Displaying reports 2501-2520 of 85666.Go to page Start 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 End
Reports until 12:27, Tuesday 08 July 2025
H1 SUS
filiberto.clara@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:27, Tuesday 08 July 2025 - last comment - 14:43, Tuesday 08 July 2025(85619)
Top Sat Amps Modified for ITMX/ITMY/SR2

WP 12655
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.

Suspension Old New
ITMY MO S1100071 S1100155
ITMY MO/RO S1100150 S1100175
ITMY RO S1100075 S1100178
ITMX MO S1100163 S1100136
ITMX MO/RO S1100147 S1000275
ITMX RO S1100132 S1100090
SR2 TOP S1100112 S1000296
SR2 TOP RT/SD S1100121 S1100067


F. Clara,  J. Kissel, O. Patane, M.Pirello

Comments related to this report
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - 13:58, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85625)
Link

ITMX ITMY Hardware Watchdog Countdowns, Test Mass Sat Amp swap-outs done in less than 20 minutes.

Images attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 14:02, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85626)
Link 

Here's the characterization data and fit results for  S1100155 , assigned to ITMY M0's F1F2F3SD OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just "ITMY MO" 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_S1100155_ITMY_M0_F1F2F3SD_20250703.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
ITMY     M0       S1100155         CH1                F1           0.0966:5.28       120.0       zpk([5.28],[0.0966],1,"n")
                                   CH2                F2           0.0961:5.25       120.0       zpk([5.25],[0.0961],1,"n")
                                   CH3                F3           0.0960:5.23       120.0       zpk([5.23],[0.0960],1,"n")
                                   CH4                SD           0.0951:5.18       120.5       zpk([5.18],[0.0951],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 with LHO:85504 :: Even though I've fit for the transimpedance gain, I've elected *not* to include a gain in the foton design string relative to "ideal," as there are more scale factors in play that determine the overall [(meters)/(ADC cts)] scale in the calibration of the OSEMs (LED light power, PD response, any cable loss, ADC channel gain, etc.). Determining this overall scale is better left to different methods, a la LHO:84548, which we (eventually) anticipate doing for all SUS with ECR E2400330 upgraded satamps.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 14:09, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85628)
Link 

Here's the characterization data and fit results for  S1100175 , assigned to ITMY M0/R0's LFRT/LFRT OSEMs, respectively (Fil refers to this as just "ITMY MO/RO" 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_S1100175_ITMY_M0R0_LFRTLFRT_20250703.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
ITMY     M0       S1100175         CH1                LF           0.0947:5.18     120           zpk([5.18],[0.0947],1,"n")
         M0                        CH2                RT           0.0969:5.30     120           zpk([5.30],[0.0969],1,"n")
         R0                        CH3                LF           0.0969:5.29     120           zpk([5.29],[0.0969],1,"n")
         R0                        CH4                RT           0.0965:5.28     120           zpk([5.28],[0.0965],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/

See above comment LHO:85626 regarding the intentional exclusion of transimpedance gain in the foton design string.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 14:18, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85629)
Link 

Here's the characterization data and fit results for  S1100178 , assigned to ITMY R0's F1F2F3SD OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just "ITMY RO" 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_S1100178_ITMY_R0_F1F2F3SD_20250703.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
ITMY     R0       S1100178         CH1                F1           0.0966:5.29     120           zpk([5.29],[0.0966],1,"n")
                                   CH2                F2           0.0957:5.23     120           zpk([5.23],[0.0957],1,"n")
                                   CH3                F3           0.0978:5.36     120           zpk([5.36],[0.0978],1,"n")
                                   CH4                SD           0.0955:5.22     120           zpk([5.22],[0.0955],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/

See above comment LHO:85626 regarding the intentional exclusion of transimpedance gain in the foton design string.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 14:21, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85630)
Link 

Here's the characterization data and fit results for  S1100136 , assigned to ITMX M0's F1F2F3SD OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just "ITMY MO" 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_S1100136_ITMX_M0_F1F2F3SD_20250703.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
ITMX     M0       S1100136         CH1                F1           0.0955:5.22     121.10        zpk([5.22],[0.0955],1,"n")
                                   CH2                F2           0.0980:5.35     121.25        zpk([5.35],[0.0980],1,"n")
                                   CH3                F3           0.0950:5.18     121.50        zpk([5.18],[0.0950],1,"n")
                                   CH4                SD           0.0977:5.34     121.50        zpk([5.34],[0.0977],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/

