The PEM Injection script failed this morning.  Text file shows what was in the terminal.

Quiet night with H1 locked about 39 hrs.  L1 is fighting environmental issues.  Received a call from Hanford Fire about a issue with a RAFAR Box (will send Richard an email).

TITLE: 11/12 Owl Shift: 08:00-16:00 UTC (00:00-08:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 116Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Niko
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_CONF state: WINDY
    Wind: 6mph Gusts, 5mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.29 μm/s

useism has inched down slightly in the last 24hrs.  Fog is mighty thick out.  No winds.
QUICK SUMMARY:

H1 is currently flying solo.  It's been locked about 31hrs.  Ed didn't have anything for his summary & already logged out, but most of his activity has already been posted (i.e. violin mode damping).

• Craig and I noticed that the 500-1Khz StripTool BLRMS had started angling skyward so I repositioned the legend on the main DARM screen and found the 2nd order harmonics off the top of the range.
• With Rahul's damping page I was able to obtain virtually instant results - Changing to DAMPING_ON_SIMPLE changed the intent bit to Commissioning, unfortunately.
  • ETMX Mode 13 - turned on gain of +30
  • ETMX Mode 16 - turned on gain of +20
  • ETMX Mode 11 - turned on gain of +20
    • However, after returning the Violin Guardian node back to nominal and setting the Intent bit back to Observing I looked again at my gain settings to write this aLog and all of the gains are set to their max of 30. ??
• All growing violin mode are sufficiently crushed and H1 is back to a comofrtable quiet range of ~166-120Mpc.

TL;DR we were previously underestimating the coupling mechanism of radiation-pressure based intensity to DARM by a factor of 2.  This was causing us to inflate the arm power difference by a factor of 2.  Work on understanding this in the context of the SRCL dither measurement method is underway.

While writing up the math for radiation pressure intensity coupling to DARM, I made the derivation in PDF attachment 2.  
This was a factor of 2 greater than what was previously used (alog 46683).  Thanks to Gabriele for helpful chats and models about this.

I tested this equation in the LHO finesse model Dan and I have cooked up to model the DARM plant.  
If I correctly include both ITMs and ETMs in the RIN to DARM response [i.e. DARM = Lx - Ly = (Ex - Ix) - (Ey - Iy)], I get good agreement between the finesse model and the analytic model (within 5%).  This sort of verifies that both models are telling us the same thing.

For the actual LHO input RIN to DARM measurement, if I fit the analytic model to it between 20 and 50 Hz, I find deltaP = Px - Py ~ -8.6 kilowatts.  
This is shown in PDF 1 with the measurement = blue, and analytic model = green.

deltaP is the one number this measurement can really nail down.  The following is additional info/speculation.  

- I have not gotten to including contrast defect in the finesse model or the analytic model.  This starts to dominate at 100 Hz, and can affect the overall magnitude before this.

- We at Hanford expect a finesse difference in our arms of 5.5% due to the transmission of the ITMs (T_ITMX = 1.50%, T_ITMY = 1.42%)

- Power parameters at the time of the measurement:
Pin on back of PRM = 32.8 watts
PRG = 43.9

- Running our LHO finesse model produces the following (plotted as orange in PDF 1):
Finesse Arm Powers
Px = 182046 watts
Py = 192348 watts
deltaP = -10301 watts
Pavg = 187197 watts
deltaP/Pavg = -5.5%

- The analytic fit deltaP ~ -8.6 kilowatts suggests a 4.6% arm power imbalance for an average arm power of around 187 kW as suggested by finesse.

- script in /ligo/home/craig.cahillane/Git/IFO/IntensityNoise/scripts/intensity_injection_meas_vs_finesse.py

(Patrick T, Gerardo M)

Temporarily changed low alarm limit through EPICS.

CP1:

Old value: H0:VAC-LY_CP1_VI170_AIP_PRESS_TORR.LOW 5.28e-08

New value: H0:VAC-LY_CP1_VI170_AIP_PRESS_TORR.LOW 3.16e-10

CP2:

Old value: H0:VAC-LX_CP2_VI190_AIP_PRESS_TORR.LOW 5.28e-08

New value: H0:VAC-LX_CP2_VI190_AIP_PRESS_TORR.LOW 3.16e-10

The reason for the change is that both of these ion pumps are pumping on the main volume, and their lower limit was alarming due to being to high, the new settings are equivalent to those used on the large ion pumps, which also pump on the main volume.  The permanent solution is coming.

The following files have been updated, with the contents listed below the file names.  We plan to use these tomorrow to update the calculation of Pcal force coefficients in the Front End code.

/ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O3/H1/Results/CALCS_FE/lho_xend_pcal_epics_created-20191111.txt

caput H1:CAL-PCALX_FORCE_COEFF_TX_PD_ADC_BG 9.035
caput H1:CAL-PCALX_FORCE_COEFF_RX_PD_ADC_BG 0.444
caput H1:CAL-PCALX_FORCE_COEFF_RHO_T 8.26228e3
caput H1:CAL-PCALX_FORCE_COEFF_RHO_R 1.06460e4
caput H1:CAL-PCALX_FORCE_COEFF_TX_OPT_EFF_CORR 1.00705
caput H1:CAL-PCALX_FORCE_COEFF_RX_OPT_EFF_CORR 0.99410

/ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O3/H1/Results/CALCS_FE/lho_yend_pcal_epics_created-20191111.txt

caput H1:CAL-PCALY_FORCE_COEFF_TX_PD_ADC_BG 18.089
caput H1:CAL-PCALY_FORCE_COEFF_RX_PD_ADC_BG -0.707
caput H1:CAL-PCALY_FORCE_COEFF_RHO_T 7.11129e3
caput H1:CAL-PCALY_FORCE_COEFF_RHO_R 1.05763e4
caput H1:CAL-PCALY_FORCE_COEFF_TX_OPT_EFF_CORR 1.00626
caput H1:CAL-PCALY_FORCE_COEFF_RX_OPT_EFF_CORR 0.99493

/ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O3/L1/Results/CALCS_FE/llo_xend_pcal_epics_created-20191111.txt

caput L1:CAL-PCALX_FORCE_COEFF_TX_PD_ADC_BG 3.943
caput L1:CAL-PCALX_FORCE_COEFF_RX_PD_ADC_BG -0.024
caput L1:CAL-PCALX_FORCE_COEFF_RHO_T 6.32501e3
caput LL:CAL-PCALX_FORCE_COEFF_RHO_R 1.01438e4
caput L1:CAL-PCALX_FORCE_COEFF_TX_OPT_EFF_CORR 1.00826
caput HL:CAL-PCALX_FORCE_COEFF_RX_OPT_EFF_CORR 0.99487

/ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O3/L1/Results/CALCS_FE/llo_yend_pcal_epics_created-20191111.txt

caput L1:CAL-PCALY_FORCE_COEFF_TX_PD_ADC_BG 17.526
caput L1:CAL-PCALY_FORCE_COEFF_RX_PD_ADC_BG 1.872
caput L1:CAL-PCALY_FORCE_COEFF_RHO_T 6.59876e3
caput LL:CAL-PCALY_FORCE_COEFF_RHO_R 1.03193e4
caput L1:CAL-PCALY_FORCE_COEFF_TX_OPT_EFF_CORR 1.00547
caput HL:CAL-PCALY_FORCE_COEFF_RX_OPT_EFF_CORR 0.99461

TITLE: 11/12 Eve Shift: 00:00-08:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 115Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: TJ
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_CONF state: WINDY
    Wind: 8mph Gusts, 6mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.09 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.29 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

• Covering for an ailing Niko
• 1:00UTS switched H1 SEI_CONF back to WINDY - no further imminent EQ threats are being reported at this time

TITLE: 11/12 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 115Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ed
SHIFT SUMMARY: Heay equipment for the wind fence was on site today, clearly visible on the seismometers and in our range. There is more work expected for tomorrow as well. We had 2 hours of calibration time, and an earthquake that rolled through at the end of it. We made it through but Seismon says that another M5.9 should be here shortly. We will keep SEI_CONF in its Earthquake state until this one has passed.
LOG:

• 1621 Tyler and Chris starting the chiller work to help damp the 35hz noise from the chiller.
• 1639 Tyler and Chris done
• 1703 Karen to MY
• 1730 Karen leaving My
• 1738 Tyler fork lifting pallets near fire tank
• 1952 Vanessa to MX
• 2011 Jeff J to EX to check on wind fence crew.
• 2132 Out of Observing to start Calibration
• 2135 Back to Observing, too hasty starting calibration
• 2200 Out of Observing for Calibration
• 2215 Jim and Eyal changing settings on the BRSX heater.
• 2215 Conner and Kiara changing PRCL calibration
• 2242 Jeff J to Ex to check on wind fence
• 2312 Jeff J back
• 2315 Kyle to MY
• 2323 Switching SEI_CONF to EARHTQUAKE for a M6.1 near Tonga
• 2341 Kyle back
• 2355 Observing

S. Dwyer, S. Karki, J. Kissel 

We gathered the full suite of calibration measurements today; measurement templates listed below. Analysis and commentary to come! 
We're at 38W of PSL input power (33.5 W input to PRM), SRCL offset is at 50 ct. DARM cavity pole (according to calibration line TDCFs) is 411 Hz.

