FAMIS 27400
Laser Status:
NPRO output power is 1.858W
AMP1 output power is 70.71W
AMP2 output power is 140.2W
NPRO watchdog is GREEN
AMP1 watchdog is GREEN
AMP2 watchdog is GREEN
PDWD watchdog is GREEN
PMC:
It has been locked 33 days, 0 hr 29 minutes
Reflected power = 25.05W
Transmitted power = 106.7W
PowerSum = 131.8W
FSS:
It has been locked for 0 days 2 hr and 11 min
TPD[V] = 0.5278V
ISS:
The diffracted power is around 3.4%
Last saturation event was 0 days 3 hours and 41 minutes ago
Possible Issues:
PMC reflected power is high
Sun Oct 26 10:09:38 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 9min 34secs
TITLE: 10/26 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Wind
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Tony
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: USEISM
Wind: 31mph Gusts, 23mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.05 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.52 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: H1 has been down since 07:09 UTC and struggled to lock overnight due to high winds. Gusts are still high this morning, but I'll try to run H1 through an initial alignment and locking to see how far it gets.
H1 back to observing at 17:23 UTC
Ran an initial alignment then had H1 relock on its own. One lockloss during TRANSITION_FROM_ETMX, which I'm blaming on a combination of wind and microseism, but H1 made it to low noise on the second try fully automatically. I soon saw the 1 Hz ASC ringup after reaching NLN, so I tried raising the CSOFT_P gain to 30, but didn't see the ringup stop. Out of an abundance of caution I transitioned to high-gain ASC, which did stop the ringup, so a few minutes later I set the CSOFT_P gain back to 25.
I also had to run the switch_nom_sqz_states script for observing with squeezing to fix the nominal states of the SQZ Guardians since it looks like Tony must have run it at some point overnight.
H1 called me on my owl shift.
When I logged on I was suprised to learned we were only having troubles with the SQZ system in the wind that is howling and gusting to over 40mph.
Since
The SQZ_MAN was trying to get the SQZr back to FDS but kept getting hung up on FC_WAIT_FDS and would drop back down.
I was going to do Observing without squeezing to troubleshoot but we had a lockloss that I'm gonna blame on the wind.
https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~lockloss/index.cgi?event=1445499787
Running an initial alignment now.
holding in down for the wind to stop breaking the lock.
TITLE: 10/26 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 151Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Tony
SHIFT SUMMARY:
H1 finally back in buisiness. Had one lockloss during the shift, but relock was mostly automatic. Winds picked up in the last hour & microseism is still high. Owl Shift is on for tonight. H1 range is hovering around 153Mpc.
LOG:
H1 just had a lockloss, this was after observing for 30min with H1 ASC Hi Gn to ride out an EQ.
This relock was mostly automatic (I touched up ETMy/TMSy a tiny amount). After that, H1 automatically went through prmi-check mich fringes & then back to Observing automatically.
TITLE: 10/25 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 148Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan S
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 15mph Gusts, 12mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.04 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.55 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
H1 has been locked at NLN over 2hrs (yay!) after a rough week of no observing since Mon night. Ryan gave me a great summary of the issues/saga that went on all the way up till this morning when RyanS, Sheila, & Elenna fixed H1!
OPS ASSUMPTION: With H1 appearing back to normal, will assume there's an OWL shift for Tony (unless I hear otherwise)
OPS Handoff from RyanS:
We did just get a warning of an EQ and this one M6 in the South Pacific, AND the EQ Response graph has this EQ squarely on the "HIGH ASC" line. Because of this (and high microseism and the locking issues of the week), will proactively take H1 out oObserving to transition the ASC Hi Gn button a few minutes before the R-wave arrives (timer set!)
TITLE: 10/25 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 150Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Corey
SHIFT SUMMARY: Finally was able to get H1 back to observing today; see my earlier alogs for details on the efforts there. Since getting recovered, we had one lockloss from an unknown source but were able to relock easily. H1 has now been locked for just over 2 hours.
Lockloss @ 20:20 UTC after 1:15 locked - link to lockloss tool
Sadly a lockloss shortly after a triumphant return to observing. Nothing ringing up that I can see, environment is generally calm except for the consistently elevated microseism, and the lockloss felt quick, so no obvious cause here.
Back to observing at 21:49 UTC. Ran an initial alignment then lock acquisition went fully automatically. No sign of bounce modes, roll modes, or ASC ringups at any point.
