Firstly I am very sorry for the length of this alog
I needed to finish up the comparisons for the satamps that were swapped on Tuesday (86207), as well as rerun almost all of the other comparison damp regression plots for every suspension that has had its satamp swapped out for ECR E2400330, either with different times or with the loop suppression divided out. There were also multiple changes made to the damp_regression_compare.m file. So I've gone and done that, so here are the results in this master post. I will link to the old results when applicable. They are out of order as compared to when their satamps were swapped.
damp_regression_compare.m
Now creates a plot of the ratios, lists important IFO info, and saves some of the variables to a .mat file
found in /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/Common/MatlabTools/damp_regression_compare.m
newest version is r12583
Input
IM1
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM1/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM1_M1_NoiseComparison_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM1/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM1_M1_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM1/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM1_M1_1437330256_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM1/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM1_M1_1438626136_1200.mat
r12561
IM2
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM2_M1_NoiseComparison_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM2_M1_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM2/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM2_M1_1437330256_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM2/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM2_M1_1438626136_1200.mat
r12562
IM3
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM3_M1_NoiseComparison_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM3_M1_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM3/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM3_M1_1437330256_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM3/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM3_M1_1438626136_1200.mat
r12563
IM4
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM4/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM4_M1_NoiseComparison_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM4/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM4_M1_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM4/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM4_M1_1437330256_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM4/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM4_M1_1438626136_1200.mat
r12560
MC1(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC1_M1_NoiseComparison_1437192600vs1437240215-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC1_M1_1437192600vs1437240215-1200.mat
r12557
MC2(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC2_M1_NoiseComparison_1436631330vs1438441235-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC2/SAGM1/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC2_M1_1436631330vs1438441235-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC2/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSMC2_M1_1438441235_1200.mat
r12554
MC3(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC3/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC3_M1_NoiseComparison_1437115850vs1437282002-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC3/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC3_M1_1437115850vs1437282002-1200.mat
r12558
PRM(original results)(added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PRM/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPRM_M1_NoiseComparison_1435154988vs1435435046-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PRM/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPRM_M1_1435154988vs1435435046-1200.mat
r12559
PR2(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PR2/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPR2_M1_NoiseComparison_1435154988vs1436654703-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PR2/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPR2_M1_1435154988vs1436654703-1200.mat
r12556
PR3(original results)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/PR3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPR3_M1_NoiseCompare_H1SUSPR3_M1_NoiseComparison_1435348334vs1435435046-1200.pdf
r12533
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/PR3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPR3_M1_1435348334vs1435435046-1200.mat
r12565
BS(original results)(added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BSFM/H1/BS/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSBS_M1_NoiseComparison_1435062667vs1435435038-1200.pdf
r12535
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BSFM/H1/BS/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSBS_M1_1435062667vs1435435038-1200.mat
r12567
Data (new before time):
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BSFM/H1/BS/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSBS_M1_1435062667_1200.mat
r12535
Output
SRM(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SRM/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSRM_M1_NoiseComparison_1435154988vs1435435046-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SRM/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSRM_M1_1435154988vs1435435046-1200.mat
r12568
SR2(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SR2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSR2_M1_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SR2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSR2_M1_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.mat
r12569
SR3(original results)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/SR3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSR3_M1_NoiseComparison_1435348334vs1435435046-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/SR3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSR3_M1_1435348334vs1435435046-1200.mat
r12570
OMC
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/OMCS/H1/OMC/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSOMC_M1_NoiseComparison_1437330259vs1438454240-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/OMCS/H1/OMC/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSOMC_M1_1437330259vs1438454240-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/OMCS/H1/OMC/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSOMC_M1_1438454240_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/OMCS/H1/OMC/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSOMC_M1_1437330259_1200.mat
r12582
SQZ
FC1
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC1/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSFC1_M1_NoiseComparison_1437766177vs1438449277-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC1/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSFC1_M1_1437766177vs1438449277-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC1/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSFC1_M1_1437766177_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC1/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSFC1_M1_1438449277_1200.mat
