Displaying reports 221-240 of 83107.Go to page Start 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 End
Reports until 13:02, Wednesday 25 June 2025
H1 ISC
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:02, Wednesday 25 June 2025 - last comment - 15:46, Thursday 26 June 2025(85330)
SRM alignment on POP vs AS72

Today I was able to drive a line on SRM pitch and yaw, aka SRC1 P and Y, in an attempt to understand how the SRM alignment signal appears in various sensors. Our current configuration has SRM alignment controlled via the AS RF72 signal, which is the beat of the 118 MHz and the 45 MHz.

To do this measurement, I engaged the usual 8.125 Hz notches in the ASC loops, and drove at 8.125 Hz at the SRC1 SM exc point. I measured the signals in the I and Q phase on AS RF72, AS RF45, AS RF36 and POP X RF, which is a 45 MHz demod.

First, it is very hard to drive a large enough signal to even see the line in AS RF72 compared to other sensors. We are currently operating with 1 stage of whitening on RF72, for reference. The attachment shows how the signals appeared in the AS WFS as well as the POP WFS for pitch and yaw.

Once I took this measurement, I looked at the time series of the signals. POPX 45 Q pitch has an offset that corresponds to 1.5 urad of SRM pitch offset. I calculated this calibration factor from my injection: 7.37e-5 SRM pitch urad/POPX pit ct. The POPX Q yaw signal also had an offset, but it was much smaller, only 0.24 urad, calibration factor 3.25e-4  SRM yaw urad/ POPX yaw ct

On June 5, the SQZ team adjusted the SRCL digital offset, and when the SRCL digital offset was zero, the POPX Q offsets corresponded to about 0.09 urad of SRM pitch offset and 0.05 urad of SRM yaw offset (sqz alog).

In the past, we have operated with some SRC1 offset, however, that offset is remarkably small compared to even the dark offsets we have applied to the AS RF72 channels. SRC1 p offset was set to -0.042, SRC1 Y to 0.098, while the four segment dark offsets on RF72 Q are -17.8, 0.2, 2.2, 12.9 (medm screenshot).

Overall, I think we should consider a few things:

Sheila has suggested we open the SRC1 loop and try stepping the offset while monitoring the buildups, the effect of the SRCL offset on SQZ, and the overall offsets in AS RF72 and POPX Q.

Whatever effect alignment offsets in the SRC are having on the SRCL detuning seems to be much smaller in yaw than in pitch.

To calibrate the AS RF72 signals into SRM angle, we can use these factors:

0.274 SRM pit urad/ AS RF72 pit ct

0.173 SRM yaw urad/ AS RF72 yaw ct

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 15:46, Thursday 26 June 2025 (85366)

Today, Sheila and I followed up on this, and the results are a bit confusing, but somewhat promising.

To start, Sheila reran the "brontosaurus plot" measurement, where FIS is injected to help determine the SRCL offset. She reports this work here.

While she changed the SRCL offset, I once again monitored the AS RF72 and POP X signals. As Sheila changed the SRCL offset, the offset in POPX did change the same way as I saw yesterday, which is not that surprising.

Then, when Sheila set the SRCL offset to zero, I tried opening the SRC1 loop and moving SRM around. The first thing I noticed is that the calibration I calculated yesterday seems bad, since I was adjusting the SRM yaw by 11 urad (according to the slider calibration), but the change in the POP X yaw offset corresponded to less than 1 urad (according to my measured calibration from yesterday).

I moved yaw in only one direction, with the goal of seeing if I could reduce the POP X yaw offset. However, I gave up after 11 urad because it didn't seem to be doing much at all except to small effect on POP X yaw.

Next, I tried moving SRM in pitch. I went the positive direction, and Sheila and I immediately saw the buildups get worse, so then I went the other way and the buildups got better! This corresponded to a 20 urad change in SRM pitch, according to the alignment slider. The change in the POP X pitch offset was minimal.

We also saw kappa C increase quite a bit, almost too good to be true, so we didn't trust the value since we had a large SRCL detuning at the time. Sheila did see that the change in the SRM pitch had an effect on the squeezing as well.

However, Sheila then determined a better SRCL offset of -382, so we went there, and the kappa C leveled off to 1.02, which was better than our current nominal value of 1. This seemed to hold. Then, I stepped the SRM pitch offset back to the starting alignment and the buildups decreased and kappa C went back to 1.

