Have remained locked and in observing. No issues.

TITLE: 02/27 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 117Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: TJ
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_CONF state: TEST_SWARM
    Wind: 3mph Gusts, 1mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.32 μm/s 
QUICK SUMMARY: No issues.

Out from 1122-1124UTC.

H1:SQZ-OPO_REFL_DC_POWER abruptly jumped up to about 1.9, rather than the usual slow increase from its normal value. The range still showed a slow decay, so I recycled the SQZ_MANAGER and the REFL power is now back to around 1.02 and the range looks better.

TITLE: 02/26 Eve Shift: 00:00-08:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 118Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: TJ
SHIFT SUMMARY:

H1 plods along with a lock which is 33+hrs & steady range of 119Mpc.

Temperature variations at the end stations have stabilized. 
LOG:

• 0:00-0:20 Photos at MY (Kyle)
• 0:12 Finished bringing End Station FMCS back online (Bubba leaving EY when he phoned in)
• 0:14 ITMy MODE 12 gain change (Cheryl)
• 0:38 Hear plane flying by (& confirmed on Planemon here)
• 1:41-2:07 Optics lab work (Niko, Dripta, Rick)
• 2:15 EY high temperature alarm
  • 2:24 EX also goes high
  • 2:26 Left voicemail with Bubba.
• 7:21 GRB Short received.  Notified other Control Rooms.  Stand Down From 7:21-7:39 with INJ_Trans in INJECT KILL state for that period.

Smooth sailing with H1 locked almost 29.5hrs.  The End Station temperatures are stabilizing (thanks, Bubba!).  

Violin Damping guardian node as a User Message for a gain not at Guardian value for ITMy MODE 12 (Cheryl took the gain to 0.5).

So far we have:

• EY temperature is varying +/- 1.4 °F (from its average of ~65 °F).
• EX temperature is varying +/- 1.5 °F (from its average of ~65 °F).

Attached plot shows last 7-days.  Today there were some FMCS issues which came up (noted in Patrick's alog).

I left a voicemail on Bubba's cell phone.

I've been staring at some data to see if the wind fences have had a measureable effect on building tilts at the end stations. I'm still working on this, but I have a couple interesting plots, that I think show that the low frequency motion is more correlated now after the wind fence went up, than before. Attached plots are kind of like scatter plots for the .03-.1hz blrms motion for the ITMY and ETMY seismometers, i.e. each point represents the corner station blrms motion on the X axis and the end station motion on Y axis. If each station were moving the exact same at the moment, all of the points would lie on a one-to-one line.

First plot compares the ITMY Z, ETMX Z and ETMY Z ground STS .03-.1hz blrms. The blue points are for O3a, before the fences went up, red is O3b, after the fence went up. Most of the data falls on a line of slope 1,suggesting the motion is related  for this dof. Not suprising, because most of the motion in this direction at these frequencies has wavelengths many times the size of the site, so ends and corner are mostly moving together. Wind is more local, but doesn't show up in Z as strongly.

Second plot compares the X&Y for ITMY and ETMY ground STS. Again, blue points are O3a, red is O3b. Since the fence went up, the X&Y blrms now lie more on the 1 to 1 slope than they did before October. I would expect that if wind were still the strongest effect on the low frequency motion, the red lines would have stayed more "blobbish" in the lower right of the plot, for lower velocities. This is especially noticeable in the Y dof, which makes sense, given the orientation of the fence at EY. The fence will do a good job blocking winds coming from IFO +Y, and not at all for winds coming along X. Keep in mind the winds in the past 2 months have been much worse than during the entire O3a part of the run. It would instructive to run this on a similarly windy time prior to O3.

WP8550

As a preventative maintenance item, I rebooted h1dc0 and h1broadcast0 at 14:00 PST. Both machines are running GT2.6.35 (which has an instability if running over 208.5 days) and both machines had been running for 211 days (last reboot Tue 30 July 2019). As expected an FSCK was forced by the OS, which slowed the reboot times to about 10 minutes. Due to the unusual restart sequence the DAQ came back partially, and then reset itself.

I completed my script to restart all the FOM displays which are NDS clients, needed after every DAQ restart.

TITLE: 02/26 Eve Shift: 00:00-08:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 118Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Patrick
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_CONF state: TEST_SWARM
    Wind: 6mph Gusts, 4mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.37 μm/s 

Small step up in microseism from 22hrs ago, but still below 90th percentile.  Had recent small increase in winds for about 2hrs, but they have already dropped.
QUICK SUMMARY:

H1's been locked for 25+hrs with a range of 119Mpc.  Continue to operate H1 with SEI_CONF in the new TEST_SWARM state (heard Jim say that it is performing well and this change was approved by Keita).

