Displaying reports 2181-2200 of 85644.Go to page Start 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 End
Reports until 14:07, Tuesday 22 July 2025
H1 SUS
filiberto.clara@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:07, Tuesday 22 July 2025 - last comment - 09:25, Tuesday 29 July 2025(85922)
Top Sat Amps Modified: MC1, MC3, and ETMY (MO, RO, TMS)

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

Comments related to this report
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 14:27, Tuesday 22 July 2025 (85924)
Link

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.

jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 15:40, Monday 28 July 2025 (86037)
Link 

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
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 15:47, Monday 28 July 2025 (86038)
Link 

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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 15:51, Monday 28 July 2025 (86039)
Link 

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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 15:56, Monday 28 July 2025 (86040)
Link 

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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 08:38, Tuesday 29 July 2025 (86053)
Link 

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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 08:42, Tuesday 29 July 2025 (86054)
Link 

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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 09:14, Tuesday 29 July 2025 (86055)
Link 

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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 09:19, Tuesday 29 July 2025 (86057)
Link 

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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 09:25, Tuesday 29 July 2025 (86058)
Link 

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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 TCS (ISC)
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:46, Tuesday 22 July 2025 (85921)
10.215kHZ PI that we pass over during Thermlalization

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.

Images attached to this report
H1 General
anthony.sanchez@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:29, Tuesday 22 July 2025 (85919)
EndY Station

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.


 

Images attached to this report
Non-image files attached to this report
Sosb-office25072213010.pdf
LHO_EndY_PD_ReportV5.pdf
H1 ISC
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:16, Tuesday 22 July 2025 - last comment - 14:09, Tuesday 22 July 2025(85913)
Nonsens Jitter Cleaning updated

[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.

 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 14:09, Tuesday 22 July 2025 (85923)
Link

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.

Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 SUS
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:54, Tuesday 22 July 2025 - last comment - 13:39, Tuesday 29 July 2025(85918)
Measuring SR3 OLG TFs to get DAMP filter compensation gains

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.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 13:00, Monday 28 July 2025 (86026)
Link

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

Images attached to this comment
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 13:39, Tuesday 29 July 2025 (86073)
Link

The OSEMINF gains and these new DAMP compensating gains have been turned on together: 86070

H1 AOS
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:33, Tuesday 22 July 2025 - last comment - 13:11, Friday 22 August 2025(85917)
SQZT7 Beam Profiling with different ZM4 and ZM5 PSAMS Settings

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.

Non-image files attached to this report
SQZT7_PSAMS_July22.pdf
Comments related to this report
leendert.schrader@LIGO.ORG - 12:01, Thursday 14 August 2025 (86365)
Link 

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).
Non-image files attached to this comment
leendert.schrader@LIGO.ORG - 13:11, Friday 22 August 2025 (86519)
Link 

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
Images attached to this comment
H1 General
anthony.sanchez@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:29, Tuesday 22 July 2025 (85915)
LVEA Sweep

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.

 

H1 ISC
marc.pirello@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:55, Tuesday 22 July 2025 (85912)
Kepco Power Supplies Replaced

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

LHO VE
anna.iudintseva@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:20, Tuesday 22 July 2025 (85911)
Quarterly Functionality Test Performed on EY/MY Turbo Pumps 
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%
LHO VE
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:16, Tuesday 22 July 2025 (85910)
Tue CP1 Fill

Tue Jul 22 10:09:18 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 9min 14secs

Gerardo confirmed a good fill curbside.

Images attached to this report
LHO FMCS
eric.otterman@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:09, Tuesday 22 July 2025 (85909)
VEA temperature trends 
Chris and I greased the fan bearings for the VEA spaces and alternated the fans. This has resulted in abnormalities in the temperature trending, but these changes will even out after a short period.
H1 SUS (SEI, SUS)
ivey.zhong@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:32, Tuesday 22 July 2025 - last comment - 14:32, Friday 26 September 2025(85907)
OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-SR3 
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.
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 12:31, Tuesday 22 July 2025 (85916)
Link

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

edgard.bonilla@LIGO.ORG - 14:32, Friday 26 September 2025 (87163)SUS
Link

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]

H1 AOS
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:31, Tuesday 22 July 2025 (85908)
Updated h0vacmr PLC to correct inputs to IP13 
WP 12690

Gerardo M., Patrick T.

"Update the PLC code on h0vacmr to reflect the current cabling of IP13 to Beckhoff terminal 25, channels 3 and 4."

This work permit has been completed. The code is now at commit efc3db6abdaf3f286903a874e7f765e9d867f9f9. There are no issues to report.
H1 SUS
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:04, Tuesday 22 July 2025 (85906)
New OSEMINF gain calibration measurements taken for SR3

This is part of the work we are doing for the Estimator. As part of that work, we are finetuning the OSEMINF gains, which we did previously for SR3 (84298), but since we've swapped the satamps we want to check how different these new values will be compared to the current gains as well as the gains we found that last time.

I ran excitations through the H1:ISI-HAM5_ISO_{X,Y,Z} filter banks with the settings of:

Measurements can be found at /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/SR3/Common/Data/2025-07-22_1530_H1ISIHAM5_ST1_WhiteNoise_ISO_{X,Y,Z}_0p05to40Hz_calibration.xml, svn revision r12476.

H1 CDS
jonathan.hanks@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:42, Tuesday 22 July 2025 (85905)
WP 12691 move CDS/GC connection off temporary switch

As per WP 12691 we moved the CDS/GC connection off of a temporary switch.  This is a follow up to WP 12580 which had left us on a temporary switch.  The new switch is a larger switch and all the phones can be plugged in now.

LHO General
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:37, Tuesday 22 July 2025 (85904)
Ops Day Shift Start

TITLE: 07/22 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Acquisition
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan S
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 5mph Gusts, 2mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.05 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: Locked for 9 hours, magnetic injections currently running. Long list of planned maintenance today, see the Trello for more details.

H1 CDS
erik.vonreis@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:30, Tuesday 22 July 2025 (85903)
Workstations updated

Workstations were updated and rebooted.  This was an OS packages update.  Conda packages were not updated.

H1 General
anthony.sanchez@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:12, Monday 21 July 2025 (85902)
Ops EVE Shift End

TITLE: 07/22 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Acquisition
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan S
SHIFT SUMMARY:
Every thing was locked and humming along until the sudden lockloss from the 6.5M Earthquake off coast of Russia.
Held in Down for ~2.5 hours while the Earth rang down.
Ran an Initial Alignment and H1 is currently at CARM_OffSET reduction.
Wind is vey low, ground motion has dropped should be a good night of locked IFO.
LOG:
No Log

H1 General (Lockloss, SEI)
anthony.sanchez@LIGO.ORG - posted 20:11, Monday 21 July 2025 (85901)
Lockloss from NLN

@ 02:08:55 UTC Known Lockloss caused by a 6.5M Earthquake. I'm using the GEOFON site because USGS took ~ 10 min to report the quake.
Earthquake mode was activated, then less than 30 seconds later we were unlocked.
No earthquake was listed as incoming, Picket fence was lit up and had active ground motion.
 

 

 

Images attached to this report
Displaying reports 2181-2200 of 85644.Go to page Start 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 End