r12572
FC2
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSFC2_M1_NoiseComparison_1437766177vs1438449277-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSFC2_M1_1437766177vs1438449277-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC2/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSFC2_M1_1437766177_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC2/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSFC2_M1_1438449277_1200.mat
r12573
ITMs
ITMX M0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMX_M0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMX_M0_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.mat
r12574
ITMX R0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMX_R0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMX_R0_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.mat
r12575
ITMY M0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMY_M0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMY_M0_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.mat
r12576
ITMY R0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMY_R0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMY_R0_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.mat
r12577
ETMs
ETMX M0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_M0_NoiseComparison_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_M0_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.mat
r12578
ETMX R0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_R0_NoiseComparison_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_R0_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.mat
r12578
ETMX L1(original results)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGL1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_L1_NoiseComparison_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGL1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_L1_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.mat
r12579
ETMY M0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMY_M0_NoiseComparison_1436521059vs1438453617-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMY_M0_1436521059vs1438453617-1200.mat
r12580
Data (new after time):
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGM0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSETMY_M0_1438453617_1200.mat
r12548
ETMY R0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMY_R0_NoiseComparison_1436521059vs1438453617-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMY_R0_1436521059vs1438453617-1200.mat
r12580
Data (new before and after time):
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGR0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSETMY_R0_1436521059_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGR0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSETMY_R0_1438453617_1200.mat
r12550
TMSs
TMSX(original results)(added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/TMTS/H1/TMSX/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSTMSX_M1_NoiseComparison_1435150628vs1437199319-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/TMTS/H1/TMSX/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSTMSX_M1_1435150628vs1437199319-1200.mat
r12553
TMSY(original results)(added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/TMTS/H1/TMSY/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSTMSY_M1_NoiseComparison_1437213557vs1437257352-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/TMTS/H1/TMSY/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSTMSY_M1_1437213557vs1437257352-1200.mat
r12581
More satamp comparison plots here: 87351
For PRM (M2, M3), SRM (M2, M3), BS (M2), ITMX (L1), ITMY (L1), ETMY (L1), SR2 (M2, M3), PR2 (M2, M3)
TITLE: 08/07 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 151Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan S
SHIFT SUMMARY: Locked for 4 hours, observing for 35min. Had a bit of a pivot today since we needed to clear some tumbleweeds from the overpass. This took up much of our commissoining time, as well as an earthquake delaying lock reacquistion, so we were approved for some afternoon commissioning.
LOG:
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19:33 | SAF | Laser HAZARD | LVEA | YES | LVEA is Laser HAZARD | 11:33 |
| 15:02 | SPI | Jeff | Opt Lab | YES | Fiber collimation | 18:41 |
| 15:35 | PEM | Robert | LVEA | YES | Measurement setup and peeking through viewports | 18:34 |
| 15:42 | FAC | Chris, Randy | Overpass | n | Tumbleweed clearing | 18:35 |
| 16:09 | VAC | Janos, Anna | MX, MY | n | Taking a look | 16:37 |
| 16:13 | FAC | Kim, Nelly | OSB rec. | n | Opening rollup door and driving out stuffs | 16:53 |
| 18:05 | ISC | Jennie, Francisco | Opt Lab | YES | Using laser and oscilliscope | 18:05 |
| 18:48 | VAC | Gerardo | LVEA | yes | Checking on turbo pumps | 18:58 |
| 19:34 | PEM | Robert | LVEA | YES | Pictures at view ports | 21:34 |
| 20:38 | ISC | Elenna | LVEA | YES | Plugging in cable at PSL racks | 20:58 |
| 20:58 | FAC | Tyler | EY | n | Chiller yard check | 21:28 |
| 22:00 | ISC | Elenna | LVEA | YES | Unplugging cable at PSL racks | 22:05 |
| 22:27 | PEM | Robert | LVEA | YES | Shutting measurements down | 22:33 |
| 22:28 | PCAL | Francisco | PCAL lab | Yes | PCAL or SPI | 22:31 |
| 23:05 | ISC | Jennie | Opt Lab | YES | ISS array work | 23:24 |
TITLE: 08/07 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 147Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: TJ
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 13mph Gusts, 5mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.07 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: H1 just returned to observing after commissioning for most of the day and has been locked for over 3 hours.
Camilla noted that the Opo pump iss was close to saturating, because our launched power has increased quickly at this new crystal position.
I've reduced the OPO trans set point to 75 uW from 80uW, which brought the control signal back to 2.5 V.
I've updated some of the thresholds on SATMON.adl for suspensions that have had their DAC cards upgraded in recent months, alog84509. The 18 bit thresholds have been updated to 20 bit for the following
BS M1 F1F2F3LF RTSD
ITMY M0 F1F2F3SD LFRT
ITMY L1 ULLLURLR
ITMX M0 F1F2F3SD LFRT
ITMX L1 ULLLURLR
I went out to plug in the frequency noise injection cable at the PSL racks and found it was already plugged it. This is probably my fault- a quick alog search turned up this alog, written by me: 85363. So it maybe have been plugged in for over a month while we were in observing.
I made sure to unplug the cable at the end of my injections today!
Thu Aug 07 10:07:03 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 6min 59secs
Lockloss at 2025-08-07 16:15UTC after 5.5 hours Locked due to some fast tractoring it's looking like an ETMX glitch :(
Ran our usual calibration measurements this morning following the wiki instructions. We plan to make some bias changes and then run this again. I'll comment to this log with that info.