Following the buildups, there seems to be a better alignment of the SRM in pitch. At this time it seems like yaw has no effect, but I only moved in one direction. I think that, whatever the SRCL offset is, we should move the SRM around in pitch and yaw and see if there is an improvement to be found in the buildups. My current hypothesis is that the RF72 dark offsets are creating some alignment offset in the SRC. After we find a good SRM alignment position, we can recheck the SRCL offset, hopefully with both a squeezing measurement and a sensing function.

We should also probably check the whitening on RF72, maybe next Tuesday.

These results are making me think that probably POP X Q would not make a good signal for SRC alignment, since it is dominated by the SRCL offset.

The first ndscope attached are showing the behavior of the POP X and RF72 signals while changing SRM alignment. The second shows the buildups and kappa C when changing SRM pitch and SRCL offset from 0 to -382.

Images attached to this comment
H1 SQZ
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:19, Wednesday 25 June 2025 - last comment - 14:27, Wednesday 25 June 2025(85329)
SQZ HD Dataset

Yesterday 85295 we took HD data just at the nominal 95uW OPO trans setpoint, today we changed the NLG and retook data, saved at /camilla.compton/Documents/sqz/templates/dtt/20250625_HD.xml

Strangely, when I started checking the NLG with 95uW, once the seed was injected, this dropped to 65uW, I then increased injected seed power form 0.5mW to 0.6mW, I also  increased the pump power as we were close to the edge of the AOM range.

Used SQZ_MANAGER SQZ_READY_HD (needed to change LO gain, see sdf).

Type NLG Angle SQZ (@500Hz) DTT Ref
LO shot noise N/A N/A Used as 0dB ref 1
ASQZ 10 (+) 206 14.3dB ref 2
SQZ 10 (-) 112 6.9dB ref 3
Mean SQZ 10 N/A 11.3dB ref 4
ASQZ 18 (+) 210 17.2dB ref 5
SQZ 18 (-) 112 7.3dB ref 6
Mean SQZ 18 N/A 14.1dB ref 7
ASQZ 21 (+) 210 17.5dB ref 8
SQZ 21 (-) 110 7.4dB ref 9
Mean SQZ 21 N/A 14.7dB ref 10
ASQZ 14 (+) 206 15.6dB ref 11
SQZ 14 (-) 113 7.4dB ref 12
Mean SQZ 14 N/A 12.7dB ref 13
 
OPO Setpoint Amplified Max Amplified Min UnAmp Dark NLG OPO Gain
95uW 0.0730506 0.002413 0.006841 8.4e-5 10.81 -8
115uW 0.122166 0.002215     18.08 -8
120uW 0.141799 0.0021763     20.99 -8
105uW 0.0942627 0.0023351     13.95 -8
Comments related to this report
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - 12:28, Wednesday 25 June 2025 (85331)

Plot attached, we think that the SQZ is worse at NLG 10 that the other NLGs and we are considering running with NLG = 14.

Images attached to this comment
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 12:52, Wednesday 25 June 2025 (85332)

Here's a fit of Camilla's data, it shows that our OPO threshold has increased compared to 83070, and we still have the same efficiency for squeezing, which implies 6% unexplained loss, which hasn't been fixed by moving the crystal. 

This plot was made using this script

Images attached to this comment
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - 14:27, Wednesday 25 June 2025 (85337)OpsInfo

We decided that an OPO TRANS setpoint of 105uW for an NLG of 14 gave us slightly better squeezing, see attached BLRMS. Leaving this in.

If the Operators have any issues keeping the OPO locked at this higher output power, they could lower it slightly following the instructions in 70050 to drop it down to 100uW or 95uW.

Images attached to this comment
H1 ISC
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:38, Wednesday 25 June 2025 (85328)
OMC QPD offsets updated

Matt Todd, Sheila Dwyer

We moved the OMC alignment a bit in pitch while watching for a response in kappa C. The attached screenshots show the updated pitch offsets that have been accepted in safe and observe.   The next screenshot shows us stepping this around. 

Overall, we improved the optical gain by something like 0.5 %.  We would like to return to the yaw offsets to see if we can recover the 1% optical gain that we lost during the vent.

Images attached to this report
H1 General (Lockloss)
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:54, Wednesday 25 June 2025 - last comment - 13:47, Wednesday 25 June 2025(85327)
Lockloss

Lockloss during commissioning at 2025-06-25 17:52UTC after over 5.5 hours Locked. Cause not known, but probably not commissioning related.