See above comment LHO:85626 regarding the intentional exclusion of transimpedance gain in the foton design string.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 14:33, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85631)
Link 

Here's the characterization data and fit results for  S1000275 , assigned to ITMX M0/R0's LFRT/LFRT OSEMs, respectively (Fil refers to this as just "ITMX MO/RO" 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_S1000275_ITMX_M0R0_LFRTLFRT_20250703.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
ITMX     M0       S1000275         CH1                LF           0.0963:5.27     120           zpk([5.27],[0.0963],1,"n")
         M0                        CH2                RT           0.0950:5.19     120           zpk([5.19],[0.0950],1,"n")
         R0                        CH3                LF           0.0960:5.26     120           zpk([5.26],[0.0960],1,"n")
         R0                        CH4                RT           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/

See above comment LHO:85626 regarding the intentional exclusion of transimpedance gain in the foton design string.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 14:36, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85633)
Link 

Here's the characterization data and fit results for  S1100090 , assigned to ITMX R0's F1F2F3SD OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just "ITMX RO" 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_S1100090_ITMX_R0_F1F2F3SD_20250703.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
ITMX     R0       S1100090         CH1                F1           0.0945:5.16     120.25        zpk([5.16],[0.0945],1,"n")
                                   CH2                F2           0.0963:5.26     120.00        zpk([5.26],[0.0963],1,"n")
                                   CH3                F3           0.0977:5.34     120.00        zpk([5.34],[0.0977],1,"n")
                                   CH4                SD           0.0950:5.19     120.00        zpk([5.19],[0.0950],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/

See above comment LHO:85626 regarding the intentional exclusion of transimpedance gain in the foton design string.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 14:40, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85634)
Link 

Here's the characterization data and fit results for  S1000296 , assigned to SR2 M1's T1T2T3LF OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just "SR2 TOP" 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_S1000296_SR2_M1_T1T2T3LF_20250703.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
SR2      M1       S1000296         CH1                T1           0.0955:5.22     122.00        zpk([5.22],[0.0955],1,"n")
                                   CH2                T2           0.0960:5.25     121.75        zpk([5.25],[0.0960],1,"n")
                                   CH3                T3           0.0969:5.28     122.25        zpk([5.28],[0.0969],1,"n")
                                   CH4                LF           0.0929:5.06     121.50        zpk([5.06],[0.0929],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/

See above comment LHO:85626 regarding the intentional exclusion of transimpedance gain in the foton design string.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 14:43, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85635)
Link 

Here's the characterization data and fit results for  S1100067 , assigned to SR2 M1's RTSDxxxx OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just "SR2 RT/SD" 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_S1100067_SR2_M1_RTSDxxxx_20250703.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
SR2      M1       S1100067         CH1                RT           0.0977:5.35     120           zpk([5.35],[0.0977],1,"n")
                                   CH2                SD           0.0975:5.34     120           zpk([5.34],[0.0975],1,"n")
                                   CH3                xx           0.0959:5.25     120           zpk([5.25],[0.0959],1,"n")
                                   CH4                xx           0.0969:5.31     120           zpk([5.31],[0.0969],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/

See above comment LHO:85626 regarding the intentional exclusion of transimpedance gain in the foton design string.
Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 PEM
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:56, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (84918)
Dust Monitor Quarterly Testing - FAMIS27661

Closes FAMIS27661

For the CS dust monitors:

LVEA:

5: It passed the zero count test after 3 rounds, there were 2 and 1 cts of 0.3 before which is still a pass, the flow was 2.6 and I adjusted it up to 2.8. PASS

6: It passed the zero count test after 2 rounds, there was 1 count of 0.3 before which is a pass, the flow was 2.8. PASS

10: It passed the the zero count test first round and had a flow of 2.8. PASS

Diode Room: It has a slightly high flow of 2.9 (within 5% of 2.8, acceptable) and I was not able to adjust it down from the dust monitor but it passed the zero count test. PASS

Labs:

Lab1: The optics lab passed the zero count test on the second round and has a flow rate of 2.7 which is within the 5% error stated in the manual. PASS

Lab2: The Clean and Bake lab passed the zero count tests first round and has a flow of 2.8. PASS

Lab3: The PCAL lab dust monitor is still being troubleshooted.

I did not enter the PSL enclosure or anteroom, RyanS will check them during the next incursion.

For the OUT building dust monitors:

FCES: There is no longer a dust monitor setup here, I borrowed it for the vent work as theres no vacuum pump out there so during observing its nominally off.

