run the double sets of OLG transfer functions and can jsut use the values that the script gives.
The compensation gains have been loaded into the SR3 DAMP filter bank in FM7 as well as being updated in the estimator damp banks for P and Y. They have been loaded in but of course, are currrently left off for nominal operations since the OSEMINF gains haven't been updated yet
The OSEMINF gains and these new DAMP compensating gains have been turned on together: 86070
Leo, Jennie, Camilla, WP 12694
Jennie followed instructions for set up in 85775. We removed the SQZ beam iris at the bottom of the LPM (added for alignment capture during OFI vent work). Then took beam profiles in this SQZ path of the SEED beam with various PSAMS settings, adjusted PSAMS settings as in 85775 and used the servo for nominal settings. All data is attached. Jennie then reverted settings back to nominal.
Leo, Jennie W., Camilla The attached pdf contains all the beam q parameters fitted to the collected beam width data. Only the 13.5% data was fitted, as the D4S data was too inconsistent to obtain confident q values. Fitting was performed with the a la mode beamPath.fitBeamWidth function. The attached q parameters were individually plotted using a la mode and verified for their data-fitting accuracy. As mentioned in the document, all q parameters are located immediately after the interaction with ZM5 (through the view of BM4 -> ZM4 -> ZM5 beam travel).
Leo, Jennie W., Camilla Attached is a plot of the q manifold from the q parameter data, which allows for characterizing the beam smoothly with respect to ZM4/5 strain gauge voltage values. The image is taken from the presentation uploaded to T2500228. The real plot will likely have slightly different labels to axes. Link to git code for plotting: https://git.ligo.org/leendert.schrader/alm-beam-simulation-for-sqz/-/tree/main
I did a sweep of the LVEA & found Camilla and Jennie W working on the Squeeze tables. Then needed 10-15 more minutes and ensured me that they'd turn off the lights once they were done making sure the Squeezer was Squoze.
We replaced the following supplies this maintenance period:
Mezannine in CER:
VDD-C5-U30 RHS -24 Digital S1201957 replaced with upgraded supply S1202024 per WP12688
VDD-C6-U42 RHS HAM6 OMC PZT HV Power Supply 110V 80mA replaced with HV spare supply due to unexplained tripping of original supply per WP12704
We also staged upgraded replacement supplies 4x in the CER Mezannine, 2x at EY, and 2x at EX.
F. Clara, M. Pirello, E. vonReis
Procedure checklist for both stations completed. No issues were identified at this time.
MY: Scroll pump hours: 89
Turbo pump hours: 226
Crash bearings: 100%
EY: Scroll pump hours: 88
Turbo pump hours: 1295
Crash bearings: 100%
Tue Jul 22 10:09:18 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 9min 14secs
Gerardo confirmed a good fill curbside.
OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-SR3
Stage: M1
2025-07-22_1530 (UTC).
The suggested (calibrated) M1 OSEMINF gains are
(new T1) = 2.174 * (old T1) = 3.213
(new T2) = 1.610 * (old T2) = 1.517
(new T3) = 1.569 * (old T3) = 1.494
(new LF) = 1.331 * (old LF) = 1.733
(new RT) = 1.374 * (old RT) = 1.494
(new SD) = 1.390 * (old SD) = 1.793
To compensate for the OSEM gain changes, we estimate that the H1:SUS-SR3_M1_DAMP loops must be changed by factors of:
L gain = 0.740 * (old L gain)
T gain = 0.719 * (old T gain)
V gain = 0.545 * (old V gain)
R gain = 0.545 * (old R gain)
P gain = 0.629 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.740 * (old Y gain)
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the at the M1 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process
The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * inv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-07-22_1530 (UTC) as a reference, the new apparent alingments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L -5.0 um -3.1 um +1.8 um
T -21.6 um -15.5 um +6.1 um
V 11.8 um 9.8 um -2.0 um
R -576.3 urad -327.5 urad +248.9 urad
P -266.5 urad -158.3 urad +108.2 urad
Y -585.0 urad -431.9 urad +153.1 urad
We have estimated a OSEM calibration of H1 SR3 M1 using HAM5 ST1 drives from 2025-05-21_0000 (UTC).
We fit the response M1_DAMP/HAM5_SUSPOINT between 5 and 15 Hz to get a calibration in [OSEM m]/[GS13 m]
This message was generated automatically by OSEM_calibration_SR3.py on 2025-07-22 16:24:05.000267+00:00 UTC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
EXTRA INFORMATION
The H1:SUS-SR3_M1_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) T1: 1.478
(old) T2: 0.942
(old) T3: 0.952
(old) LF: 1.302
(old) RT: 1.087
(old) SD: 1.290
The matrix to convert from the old Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+0.74 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.001
+0.0 +0.719 -0.0 +0.0 +0.0 -0.0
-0.0 +0.0 +0.545 -0.006 +0.0 +0.0
+0.0 +0.0 -1.209 +0.545 -0.003 -0.0
+0.0 +0.0 +0.18 -0.013 +0.629 -0.0
-0.148 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.74
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'T', 'V', 'R', 'P', 'Y')
Please see the attached images of before calibrating and after calibrating.
Comparing these new OSEMINF gains to the gains we got last time we did this (84367) (before the satamp swap), they are pretty similar:
| OSEM | Previous Calculated OSEMINF gains (84367) | New Calculated OSEMINF gains (85907) | Percent difference (%) |
| T1 | 3.627 | 3.213 | 12.1 |
| T2 | 1.396 | 1.517 | 8.3 |
| T3 | 1.345 | 1.494 | 10.4 |
| LF | 1.719 | 1.733 | 0.8 |
| RT | 1.490 | 1.494 | 0.2 |
| SD | 1.781 | 1.793 | 0.6 |
So that's another indicator that the sat amp swap did not have much of an effect on the suspension response to suspoint excitations
The calibration values posted here are correct, but the theoretical alignment values are incorrect. See the corrected post from Sep 26th, 2025.
[CORRECTED LOGPOST LHO: 87162]
02:46 UTC Observing