Executive summary: H1 returned to observing as of 19:35 UTC after a challenging week.
Following my lock acquisition and troubleshooting attempts this morning, H1 was able to relock fairly easily again all the way up to LOWNOISE_LENGTH_CONTROL. I requested LOWNOISE_ASC and began watching carefully for any rise in the ~9.8 Hz bounce mode, which I saw quickly start to come up in the early seconds of LOWNOISE_ASC. Once the state finished, my first reaction to try and stop this increase was to transition back to high-gain ASC, which I did using the script on the ISI config screen. Looking back in the ISC_LOCK Guardian log, I was reminded that right before LOWNOISE_ASC we had gone through DAMP_BOUNCE_ROLL, which I assumed was not really doing anything since the roll mode damping gain was commented out. However, I saw that in this state, an entry in the LSC output matrix was being set to -1, which I traced down to being the entry for sending DARM control to ETMY, meaning we likely have been unintentionally exciting the ETMY bounce mode. After confirming that this was very much incorrect, I set the matrix value back to 0 and almost immediately saw the 9.8 Hz peak and the bounce mode monitors start to drop. After a few minutes of watching things calm down, I transitioned back to lownoise ASC and saw no sign of the mysterious hump around 60 Hz that had been seen yesterday. With things looking good so far, I requested NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE, which H1 made it to without issue.
It appears the line in the DAMP_BOUNCE_ROLL state code to send DARM control to ETMY has been there for some time, and a comment there says it's to allow for roll damping on ETMY, which would use DARM as the error signal, so this makes some sense. Before yesterday, this state was being run right before we power up from 2W, and a later state would correct the LSC matrix settings so that no erroneous actuation was being sent to ETMY. To remedy this, I have commented out the line that sets the LSC matrix from DAMP_BOUNCE_ROLL. The roll damping we have been using is still commented out as well, so this state essentially does nothing right now and remains between LOWNOISE_LENGTH_CONTROL and LOWNOISE_ASC.
Soon after reaching NLN, I noticed the familiar 1 Hz ASC oscillation was starting to ring up, seen mostly in CSOFT_P and INP1_P. At Elenna's direction, I increased the CSOFT_P gain from 20 to 25, and the oscillation started to turn around and subside after a few minutes. Elenna has updated ISC_LOCK to set the final gain of CSOFT_P to 25, and commented out the 30 minute reduction of the gain in the THERMALIZATION node.
Elenna and I then tackled the outstanding SDF diffs, which all ended up being accepted, and are documented in the attached screenshot.
Since squeezing looked like it could have been improved, I ran SQZ_MANAGER through 'SCAN_SQZANG_FDS', which noticeably improved DARM at high frequency.
With things looking about as wrapped up as they could be, I set H1 to start observing for the first time in a few days at 19:35 UTC.
At Sheila's suggestion, I've entirely removed DAMP_BOUNCE_ROLL from the main locking path since the state right now does nothing. LOWNOISE_LENGTH_CONTROL will now go straight into LOWNOISE_ASC. If we decide later we want to be damping roll modes again, it would be simple to uncomment the lines for the edges around this state.
Started the day by running an initial alignment and relocking up to LOWNOISE_LENGTH_CONTROL with no issues along the way. Eventually spent 1hr 20min in this state and took a PUM/ESD crossover measurement using the template userapps/lsc/h1/templates/PUM_crossover_2024.xml, see attachment. Sheila confirms even with the lower coherence around the crossover frequency of 20 Hz, this is a good measurement and lines up well enough with the 2024 reference.
I then requested 'INCREASE_DARM_OFFSET' since that's where Ryan C. notes he started to see the ~9.8 Hz bounce modes start to ring up and waited. I soon started to see the ETM bounce modes (at least according to the monitors) increasing. I tried applying a damping gain of 1 on ETMX with the filters already set and saw a small response, but the mode was still increasing. Sheila suggested lowering the DARM offset to 7 from 10.75 to possibly give more time, so I did. Changing the ETMX damping gain around some more did affect the mode (especially turning it off), so it may be possible to damp these, but it's also very possible these filters are very outdated. I also transitioned to high-gain ASC between my damping gain steps of 1 and 2 and didn't see an appriciable change in the mode. I didn't get a chance to try many different settings on either ETM before we lost lock, and since the OMC DCPDs weren't close to saturating, lowering the DARM offset may not have helped after all. See ndscope screenshot for a summary of these attempts. The roll mode damping is still commented out in ISC_LOCK, so it never came on during all of this, but I never saw the mode increase at all.