EndX: It passed the zero count test on the first round, the flow was 2.6 (just outside 5% out of range) and I went to check the vacuum pump at it was at -14.5 mmHg and it was at the end of its upper adjustable range. This may mean the vacuum pump is nearing time for a rebuild as I was not able to increase it from the dust monitor. Tentative PASS

EndY: It passed its zero count on the second round, and its flow was 2.75. PASS

H1 SUS (SUS)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:36, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85614)
Updated Inventory of SUS Damping Loop Open Loop Gain TF Measurements -- Now All SUS w/ UK Satamps Have Been Measured 
J. Kissel, O. Patane

We've completed our campaign of gathering open loop gain, loop suppression, and closed loop gain transfer functions of the top mass damping loops for all SUS that we expect to upgrade with ECR E2400330, which improves the whitening the OSEM sensors read out by UK satamps. Here's the updated inventory originally posted to LHO:85289.


Optic    aLOG             Templates                                                                                         
ETMX M0  LHO:85460        2025-07-01_1530_H1SUSETMX_M0_WhiteNoise_*_0p01to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml            QUAD L2 to QUAD R0 or TMTS M1 Tracking OFF
ETMX R0  LHO:85608        2025-07-08_1630_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml                            |

ETMY M0  LHO:85618        2025-07-08_1630_H1SUSETMY_M0_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml                            |                    
ETMY R0  LHO:68405        2023-04-04_1731_H1SUSETMY_R0_WhiteNoise_*_0p01to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml                            |

ITMX M0  LHO:85470        2025-07-01_1645_H1SUSITMX_M0_WhiteNoise_*_0p01to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml                            |    
ITMX R0  LHO:85605        2025-07-08_1530_H1SUSITMX_R0_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml                            |                                             

ITMY M0  LHO:85470        2025-07-01_1700_H1SUSITMY_M0_WhiteNoise_*_0p01to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml                            |                                         
ITMY R0  LHO:85606        2025-07-08_1510_H1SUSITMY_R0_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml                            |                                     

TMSX     LHO:85604        2025-07-08_1525_H1SUSTMSX_M1_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml                            |                                
                                                                                                                             V
TMSY     LHO:85467        2025-07-01_1645_H1SUSITMX_M0_WhiteNoise_*_0p01to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml                            _
 
BS       LHO:71269        2023-07-12_2000_H1SUSBS_M1_CDBIOState_1_WhiteNoise_*_0p01to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml                Oplev damping OFF
         LHO:71465        2023-07-18_1740_H1SUSBS_M1_CDBIOState_1_OLDampingON_WhiteNoise_*_0p01to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml    Oplev damping ON

MC1      LHO:85610        2025-07-08_1636_H1SUSMC1_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml

MC2      LHO:85610        2025-07-08_1615_H1SUSMC2_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml

MC3      LHO:85610        2025-07-08_1703_H1SUSMC3_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml

PRM      LHO:85292        2025-07-01_1815_H1SUSPRM_M1_CDBIOState_1_WhiteNoise_L_0p01to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml

PR2      LHO:85616        2025-07-08_1748_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml

PR3      LHO:64152        2022-07-26_1820_H1SUSPR3_M1_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml                            

SRM      LHO:85285        2025-07-01_1645_H1SUSITMX_M0_WhiteNoise_*_0p01to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml

SR2      LHO:85618        2025-07-08_1645_H1SUSSR2_M1_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml

SR3      LHO:85255        2025-05-21_1800_H1SUSSR3_M1_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml                            

FC1      LHO:85618        2025-07-08_1730_H1SUSFC1_M1_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGain.xml

FC2      LHO:85618        2025-07-08_1745_H1SUSFC2_M1_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGain.xml

OMC      LHO:60054        2021-09-28_1640_H1SUSOMC_M1_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGain_2014vs2021Designs.xml            

IM1      LHO:64039        2022-07-19_H1SUSIM1_M1_WhiteNoise_*_OLG.xml                                                       

IM2      LHO:64039        2022-07-19_H1SUSIM2_M1_WhiteNoise_*_OLG.xml                                                       

IM3      LHO:64039        2022-07-19_H1SUSIM3_M1_WhiteNoise_*_OLG.xml                                                      

IM4      LHO:64039        2022-07-19_H1SUSIM4_M1_WhiteNoise_*_OLG.xml
H1 SUS
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:30, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85618)
SUS OLTFs taken for ETMY M0, SR2, FC1, FC2