Comments related to this report
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 12:56, Wednesday 25 June 2025 (85334)

18:48 Back to NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE

camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - 13:47, Wednesday 25 June 2025 (85335)TCS

Within the same ~15 seconds of the lockloss, we turned the CO2 powers down form 1.7W each to 0.9W each. In the hope of doing the thermalization tests we tried last week 85238.

We checked the lockloss today and LSC channels at the time last week we turned the CO2s down and see no glitches corresponding with the CO2 waveplate (out of vac) change, we think the lockloss was unrelated.

LHO VE
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:26, Wednesday 25 June 2025 (85325)
Wed CP1 Fill

Wed Jun 25 10:12:58 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 12min 55secs

 

Images attached to this report
H1 CDS
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:05, Wednesday 25 June 2025 - last comment - 10:41, Wednesday 25 June 2025(85323)
Update Vacuum MEDM and VACSTAT following yesterday's vacuum changes

MEDM

Confusingly we have been running with two separate copies of the vacuum overview MEDM.

CDS_OVERVIEW has been using /ligo/lho/h0/ve/medm/beckhoff/H0_VAC_SITE_OVERVIEW_CUSTOM.adl (not under any version control)

SITEMAP has been using /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/vacuum/h0/medm/Target/H0_VAC_SITE_OVERVIEW_CUSTOM.adl (under git version control)

It is the second one, which is git controlled, which should be used. I took the opportunity when fixing the MEDMs to remove use of the /ligo files and move CDS_OVERVIEW over to using the Target file.

Changes made to the site overview and committed to git (see attachment) are:

RED - HAM1 now only shows the new PT100_MOD2 gauge

YELLOW - IP24,IP25 have new names

PURPLE - text to show the local git working directory and git repo information

VACSTAT

I added the new HAM1 PT100_MOD2 gauge to VACSTAT last night. Initially I also removed the temporary H1 PT100B gauge, but then remembered this has channels in H1EPICS_VACSTAT.ini which caused EDC disconnects.

So for now VACSTAT has the new H0 PT100_MOD2 (not in DAQ) and the old H1 PT100B (in DAQ, but needs to be removed)

Trip levels were returned to pre-vent values.

 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - 10:12, Wednesday 25 June 2025 (85324)

NOTE that PT114 is currently disabled in VACSTAT, this cold-cathode is yet to "catch" following yesterday's restart of h0vacly

david.barker@LIGO.ORG - 10:41, Wednesday 25 June 2025 (85326)

The control room FOM caqtdm version of the vacuum overview was upgraded and nuc22 rebooted at 10:35

Images attached to this comment
H1 SQZ
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:53, Wednesday 25 June 2025 (85320)
No SQZ Range Comparison

I just took some No SQZing time (starting at 2025-06-25 15:01 UTC (1427040078)) and compared it to the pre-vent No SQZ Time of 2025-03-26 16:01 UTC (1427040078). I used the command python3 range_compare.py 1427040078 1434898893 --span 600. I originally wanted to use a time span of half an hour instead of 10 minutes, but the March time had some sort of glitch that messed up its range calculation, and the range calculation for today's time was the same, so I went with 10 minutes. Here's the range comparison.

Non-image files attached to this report
H1 General
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:34, Wednesday 25 June 2025 - last comment - 08:24, Wednesday 25 June 2025(85318)
Ops Day Shift Start

TITLE: 06/25 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 145Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: TJ
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 5mph Gusts, 2mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.06 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

Observing and have been Locked for almost 2.5 hours. Range is okay at 145Mpc, it looks like its been drifting a bit down since the lock started.

Comments related to this report
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 08:24, Wednesday 25 June 2025 (85319)ISC, Lockloss

Looking at the lockloss from last night (2025-06-25 11:02 UTC - note that the 'refined lockloss time' is one whole second early than the actual lockloss time), it's immediately clear that we lost lock due to a quick ringup, but it is unclear where that ringup came from or what frequency it was actually at. We can see an 8Hz oscillation in DARM one second before the lockloss, but looking at the LSC channels, SRCL sees a 1.5 Hz oscillation right before the lockloss, and PRCL has a 4.5 Hz oscillation (although the PRCL oscillation could be unrelated, although it does look like it grows a bit larger). In the ASC channels, MICH P OUT has a ringup at ~3.8 Hz in that last second, and some of the other ASC channels look like they maybe also have some sort of excursion right before the lockloss.