TITLE: 02/26 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 120Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Corey
SHIFT SUMMARY: Remained locked the entire shift. Some brief commissioning. Issues with FMCS at end stations resolved by rebooting system. FMCS Compass server needs to be rebooted on Tuesday to finish updates. Hanford fire department was on site to burn tumbleweeds.
LOG:

16:01 UTC Clicked 'revert changes' on REMOTE_OWL_SELECTION medm. Kicked out of observing. Put back in observing.
16:11 UTC Niko to optics lab
Hanford fire department through gate to X arm to burn tumbleweeds
17:08 UTC Vanessa to mid X
18:23 UTC Knocked out of observing by squeezer. TJ taking opportunity to reload IFO node.
18:25 UTC Back to observing
20:19 UTC Christina to end Y to retrieve receipt from Norco
20:52 UTC Chris to optics lab
21:19 UTC FMCS INVALID alarm, H0:FMC-EX_AH_COOLTEMP_2_DEGF
Richard to end X to reset FMCS controller
22:01 UTC Out of observing. Dave restarting DAQ. Bubba to LVEA.
22:06 UTC Camilla to mechanical room
22:14 UTC Bubba back.
22:15 UTC Dave done. Sheila commissioning.
22:15 UTC Camilla back
22:22 UTC Sheila done commissioning
22:43 UTC Richard back. Back to observing.
23:17 UTC Bubba to end X mechanical room
23:29 UTC Bubba booting FMCS system at end X
23:33 UTC end X FMCS channels back
23:36 UTC Bubba heading to end Y to reboot FMCS system there
end Y FMCS back

Gerardo and I, with Rahul in training, bonded PUM ear S1201472 to the test mass ITM01 S3 flat.  (Yes, a PUM ear on a test mass - this was deemed acceptable in times of short test mass ear supply.)  The bonding was straight forward and placed with 0.04mm measured error along the beam path axis (0.1mm is the tolerance).  

Note this was the first bond in the new lab space. All systems up and working well, thanks to Bubba/Tyler/Chris and the many hours Travis spent to help move everything.

The second ear bonding session is scheduled for next week.

I measured the optical gain for different light levels on the DCPDs before and after lowering the 9MHz modulation depth.  We did this as we relocked. 

The scan started at 2:18:40 UTC Feb 23rd, and went until 3:05:23 UTC

Took ASC sensing matrix measurement with 'userapps/asc/h1/scripts/sensingMatrix/run_sensmat.py', using updated injection amplitudes. DHARD & CHARD yaw were too low to get a coherent measurement, I've left a note for next time.

ASC Sensing Matrix (Pitch), [W/rad]

ASC Sensing Matrix (Yaw), [W/rad]

Sheila, Jenne, Keita

Summary: We have some evidence that our sensitivity can be better with a higher DARM offset.

Details:

Last Thursday I took some data with the squeezer off at different DARM offsets, 55086 to compare with the data that Jenne took 54969. 

• The first attachment is just a GDS calib strain spectrum, and show data from the two DARM offsets that we used on Thursday and some data from a no squeezing reference time at our nominal 10pm DARM offset (from 54822).  The calibration lines at 17Hz, 410Hz, and 1.1kHz all line up to within 1% of each other in these three times in GDS. 
• The second plot shows the coherence between strain and the LSC control signals. The SRCL feed-forward is only well tuned for our nominal DARM offset, as expected.  The PRCL coherence is slightly increased by changing the DARM offset and MICH FF seems not to depend much on the DARM offset.  Jenne remeasured the feed-forward on Friday with the DARM offset at 14pm 55108.
• The third attachment  shows the same GDS spectra as the first attachment, but with an estimate (best possible) or the sensitivity we could get with perfect SRCL subtraction for all three cases (strain*sqrt(1-coh)).  There are several frequencies where the 14pm sensitivity is just a bit better than 10pm.

The high frequency noise is consistent with the measured change in optical gain and the dark noise:

• The 4th attachment shows kappa c and the DCPD current plotted against the x0 offset (the darm offset in picometers used for the DCPD normalization.)  Kappa C (the normalization for the sensing function used to compensate for time dependence in optical gain) is calculated by demodulating DARM err, which is measured after the normalization by x0.  This means that ideally, if the DCPD normalization by x0 was perfect, kappa C would not change with the DARM offset.  Kappa C does decrease for the 5pm DARM offset, which could be because of junk light that isn't sensitive to DARM.  In the lower panel of the 4th attachment the curve which is drawn there is a parabola defined by the 14pm measurement, just as a visual aid.
• The 5th attachment is shows how the sensitivity is improved at high frequency. Only the 5pm (gray colors) and 14pm data (reddish colors) are shown here.  The sum of dark noise and shot noise explains the degradation of the high frequency sensitivity for the low DARM offset, mostly because of the loss of optical gain.  This is from DCPD sum data calibrated into strain using pyDARM and correcting for changes in the fringe offset, kappa C, and the cavity pole frequency.  With an FFT length of 10 seconds, the calibration lines agree within 3%, the plots attached are with a 3 second FFT so that we can get more averages for the cross correlation. 

The last two plots show the low frequency sensitivity and the impact of SRCL subtraction, comparing our nominal DARM offset of 10pm to the candidate new offset of 14pm. 

• The 6th attachment shows the DCPD sum data while the 7th attachment shows the same thing for the DCPD cross correlation.  You can flip back and forth between them to see the difference if you like. 
• The SRCL noise is estimated based on coherence with the DCPD sum and is the same in both plots. 
• For the gray (10pm) case, the dashed line showing the measured sensitivity is directly on top of the sensitivity with the estimated SRCL noise subtraction, for the 14pm case there is a significant improvement from the estimated subtraction.  Where the solid maroon traces are below the gray traces, there is some improvement in the sensitivity with the reduced DARM offset.