I've taken open loop transfer functions for the rest of the suspensions that we didn't have any (or had very old) for: ETMY M0, SR2, FC1, and FC2

These were all taken before the sat amp swap (0.4:10 satamp)

ETMY M0
- Measurements taken with suspension in HEALTH_CHECK but with damping loops on
    - optic align offsets off, L2->R0 damping off, etc
*Templates copied from ETMX M0
- V excitation amplitude had to be reduced from 5 to 1
- Y excitation amplitude had to be reduced from 25 to 5
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGM0/Data/2025-07-08_1630_H1SUSETMY_M0_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml r12399

SR2
- Measurements taken with suspension in HEALTH_CHECK but with damping loops on
    - optic align offsets off
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SR2/SAGM1/Data/2025-07-08_1645_H1SUSSR2_M1_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml r12401

FC1
- Measurements taken with suspension in HEALTH_CHECK but with damping loops on
    - optic align offsets off
    - *Measurements taken with HAM7 tripped because it was tripping all morning and I didn't want it to trip during measurements
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC1/SAGM1/Data/2025-07-08_1730_H1SUSFC1_M1_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGain.xml r12402

FC2
- Measurements taken with suspension in HEALTH_CHECK but with damping loops on
    - optic align offsets off
*Templates were copied over from FC1
- R excitation amplitude had to be reduced from 20 to 10
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC2/SAGM1/Data/2025-07-08_1745_H1SUSFC2_M1_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGain.xml r12404

H1 SQZ
daniel.sigg@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:27, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85617)
SQZ FSS beat note

Adjusted the SQZ FSS beat note by moving the waveplates. The RF demod siganl went from -3.2dBm to +6.5dBm.

Images attached to this report
H1 SUS (SUS)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:16, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85616)
H1SUSPR2 Open Loop Gain TFs 
J. Kissel

Continuing on the campaign of gathering open loop gain (and loop suppression & closed loop gain TFs), I measured H1SUSPR2's M1 damping loops this morning -- see
    /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PR2/SAGM1/Data/
        2025-07-08_1748_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1748_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1748_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1748_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1748_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1748_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml

SUS was in new HEALTH_CHECK state, but damping loops are *on.*
SEI / HPI / ISI was FULLY_ISOLATED, in its best performing state.

Data analysis and commentary to come.
LHO VE
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:09, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85613)
Tue CP1 Fill

Tue Jul 08 10:07:26 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 7min 22secs

 

Images attached to this report
H1 SUS
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:29, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85610)
H1 SUS MC1, MC2, and MC3 Open Loop Gain TFs 
J. Kissel

Continuing on the campaign of gathering open loop gain (and loop suppression & closed loop gain TFs), I measured the IMC suspension's MC1, MC2, and MC3 M1 damping loops this morning -- see
    /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/
        MC1/SAGM1/Data/
            2025-07-08_1636_H1SUSMC1_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
            2025-07-08_1636_H1SUSMC1_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
            2025-07-08_1636_H1SUSMC1_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
            2025-07-08_1636_H1SUSMC1_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
            2025-07-08_1636_H1SUSMC1_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
            2025-07-08_1636_H1SUSMC1_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml

        MC2/SAGM1/Data/
            2025-07-08_1615_H1SUSMC2_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
            2025-07-08_1615_H1SUSMC2_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
            2025-07-08_1615_H1SUSMC2_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
            2025-07-08_1615_H1SUSMC2_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
            2025-07-08_1615_H1SUSMC2_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
            2025-07-08_1615_H1SUSMC2_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml

        MC3/SAGM1/Data/
            2025-07-08_1703_H1SUSMC3_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
            2025-07-08_1703_H1SUSMC3_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
            2025-07-08_1703_H1SUSMC3_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
            2025-07-08_1703_H1SUSMC3_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
            2025-07-08_1703_H1SUSMC3_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
            2025-07-08_1703_H1SUSMC3_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml

The IMC was brought to OFFLINE beforehand, and I unmanaged the SUS_MC2 guardian to be sure the IMC guardian wouldn't override my wishes.
Each SUS was then brought to the new HEALTH_CHECK state but damping loops are *on.*
SEI / HPI / ISI was FULLY_ISOLATED, in its best performing state.