On the next lock acquisition, I'll go slower after LOWNOISE_LENTH_CONTROL to see if I can get a better idea of where this ringup starts.
Sat Oct 25 10:08:58 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 8min 55secs
TITLE: 10/25 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Corrective Maintenance
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Tony
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 9mph Gusts, 6mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.44 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: H1 was down overnight due to high winds and microseism coupled wiht ongoing locking troubles. Will start with a fresh initial alignment then see how far in the locking sequence H1 can get this morning.
TITLE: 10/25 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Corrective Maintenance // Environment
INCOMING OPERATOR: Tony
SHIFT SUMMARY: The high winds and microseism made locking pretty much impossible after the 03:01 UTC lockloss.
LOG: No log.
Summary:
We aligned everything such that none of 8 PDs was excellent but all were OK (we were also able to set up such that 4 pds were excellent but a few were terrible but decided not to take that), we were preparing for putting the array in storage until the installation, only to find that something is wrong with the design of the asymmetric QPD clamp D1300963-V2. It's unusable as is.
QPD clamp doesn't constrain the position of the QPD laterally, and there's a gross mismatch between the position of properly aligned QPD and that of the center hole of the QPD clamp. Because of that, when QPD is properly positioned, one of the QPD pins will touch the QPD clamp and be grounded unless the QPD connector is fixed such a way to pull the QPD pins sideways. Fortunately but sadly, the old non-tilt QPD clamp D1300963-V1 works better, so we'll use that.
Another minor issue, is that there seems to be a confusion as to the direction of the QPD tilt in terms of the word "pitch" and "yaw". The way the QPD is tilted in D1101059-v5 (this is how things are set up in the lab as of now) doesn't seem to follow the design intent of ECR E1400231 though it follows the word of it. After confirming that this is the case with systems, we'll change the QPD tilt direction (or not). This means that we're not ready to put everything in storage quite yet.
None of these affect the PD array alignment we've done, this is just a problem of the QPD.
Pin grounding issue due to the QPD clamp design.
I loosened the screws for the QPD connector clamps (circled in blue in the first attachment) and the output of the QPD preamp got crazy with super large 60Hz noise and large DC SUM even though there was no laser light.
I disconnected the QPD connector, removed the connector clamps too, and found that one pin of the QPD was short circuited to the ground via the QPD clamp (not to be confused with the QPC connector clamps, see 2nd attachment).
Turns out, the offending pin was isolated during our adjustments all the time because the QPD connector clamps were putting enough lateral pressure as well as down such that the pins were slightly bent from the offending side. I was able to reattach the connector, push it laterally while tightening the clamp screws, and confirm that the QPD functioned fine. But this is not really where we wanted to be.
I rotated the QPD clamp 180 degrees (which turns out to make more sense judging from the drawings in the first attachment), which moved the QPD. Since the beam radius is about 0.2mm, if the QPD moves by 0.2mm it's not useful as a reference of the in-lab beam position. I turned the laser on, repositioned the QPD back to where it should be, but the pin on the opposite side started touching. (Sorry no picture.)
I put the old non-tilt version clamp and it was much, much better (attachment 3). It's annoying because the screw holes don't have an angled recess. The screw head is tilted relative to the mating surface on the clamp, contacting at a single point, and tightening/loosening the screw tend to move the QPD. But it's possible to carefully tighten one screw a bit, then the other one a bit, repeat that dozen times or so until nothing moves even when pushed firmly by finger. After that, you can still move the QPD by tiny amounts by tapping the QPD assy by bigger Allen key. Then tighten again.
What's going on here?
In the 4th attachment, you can see that the "center" hole of the QPD clamp is offset by 0.55" (1.4mm) in the direction orthogonal to A-A, and about 0.07" (even though this number is not specified anywhere in the drawing) or 1.8mm in A-A direction. So the total lateral offset is sqrt(1.4^2+1.8^2)~2.3mm. OTOH, the QPD assy is only 0.5" thick, so the lateral shift arising from the 1.41deg tilt at the back of the QPD assy is just 1.41/180*pi*0.5=0.0123" or 0.3mm.
Given that the beam position relative to the array structure is determined by the array itself and not by how the QPD is mounted, 2.3mm lateral shift is impossibly large, something must be wrong in the design. The 5th attachment is a visual aid for you.
Anyway, we'll use the old clamp, it's not worth designing and manufacturing new ones at this point.
