EJ, Dave:
20:13:34 Mon 07jul2025 PDT h1susetmx had a single Dolphin receive error for a channel sent by h1isietmx.
This warrents an FRS ticket because the new RCG5.50 should actually be more tolerant of late IPCs and we expected H1's already miniscule IPC error rate (few per year) to go to zero.
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
ITMX ITMY Hardware Watchdog Countdowns, Test Mass Sat Amp swap-outs done in less than 20 minutes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
Adjusted the SQZ FSS beat note by moving the waveplates. The RF demod siganl went from -3.2dBm to +6.5dBm.
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.
Tue Jul 08 10:07:26 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 7min 22secs
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.
FAMIS Link: 26051
Only CPS channels which look (a little) higher at high frequencies (see attached) would be the following:
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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
It was only doing input align so I just took the detector to IDLE once that offloaded
Workstations were updated and rebooted. This was an OS packages update. Conda packages were not updated.
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.
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.