Data analysis and commentary to come.
H1 SEI (SEI)
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:27, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85609)
H1 ISI CPS Noise Spectra Check - Weekly (FAMIS #26051)

FAMIS Link:  26051

Only CPS channels which look (a little) higher at high frequencies (see attached) would be the following:

  1. ITMx St1 V1
  2. ITMy St1 H3
  3. ITMy St1 V3
Non-image files attached to this report
CPS_spectra_10:13-07_08_2025.pdf
H1 SUS
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:05, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85608)
H1 SUS ETMX R0 Damping Loop Gain TFs 
J. Kissel

Continuing on the campaign of gathering open loop gain (and loop suppression & closed loop gain TFs), I measured H1SUSETMX's reaction chain R0 damping loops this morning -- see
    /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGR0/Data/
        2025-07-08_1630_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1630_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1630_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1630_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1630_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1630_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml

SUS was in new HEALTH_CHECK state, so R0 tracking is OFF and alignment offsets are OFF, but damping loops are *on.*
SEI / HPI / ISI was FULLY_ISOLATED, in its best performing state.

Data analysis and commentary to come.
H1 ISC
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:02, Tuesday 08 July 2025 - last comment - 10:38, Tuesday 08 July 2025(85607)
Adding second whitening stage to AS A RF72

Last week I measured the AS RF72 WFS with and without whitening while the IMC was offline. The first attached plot compares the reference traces with the nominal one stage of whitening, and the live traces with no whitening. Based on that result, I determined that we probably should apply another stage of whitening to AS A RF72. Today I applied the second stage of whitening and saw that it makes a small improvement in the dark noise, again taken with the IMC offline. The second attached plot compares the reference traces with one stage of whitening and the live traces with two stages of whitening.

While changing the whitening, I noticed that the overall offsets of each segment change, each one by a different amount. I averaged the input signals over 30 seconds and used those values to update the dark offsets. Some segments are about the same, while others have changed. This SDF screenshot compares the old and new dark offsets for each segment. I also SDFed the second stage of whitening and anti-whitening compensation for all segments.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 10:38, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85611)
Link

I also increased the whitening gain of AS A RF72 by 6 dB (from 12 to 18 dB). I compensated that gain change in the anti-whitening filter bank FM6 with a -6 dB gain filter. I'm less certain of the overall effect this will have, but I hope it will help amplify the signal further relative to any ADC noise (see my alog here for reference). We use very little range on these PDs in full lock and during acquisition, so I don't think this will impact locking.

I reran the dark offsets after this change, and have SDFed them below. These diffs appear in both the ASC and CS ISC models. There will be observing diffs that should be accepted!

Images attached to this comment
H1 SUS
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:12, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85606)
SUS OLTFs taken for ITMY R0

We decided to quickly take OLTFs for the ITM R0 stages since we didn't have any yet.

Note: These measurements were taken with the 0.4:10 (old) satamp

ITMY R0
- Measurements taken with suspension in HEALTH_CHECK but with damping loops on
    - optic align offsets off, L2->R0 damping off, etc
- We needed to lower the excitation amplitude for V (10 -> 2.5) and Y(300 -> 10) to keep the suspension dac from overflowing and saturating. In the case of V, we could get full measurements with the excitation amplitude at 5, but the coherence was poor, so I lowered the amplitude to 2.5 and that worked to make sure the osems weren't being overdriven. These excitation filters were originally matches to the ETM R0 ones, but we had to adjust them.
Data: /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGR0/Data/2025-07-08_1510_H1SUSITMY_R0_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml r12395

H1 AOS
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:05, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85605)
H1 SUS ITMX R0 Reaction Chain Open Loop Gain TFs 
J. Kissel

Continuing on the campaign of gathering open loop gain (and loop suppression & closed loop gain TFs), I measured H1SUSITMX's reaction chain R0 damping loops this morning -- see
    /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGR0/Data/
        2025-07-08_1530_H1SUSITMX_R0_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1530_H1SUSITMX_R0_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1530_H1SUSITMX_R0_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1530_H1SUSITMX_R0_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1530_H1SUSITMX_R0_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1530_H1SUSITMX_R0_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml

SUS was in new HEALTH_CHECK state, so R0 tracking is OFF and alignment offsets are OFF, but damping loops are *on.*
SEI / HPI / ISI was FULLY_ISOLATED, in its best performing state.

Data analysis and commentary to come.
H1 SUS
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:02, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85604)
H1SUSTMSX M1 Damping Loop Open Loop Gain TFs 
J. Kissel

Continuing on the campaign of gathering open loop gain (and loop suppression & closed loop gain TFs), I measured that for H1SUSTMSX M1 damping loops this morning -- see

   /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/TMTS/H1/TMSX/SAGM1/Data/
        2025-07-08_1525_H1SUSTMSX_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1525_H1SUSTMSX_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1525_H1SUSTMSX_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1525_H1SUSTMSX_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1525_H1SUSTMSX_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
        2025-07-08_1525_H1SUSTMSX_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml

SUS was in HEALTH_CHECK state, with alignment offsets and it's companion QUAD's L2/TMS tracking off, but damping loops turned back ON.