QPD tilt direction.
If you go back to the first attachment, the QPD is tilted in a direction indicated by a red "tilt" arrow in the lab as we just followed the drawing.
The ECR E1400231 says "We have to tilt the QPD 1 deg in tip (pitch) and 1 deg in tilt (yaw)" and it sounds as if it colloborates with the drawing.
However, I suspect that "pitch" and "yaw" in the above sentence might have been misused. In the right figure of the 6th attachment (screeshot of ECR unedited), it seems that the QPD reflection hits the elevator (the red 45 degree thing in the figure) at around 6 O'clock position around the eliptic exit hole, which means that the QPD is tilted in its optical PIT. If it's really tilted 1 degree in optical PIT and 1 degree in optical YAW, the reflection will hit something like 7:30 position instead of 6:00.
That makes sense as the design intent of the ECR is to make sure that the QPD reflection will not go back into the exit hole. The 7th attachment is a side view I made, red lines represent the IR beams, yellow lines the internal hole(s) in the elevator, and green lines the aperture of the two eliptical exit holes. Nothing is to scale, but hopefully you agree that, in order to steer the QPD reflection outside of the exit hole aperture, PIT UP requires the largest tilt and PIT DOWN requires the least tilt. We have a fixed tilt of QPD, so it's best to PIT DOWN, that's what I read from the ECR. If you don't know which angle is bigger or smaller, see attachment 8.
Anyway, I'll ask Callum if my interpretation is correct, and will act accordingly.
A followup summary:
Callum and Betsy say that I'm in the best position to judge, so I decided to tilt the QPD in its optical PIT.
Turns out that the QPD was already tilted in QPD's optical PIT so everything is fine(-ish). We'll put the unit in storage tomorrow.
Seems like we were tricked by the part drawing of the tilt washer D1400146, not the assembly drawing D1101059.
Details:
Before rotating anything, I wanted to see if the reflection from QPD could be seen on the aluminum part using the IR viewer, and indeed we could see something. The first attachment shows that some kind of diffraction pattern is hitting the barrel of the 1" 99:1 sampler in PIT. The second attachment shows that the bright spots are gone when Rahul blocked the beam going to QPD, so it's clearly due to the reflection of the QPD. The pattern might come from the gaps at the QPD center. It wasn't clear if the reflection was directly hitting the barrel through AR, or if it hits 99% coating and reflected towards the barrel.
(There was also some IR visible in the input aperture but the beam is much smaller than this aperture, I believe we're seeing the scattered light coming back to this aperture from inside the array structure.)
We pulled the spare tilt washer D1400146-V1 (drawing with my red lines in the 3rd attachment) and measured the depth of the recess at 12 O'clock position (red E in the drawing), 3:00 (B), 6:00 (C) and 9:00 (D) using a caliper. It's a rough measurement, but anyway we repeated the measurement twice and got the following:
| A | B (registration mark) | C | D | |
| Meas 1 | 1.45 mm | 1.21 | 1.45 | 1.70 |
| Meas 2 | 1.41 | 1.21 | 1.49 | 1.71 |
| Average | 1.43 | 1.21 | 1.47 | 1.705 |
Clearly B at the registration mark is the shallowest position and the opposite position D is the deepest. The recess diameter was measured to be 23.0mm (specified as between .906 and .911" or 23.01 to 23.14mm), so the tilt of the recess as measured is (1.705-1.21)/23 ~ 21.5mrad or 1.2 deg, which reasonably agrees with 1.41deg specification and, more importantly, these measurements cannot be explained if the part was manufactured as specified in the drawing.
It seems that the drawing of the tilt washer D1400146 is incorrect or at least doesn't agree with reality, and the assembly drawing D1101059 was correct in that following that will give us the QPD tilt along optical PIT.
Seeing how the QPD reflection hits the barrel of the 99:1 sampler, the ghost beam dumping doesn't look well thought out but that's what it is.
4th picture shows the registration mark of the tilt ring as was set in the lab for future reference.
We've done the last QPD scan (turns out that I happened to set the PIT-YAW angle really well). Data will be posted later. Now we're ready to pack things up.
We "measured" the dimension of the new (non-functional) QPD clamp D1300963-V2 by taking a picture with a ruler.
The offset of the center bore along the line connecting the two screw holes was measured to be about 1.9mm, which agrees pretty well with the above alog where I wrote "(even though this number is not specified anywhere in the drawing) or 1.8mm".