I have changed the threshold for the fiber polarization notification on DIAG_MAIN from 20% to 25%.  We still aren't sure why we can't get the ALS_X polarization below 20% (I don't think anyone has taken the time to check that no PD calibrations got lost in some reboot, or something like that), but the flashing on/off of the notification on the front wall is obnoxious, since everyone in every GW IFO control room is unhappy when there are flashes (since out of the corner of one's eye they look like a potential lockloss). 

Commissioners starting injections.

TITLE: 04/11 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 109Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Jim
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    Wind: 4mph Gusts, 2mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.20 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:  Lock is ~18 hours old, past ~6 hours in Observing.  

TITLE: 04/11 Owl Shift: 07:00-15:00 UTC (00:00-08:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 108Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Travis
SHIFT SUMMARY:
LOG:

8:30 6.0 Earthquake in Japan, out of observing into earthquake modes for around an hour, IFO stays locked

9:30 Out of observing to turn yaw ads back on, was left off after work earlier in the day, LLO and Virgo were both down at this point any way.

TITLE: 04/11 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 110Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Jim
SHIFT SUMMARY: TCS SR3 heater measurements taking us out of observing for short periods, but we are still riding a 10hr lock.
LOG:

• 2310 Observing
• 2320 Gerardo to MX for WP8162
• 0053 Out of Observing for TCS measurements
• 0113 Gerardo back
• 0124 Observing
• 0305 Out of Observing for TCS measurements
• 0401 Observing
• 0451 Out of Observing to fix ASC
• 0452 Observing
• 0517 Out of Observing for TCS measurements
• 0543 Observing

Craig, Danny, Georgia

Today we stepped the SR3 heater down in 0.5 W steps, from 5W to 3.5W, according to plan. Here's what we found as we reduced the heating on SR3:

Buildups, cavity pole

• the DARM coupled cavity pole increased by a few Hz
• the optical gain (Kappa_c) decreased by ~2%
• POPAIR_B_RF18 decreased by ~5%
• The BNS range went up ~4 MPc, maybe this peaked at 4W on the SR3 heater
• The changes in arm power were only slight - maybe went up a little ar 4.5W, but decreased after that?

These values are shown in the first attachment, The kick in many signals just before we stepped down to 3.5 W is explained below.

DARM plant and laser noise couplings

We also monitored the DARM plant, frequency noise coupling, intensity noise coupling, and RF9 RIN coupling at each step.

• Craig will post the DARM plant and frequency noise measurements
• The intensity noise coupling at high frequency got worse as we reduced the heater power (second attachment shows darm during noise-buget-style ISS second loop intensity noise injections)
• The RF9 RIN coupling reduced slightly at 4.5W and 4W but was increased again when we measured at 3.5W (third attachment shows the 9MHz RIN excitation to DARM transfer function)

SRC ASC

While we were sitting at 4W on the SR3 heater we checked for detuning in the SRC ASC. This is the big peak in RF18 and RF90 in the first attachment; the 4th attachment is zoomed in during this time. We opened the loops and moved the sliders (top right plots), found nothing too interesting in pitch, but while aligning yaw we saw:

• some gains in RF18, but
• increase in RF90 (maybe we were aligning the SRC to compensate for a misalignment in the PRC?)
• a 2% increase in kappa_C (!)
• a 25 Hz drop in the cavity pole (!!)
• a corresponding dip in the range

We were surprised that the optical gain increased, that doesn't seem to hang together with the other pieces of information here. Maybe we should consider operating with 4W on the SR3 heater, and re-phasing the SRC ASC for this. [Edit: notes for attachment 4: at t = -4500s we turned the SRC ASC back on, which is why the alignment went back to its nominal level. The calibration lines were off before t = -4800s, and the calibration values before this time are not to be trusted.)