Images attached to this comment
LHO VE (VE)
gerardo.moreno@LIGO.ORG - posted 02:14, Wednesday 25 June 2025 - last comment - 04:00, Friday 27 June 2025(85317)
Annulus Ion Pump for BSC1 Rails

Signal railed about 5:18 PM local time, I checked trend data for PT120 and PT180 and no pressure rise noted inside the main volume.  Attached is 3 day trend of the pump behavior, very glitchy for a long while already.

System will be evaluated as soon as possible.  AIP last replaced on 2015, see aLOG 18261.

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

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

Images attached to this comment
H1 General (Lockloss)
anthony.sanchez@LIGO.ORG - posted 21:23, Tuesday 24 June 2025 (85315)
Lockloss from NLN

Lockloss From Nominal_Low_Noise @ 03:01:08 UTC.

I'm not exactly sure what caused this LL .

Images attached to this report
H1 GRD (ISC)
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:38, Tuesday 24 June 2025 - last comment - 17:16, Wednesday 25 June 2025(85309)
Guardian edits to speed up ADS

Ryan S., Elenna

Ryan and I are still trying to speed up the MOVE_SPOTS state. Today, Ryan implemented new code that checks the convergence of the loops and only ramps up the ADS gains of loops that are not yet converged to help them converge faster. This appeared to work well, although the state is still slow. We are now taking the spots to the FINAL spots that the camera servos go to, instead of some old spot, so it's possible that which loops that are far off have changed.

Ryan also pointed out that the ENGAGE_ASC_FOR_FULL_IFO state is taking a while because it is limited by the convergence of the PIT3 ADS. This is likely because the POP A offset used in DRMI ASC is not quite right, so I adjusted it for pitch so the PRM should be closer to the full lock position. SDFed.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 12:55, Wednesday 25 June 2025 (85333)

With regards to ENGAGE_ASC_FOR_FULL_IFO, the three locks that we've had after the adjustment made yesterday have made the state take an average of 4.5 minutes to get through. Before making this change, it was taking us an average of 8.5 minutes (looking at the four locks before this change), so this has made a big improvement for this state!

However, it looks like the main reason why this state still takes a pretty long time compared to most other states is because it's still needing to wait a long time for the PIT3 and YAW3 ADS to converge (ndscope). Here's the log from this last time that we went through ENGAGE_ASC and you can see that most of the time is waiting for ADS. The actual wait timers in there are only 50 seconds of waiting, so the rest of the wait timers (the one second timers) are just from the convergence checker.

Images attached to this comment
Non-image files attached to this comment
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 17:16, Wednesday 25 June 2025 (85350)

I updated the POP A yaw offset so that PRC1 in DRMI will bring the PRM closer to the full lock point and hopefully make convergence in this state faster.

Images attached to this comment
H1 ISC
anthony.sanchez@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:09, Tuesday 24 June 2025 - last comment - 09:31, Wednesday 25 June 2025(85307)
Range Comparison: April 2024 vs Today.

Range comparison plot:
Command Ran:  python3 range_compare.py 1396833438 1434842418 --span 1800
time 1 is April 11th 2024
time 2 is today at 23:20 UTC June 24th 2025
 

Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 17:25, Tuesday 24 June 2025 (85308)

I ran two brucos, one on NOLINES and one on CLEAN.

bruco NOLINES

bruco CLEAN

Overall, the message of Tony's alog is that, relative to our best range, we have lost 10 Mpc by the time we reach 100 Hz, and an additional 5 Mpc by the time we reach 1 kHz. The brucos above show a lot of low level coherence with: MICH, SRCL, PRCL, REFL RIN. There is a chance that making additional improvements to the feedforward can help. Right now it's hard to tell how many Mpc that gets us back, but it's where we should start.

oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 09:21, Wednesday 25 June 2025 (85321)

I made a range comparison with a time form last night when we got up to 155Mpc (Jun 25, 2025 05:07:30 UTC (1434863268)) and compared it to a time of good range before the vent, Apr 01, 2025 03:05:42 UTC (1427511960). Here's the range comparison.

Non-image files attached to this comment
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 09:31, Wednesday 25 June 2025 (85322)

This is interesting because it indicates that the range loss at low frequency in DARM now versus right before the vent is much smaller, only 3 Mpc. But looking back to our best range in April 2024, there is even more loss in sensitivity at low frequency.

Displaying reports 221-240 of 83107.Go to page Start 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 End