Data analysis and commentary to come.
H1 General
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:32, Tuesday 08 July 2025 - last comment - 07:33, Tuesday 08 July 2025(85602)
Ops Day Shift Start

TITLE: 07/08 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Aligning
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Corey
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 9mph Gusts, 6mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.05 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

Currently we are in an initial alignment. I'll let that finish and then put the detector in idle

 

Comments related to this report
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 07:33, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85603)
Link

It was only doing input align so I just took the detector to IDLE once that offloaded

H1 AOS
erik.vonreis@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:01, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85601)
Workstations updated

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

H1 General
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - posted 06:21, Tuesday 08 July 2025 - last comment - 12:58, Tuesday 08 July 2025(85600)
H1 Owl Shift 545amPDT Wake Up Call: Due To Not Being To Get Past DRMI For Over 3hrs

Got a notification for H1 assistance.  H1 dropped from observing just under 3.5hrs ago.  After a couple of PRMI cycles, DRMI did lock within 40min, but immediately lost lock at DRMI LOCKED CHECK ASC.  Then an Initial Alignment was immediately run in just under an hour @1024UTC.  At this point, H1 attempted lock but had another lockloss at DRMI LOCKED CHECK ASC again, but after this lockloss H1 made it up to CARM 5PicoMeters for the next lockloss.  Next attempt made it to a CARM OFFSET Reduction Lockloss.  Then after no luck locking PRMI and it being over 3hrs, I got the wake up call.  

It's sounding like H1 has been having this Locking ailment as of late.

Going to let it finish a 2nd IA I started at @1253UTC after seeing that PRMI looked fine (flashes looked good on camera and are over 100 counts for POP18/90).  Initial Alignment just completed and locking clock is restarting. 

(Which is good, because my NoMachine is having the symptom that the mouse pointer does not match it's location in my No Machine session intermittantly (basically I'll have the mouse pointer over a spot, i.e. "X" to close an MEDM window, but when I try to click the "X" with the pointer, the pointer is actually, in the No Machine session, about 10" to the left (or right---basically somewhere else!), so it's hard to operate in my NoMachine session. The mouse would be fine on my laptop's monitor.  I've had this issue off and on for a few months.  With that said, ....after about 15min, my mouse now works OK in NoMachine!)

H1 is now back to DRMI (after the recent Alignment).  Camera flashes look centered and POP18/90 flashes are just under 200.  Leaving H1 for automatic operations  while I see if I can get return to sleep.  At 1325UTC/625amPDT, DRMI locked, btw.

Comments related to this report
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 12:58, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85622)
Link

It looks like before Corey was called, there were some locking attempts that got up past DRMI. Before he was called, there were two locklosses from DRMI_LOCKED_CHECK_ASC (which we have figured out was due to some SRC1 offsets being turned on by accident), then one lockloss from CARM_5_PICOMETERS, then two lockloss from CARM_OFFSET_REDUCTION. So that makes a lot more sense as to why it didn't call for three hours!

Images attached to this comment
H1 SEI
jim.warner@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:24, Thursday 03 July 2025 - last comment - 10:57, Tuesday 08 July 2025(85525)
HAM1 ISI tfs before and after adding Viton to ISC periscope

Thought I had posted this before, but couldn't find it, so here it is.  Attached plots compare L2L measurements of the HAM1 GS13s on May 21 during corner pumpdown before adding the periscope viton and June 6 the afternoon after we added viton. The Q and frequency of the 71.8hz mode is somewhat reduced, but the neighboring 69.9hz mode is sharper now, so I'm not sure we gained much. The June 6 measurement was collected in air, so I would still like to collect a set of in-vac measurements. This could probably be done on a Tuesday if there isn't too much activity around HAM1.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jim.warner@LIGO.ORG - 10:57, Tuesday 08 July 2025 (85612)
Link

I took 5-200hz matlab tfs this morning to compare to the  2 previous measurements above. It seems that the damping is quite effective now. I will try to look at the effect on the isolation filter design, maybe we can get some of the loop gain back. It would still be better to move these modes up above 100hz if possible.

Images attached to this comment
Displaying reports 2501-2520 of 85666.Go to page Start 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 End