Sensing Function:
2019-11-11_H1_DARM_OLGTF_LF_SS_5to1100Hz_15min.xml

2019-11-11_H1_PCALX2DARMTF_LF_SS_5t1100Hz_10min.xml
2019-11-11_H1_PCALY2DARMTF_LF_SS_5t1100Hz_10min.xml

2019-11-11_H1_PCALX2DARMTF_BB_3min.xml
2019-11-11_H1_PCALY2DARMTF_BB_3min.xml

Actuation function: 
2019-11-11_H1SUSETMY_L1_iEXC2DARM_8min.xml
2019-11-11_H1SUSETMY_L1_PCAL2DARM_5min.xml
2019-11-11_H1SUSETMX_L1_TESTEXC_iEXC2DARM_5to100Hz_17min.xml

2019-11-11_H1SUSETMX_L2_iEXC2DARM_12min.xml
2019-11-11_H1SUSETMX_L2_PCAL2DARM_6min.xml

2019-11-11_H1SUSETMX_L3_iEXC2DARM_12min.xml
2019-11-11_H1SUSETMX_L3_PCAL2DARM_6min.xml

Conor, Chiara

After finding a discrepancy in the low-frequency calibration in earlier work, we found the cause and re-enabled the 'correct' low-frequency calibration for CAL_PRCL. This created a new 'feature', due to Foton, at high frequencies, see below.

To undo this change, simply disable the output of the M1 CAL filter module.

The filter module:

H1CALCS_CS_SUM_PRCL_PRM_M1

is responsible for the M1 drive part of the PRCL calibration. This is required for correct calibration below the M3-->M1 hand-off, which is about 0.7Hz. The filter output is currently 'off'. We will update this filter in two ways before enabling it.

1. Adding a module for "M1 and M2 Lock".

In the SUS model, the PRCL control signal passes through three suspension locking filters, M1Lock, M2Lock, and M3Lock (see block diagram below). The Calibration model, on the other hand, has these filters in parallel. To correct for that, we are installing a module which has the combined filters and gain settings. Currently M1Lock is just unity, and M2Lock is unity with a gain setting of +10.

This will replace the module (not engaged) named: BS270_430     which contained:     ellip("BandStop",4,1,40,270,430)gain(1.12202)

2. AC-coupling.

We suspect that the reason this module output is disengaged is to prevent saturating numerical precision with large offsets. To ensure there is no problem with that, we will AC-couple the signal. For aesthetic reasons, we are using an 8mHz Butterworth high-pass filter, which should approximately match the in-built STS-2 AC-coupling frequency.

We enabled H1CALCS_CS_SUM_PRCL_PRM_M1 filter bank with the two new filters.

-------------------

High-frequency feature

After implementing the calibration change, there was a roll-up of noise starting at about 3kHz in CAL_PRCL. Some investigation reveals that this is due to the extreme roll-off in the calibration filters encountering some numerical error in foton. The Bode plot shows a discontinuity at ~2.5kHz (the corner frequency for the new feature), and when we empirically toyed with the calibration filters, we could move the feature around, but not remove it.

For now, we will leave the M1 Calibration filter on, and accept that the calibration is incorrect at high frequencies. It might be possible to remove this feature with an updated suspension calibration filter, especially if it is lower-order, or has a flatter spectrum at high frequencies.

Attachment 2 shows the Bode Plot (and zoom of the troubled region).
Attachment 3 shows the ASD of CAL_PRCL before (red) and after (blue, reference trace) the calibration change.

TJ, Jonathan, Dave:

On the machine ext-alert (note dash, not underscore) we were running the legacy ext_alert processes alongside the new lv_alert. The legacy code was competing with the new causing GraceDB query errors.

I deleted the two services:

• ext-alert-credentials.service (dash)
• ext_alert.service (underscore)

leaving just the lv_alert.service running. The deletion process I used is:

1. systemctl stop service_name
2. systemctl disable service_name
3. mv /etc/systemd/system/service_name /etc/systemd/archive/service_name_11nov2019
4. systemctl daemon-reload
5. systemctl reset-failed

Tyler G. Chris S.

The instrument air compressor received different equipment isolation to (hopefully) mitigate noise during operation. The changes made were springs which deflected at a lower weight (approx .830" at 250lbs of load) as well as a soft silicone pad placed between the springs housing and the concrete slab. This task was completed at approx 8:45am

DriptaB, EthanP, RickS

Attached below are tables that list force and displacement coefficients for the Pcal power sensors in the transmitter (Tx) and receiver (Rx) modules at the end stations at both LHO and LLO and their associated uncertainties..

Also attached below are tables listing the components of the force coefficients and their statistical and systematic uncertainties.  The elements in square bracket contribute to the overall uncertainty estimates.

The displacement uncertainties include contributions from unintended rotation of the ETMs (0.38%, larger for O3 due to the extreme iterferometer beam miscentering on the ETMs to minimize impact of point absorbers) and measurement of the ETM masses (0.007%).

Note that force coefficiets have changed slightly (order 0.05%) due to how the mean values are now calculated, and this results in slight changes in the displacement coefficients as well.

Epics records for force coefficients have not been changed, so the numbers from yesterday are the reference values for the O3b run.  Pcal coefficients are expected to change slightly as more measurements infom estimates of mean parameter values and standard errors on the means are updated.