Other notes:

• The SR3 cage servo (really an oplev servo) was on for this measurement, this kept SR3 servo'd in pitch, but uncontrolled in yaw
• At 3.5 W on the SR3 heater we encountered a very slow (~2 minute period) oscillation in the corner DOFs. This settled when we returned the SR3 heater to 5W. We spent a bit of time tongiht with the ADS YAW DOFs off, to stop them from oscillating.
• We spent 2 hours and 34 mins out of observing today to do these tests, comfortably within our allotted 3 hours :-)
• While we were out of observing to make measurements we chopped the OMC ASC master gain for Sheila.
• To run our excitations we connected two LSC AO extra channels at the PSL racks to the common mode board excitation, and the 9MHz EOM excitation port, these need to be disconnected again.

Currently observing but will take small breaks for Team TCS to make SR3 heater adjustments, then back to observing. Range 108Mpc, wind <=20mph.

Today the X-Mid crane was used to remove four HEPTA pumps from their wooden crates.
There was two periods of activity with a break in between.  All times below are UTC.

The crane was used during the following times:

- start 21:28 stop 21:37
- start 21:51 stop 21:56
- start 23:55 stop 00:02
- start 00:05 stop 00:10
- start 00:25 stop 00:33 and crane was parked.

Also a drill was used to remove the screws from the wooden crates, sometimes it made some noise, times are as follows:

- start 21:10 stop 21:22
- start 21:39 stop 21:50
- start 23:22 stop 23:55

Work done under WP 8162.

TITLE: 04/10 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Commissioning
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Travis
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    Wind: 27mph Gusts, 22mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.07 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.19 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: TCS crew has the machine for some quick scheduled measurements, then back to observing.

TITLE: 04/10 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Commissioning
INCOMING OPERATOR: TJ
SHIFT SUMMARY:  In and out of Observing all day for CAL and TCS measurements.  One lockloss but recovery was easy.  Currently locked at NLN but in Commissioning for more TCS measurements.
LOG:

15:00-15:45 Richard and Peter in and out of LVEA and end stations restarting lasers

17:48 Kyle to MY

18:18 Kyle back from MY, going to MX

18:52 Kyle back

20:51 Corey checking chillers

21:11 Corey done

21:23 Kyle to MY

21:41 Betsy, Nichole, Marc to MY

21:55 Kyle back

22:12 Betsy, Nichole, Marc back

22:44 Cheryl to optics lab

For scheduled TCS measurements.

Addressed TCS Chillers (13:58 - 14:05 PM PST today/Wed)

• TCSx Chiller:  Had level of 29.9 cm.  Added 100mL for 30.0cm.
• TCSy Chiller:  Had level of 9.6 cm.  Added 200mL for 10.1cm. (new log sheet folder!)

NOTES: 

• There was no measuring cup (had to steal one from PSL Chiller)
• Spigot missing from water jug

M. Wade, A. Viets

I have made new filters file for the GDS calibration pipeline based on the model params file aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O3/H1/params/modelparams_H1_20190404.py in svn r7188.  The new filters are located in

aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O3/GDSFilters/H1GDS_1238952670.npz 

I have attached results from testing these filters as well as plots of the filters themselves.  The tests were run on a lock stretch from earlier today (GPS times 1238956172-1238956672).  For these tests I did 

1. The first attached plot is the response of the residual chain correction filter compared to the expected residual correction from pyDARM.
2. The second attached plot is the response of the control chain correction filter compared to the expected control correction from pyDARM.
3. The third attached plot is a comparison of the response function as derived from data calibrated (offline) with the GDS pipeline to the response function in pyDARM. 
4. The fourth plot is a zoom-in on the ratio of this comparison.  Both of these plots indicate agreement at the expected level. 
5. The fifth plot is a snapshot of the GDS-CALIB_STATE_VECTOR during this time, which looks as expected. 
6. The sixth plot is a comparison of the ASD from the GDS pipeline with these filters and the two CALCS h(t) data streams (CFTD and not CFTD). 
7. The seventh plot is a ratio of the ASDs from these three h(t) streams. 
8. The last set of plots are all time series plots of the TDCFs as produced by GDS and by CALCS. 

We see the expected level of agreement for all of these tests.  I would like to investigate more the differences between the GDS and the CALCS CFTD strain channels, but this should not inhibit the installation of these new filters.