Simulines start:
PDT: 2025-08-07 08:36:03.467961 PDT
UTC: 2025-08-07 15:36:03.467961 UTC
GPS: 1438616181.467961
Simulines end:
PDT: 2025-08-07 08:59:22.221768 PDT
UTC: 2025-08-07 15:59:22.221768 UTC
GPS: 1438617580.221768
Files:
2025-08-07 15:59:22,060 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/DARMOLG_SS/DARMOLG_SS_
20250807T153604Z.hdf5
2025-08-07 15:59:22,068 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/PCALY2DARM_SS/PCALY2DA
RM_SS_20250807T153604Z.hdf5
2025-08-07 15:59:22,072 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L1_SS/SUSETMX_
L1_SS_20250807T153604Z.hdf5
2025-08-07 15:59:22,077 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L2_SS/SUSETMX_
L2_SS_20250807T153604Z.hdf5
2025-08-07 15:59:22,081 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L3_SS/SUSETMX_
L3_SS_20250807T153604Z.hdf5
The lock loss that we had over night was unfortunately an ETMX glitch. We hadn't seen one since changing the ETMX bias July 28th so we were hopeful that it was the fix. Sad.
TITLE: 08/07 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 144Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan C
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 5mph Gusts, 1mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.08 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: Locked for almost 4 hours. Had a GRB (E587865) short come through at 1046UTC just a few minutes after we got to observing. Plan for today is commissioning and calibration from 1530-1900UTC.
TITLE: 08/07 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 151Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan C
SHIFT SUMMARY:
IFO is in NLN and OBSERVING since Aug 5 22:22 UTC (30 hr 40 min lock!)
Nothing to add other than well done everyone (particularly comissioners) for contributing to such a stable IFO state - this is definitely the O4c record so far.
LOG:
None
Ivey,
I finished the yaw-to-yaw transfer functions for the OSEM estimator using the corrected measurements that Oli took for SR3 yesterday [see LHO: 86202].
The fits were added to the Sus SVN and live inside '~/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/Common/FilterDesign/Estimator/fits_H1SR3_2025-08-05.mat'. They are already calibrated to work on the filter banks for the estimator and can be installed using 'make_SR3_yaw_model.m', which is in the same folder.
Attached below are two images of the fits for the estimator.
The first attachment shows the Suspoint Y to M1 DAMP Y fit. The zpk for this fit is
'zpk([0,0,-0.027+20.489i,-0.064+11.458i,-0.027-20.489i,-0.064-11.458i],[-0.072+6.395i,-0.072-6.395i,-0.096+14.454i,-0.096-14.454i,-0.062+21.267i,-0.062-21.267i],-0.001)'
The first attachment shows the Suspoint Y to M1 DAMP Y fit. The zpk for this fit is
'zpk([-0.002+19.224i,-0.007+8.31i,-0.002-19.224i,-0.007-8.31i],[-0.06+6.398i,-0.06-6.398i,-0.091+14.439i,-0.091-14.439i,-0.074+21.29i,-0.074-21.29i],12.184)'
TITLE: 08/06 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 147Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
SHIFT SUMMARY: Very quiet day with H1 observing throughout except for just a few minutes this morning. H1 has now been locked for over 25 hours.
LOG:
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19:33 | SAF | Laser HAZARD | LVEA | YES | LVEA is Laser HAZARD | Ongoing |
| 15:43 | CAL | Rick | PCal Lab | Local | SPI BS measurements | 17:11 |
| 15:43 | FAC | Kim | Optics Lab | N | Technical cleaning | 16:14 |
| 16:19 | CAL | Dripta | PCal Lab | Local | SPI BS measurements | 17:11 |
| 17:52 | FAC | Randy | MY | N | Looking for materials | 18:22 |
| 18:34 | SPI | Jeff | Optics Lab | N | SPI measurements | 19:56 |
| 19:57 | VAC | Travis | MX | N | Leak checking | 20:30 |
| 20:53 | CDS | Marc | MY | N | Looking for parts | 21:31 |
| 21:14 | VAC | Travis, Janos | MX | N | Pump checks | 21:20 |
| 21:20 | ISC | Camilla | Optics Lab | N | Sorting totes | 22:38 |
| 21:44 | SPI | Jeff | Optics Lab | Local | SPI measurements | 23:11 |
| 21:54 | ISC | Jennie | Optics Lab | Local | ISS array work | 22:50 |
| 22:21 | CAL | Dripta | PCal Lab | Local | SPI BS measurements | 22:38 |
| 23:07 | ISC | Jennie | Optics Lab | - | Checking code | 23:14 |
I posted LHO:81917 regarding the calibrated ASC coupling functions. At the time, my results seemed wildly large and I was certain I had made some calibration error somewhere, and indeed I had. Lee reached out last week since he is working on something similar for his optimal controls work, see LLO:77901. These are the calibration errors I made:
The full counts of drive to Nm of torque conversion factor is therefore: (20 / 2**20) * 0.268e-3 * 0.0309 * 70.7e-3 * 4 * 3.5355 * 4 = 6.317e-10 Nm/ct
Lee also pointed out instead of using the modeled free suspension plant, I should be using the radiation pressure modified plant. This is correct, however for the purposes of calibrating the coupling function the effect is mostly the same, since we know that the rad/Nm transfer function is the same at 10 Hz within a few percent for zero power and high power.
However, for completeness, and because it matters for other calibrations, I did this instead:
The end result is much more sensible, resulting in a coupling function around 30 Hz that is about 1 mm/rad for both pitch and yaw. This is still "high" in the sense that Matt and Lisa assumed a coupling on the order of 0.1 mm/rad in T0900511.
I went a step further to check the linearity of the coupling. I measured the transfer function of ASC to DARM during the noise budget injection times. However, the noise budget is usually calculated with an excess power projection, so we have both quiet and injection times taken. Using the same calibration method, I compare the excess power coupling function with the linear transfer function coupling function. They appear to be nearly the same, showing that the ASC coupling is dominated by linear behavior.
Back in March 2024, Gabriele, Louis, and I did several tests of the DHARD Y coupling while adjusting the ITMY Y2L gain (centering of the beam on ITMY in yaw) and the AS A yaw WFS offset (centering of the beam on the DHARD Y sensor). I used the method above to calibrate the measured couplings so we can better understand the effect of each.
First, I used data where Gabriele and I adjusted the ITMY Y2L gain and measured the DHARD Y coupling. I calculated the linear coupling function at each Y2L gain, so we could observe the effect of the phase of the coupling as the Y2L gain is changed. Using the a2l_lookup matlab function in /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/isc/common/scripts/decoup/BeamPosition, I calibrated the A2L gains into spot position in mm from the center.
While adjusting the beam position reduced the DHARD Y coupling above 25 Hz reduced as the beam moved from about 6.4 mm to 4.4 mm from center, the low frequency steep coupling appears to increase.
The flat coupling was overall higher at this time (at best reaching about 5 mm/rad), possibly because the other test mass A2L gains were not completely optimized.
Next, Gabriele and Louis varied the AS A WFS yaw offset between -0.2 and -0.1 and measured the same coupling. I again calculated the linear coupling function for each step. It appears that both the magnitude and the frequency dependence of the steep coupling varies with the offset. At an offset of -0.2, the coupling is more like 1/f^2, but at an offset of -0.1 it is more like 1/f^4.
We are currently operating with zero WFS yaw offset.
Today, Sheila and I decided to increase the ETMX ESD bias voltage. We would like to operate at a higher bias for a short period to see if the extra actuation range allows us to survive the ETMX glitch locklosses. However, we also wanted to understand what effect this has on our range.
Sheila made small steps to increase the ETMX bias voltage and adjusted the L3 drivealign gain accordingly. After every step, I measured the DARM open loop gain and we adjusted the drivealign gain further to maintain the DARM UGF. Once we doubled the voltage, we further adjusted the drivealign gain to bring kappa TST to one. It's important to note that we saw that the correction factor required to maintain the UGF (at 70 Hz) was slightly different than the correction factor required to bring kappa TST back to 1 (measured at 17.6 Hz).
We took a PCAL broadband measurement at the regular and double bias configurations (documented here). Even with kappa TST near 1, there was a small frequency-dependent difference between the two measurements.
Sheila then took us back and forth from the double bias to regular bias states so we could get some noise comparison times to determine if the noise is worse with double bias.
| Times in UTC | Start | End |
| double bias | 17:41:58 | 18:03:37 |
| single bias | 18:08:20 | 18:17:30 |
| double bias | 18:18:37 | 18:26:37 |
| single bias | 18:27:40 | 18:35:40 |
I exported the PCAL broadband injections and used them to calibration GDS strain for the four times above into PCAL meters. The noise from 15-400 Hz looks to be the same for each time, so I don't think there will be a significant impact to the sensitivity if we double the bias.
I ran a linear regression fit on the voltage and drivealign data from our steps, using this document as reference. I was able to fit alpha - gamma (slope) and the beta values (y-intercept). I calculate alpha - gamma = 9.14e-10 N/V^2 and beta - beta2 = -4.08e-8 N/V
We are planning to go to this double bias for some time to see if reduces the number of ETMX glitch locklosses.
We've done this change with a guardian shell. I've attached a text file with options that people can use to do these steps, or revert them.