I have also created a new configuration file.  The most significant change to the configuration is that we are now applying scalar corrections for kappa_TST and kappa_C and frequency-dependent corrections for the cavity pole frequency. Note that we are not yet applying scalar corrections for kappa_PUM or kappa_UIM.  We have decided to hold off on this until the calibration lines are moved closer together, which increases the validity of these calculations.  The configuration file can be found in the calibration SVN:

 aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O3/GDSFilters/H1GDS_1238952670.ini

I installed the new filters and configurations and restarted the calibration pipeline at approximately GPS time 1238962221 on both the production and redundant DMT machines.

As a test, I lowered H1:OMC-ASC_MASTER_GAIN from 0.05 to 0.02 at 17:35 UTC during calibration sweeps.  We have been having frequency glitches at 10-15 Hz for the last few weeks, I was wondering if reducing the control signal sent to the OMC would reduce these glitches.  

Lowering the gain of the OMC ASC did reduce the control signal, although the  rms of the QPD error signals don't seem to change much (attachment).  Based on the DMT Omega monitor over the last half hour the low frequency glitches do seem to be reduced,  This time doesn't show up on the summary page because the ISC_LOCK state was NLN_CAL_MEAS, not the nominal state.  

I haven't put this into the gaurdian yet, but Travis has accepted the change in SDF for this observing segment.  If the low frequency glitches do look better we can make this change permanent.  

Update: Based on the summary pages there were fewer low frequency glitches while the gain was lowered, but the wind is also dying down simultaneously, so I've turned the gain back up at 19:35 UTC while we are out of observing for SR3 heater tests to see if they come back.The interferometer unlocked shortly after I increased the gain again. 

The gain was set to 0.02 for the lock segment from 20:30 UTC to 22:44 UTC, when I set it back to 0.05.

Lilli S, Jeff K,

Lately we have tracked down some bugs and misunderstandings -- see more details in 48272, 48276. Now we have made a new model file /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O3/H1/params/modelparams_H1_20190404.py, using the measurements taken on 2019-04-03. This new model has been validated and installed in CAL-CS.

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

The measurements used to create the model live in /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O3/H1/Measurements
The processing scripts live in /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O3/H1/Scripts
See attached pdfs for the fitting results. See the detailed fitting output below.

To validate the model, we processed the broadband + sweeps measurements taken last night -- /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O3/H1/Measurements (2019-04-10)

The results are attached as BB_deltaL/pcal and SS_deltaL/pcal files. With the response correction factors and a 40-microsecond delay applied, the results (red dots) look good. (Scripts are/ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O3/H1/Scripts/CALCS_FE/process_broadband_pcal_20190410.py and /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O3/H1/Scripts/FullIFOSensingTFs/process_sweep_pcal2darm_20190410.py)

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

We also did an estimate of the uncertainty for the reference model (i.e. all kappas set to 1).

The GPR fitting using multiple measurements are shown in multi-meas-GPR.pdf (4 meas for sensing and 2 meas for actuation); Script -- /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O3/H1/Scripts/Uncertainty/process_allmeas_writeGPRHDF5_20190404.py

The uncertainty plot for the reference model is attached.

Fitting details are as below:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensing
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Inverse Sensing FOTON values: [NB: SRCD2N zpk gain based on sensing sign in parameters file]
SRCD2N: zpk([410.5556;0.0428+i*4.4689;0.0428-i*4.4689],[0.1;0.1;7000],1,"n")gain(1997.42)
Gain: gain(3.077e-07)

Inverse Sensing without cavity pole FOTON values for CFTD path: [NB: SRCD2N zpk gain based on sensing sign in parameters file]
SRCD2N: zpk([0.0428+i*4.4689;0.0428-i*4.4689],[0.1;0.1],1,"n")gain(1997.42)
Gain: gain(3.077e-07)

Parameter                                | Quantiles (0.15, 0.50, 0.84)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Optical gain, H_c (ct/m)                 | 3.249e+06, 3.25e+06, 3.252e+06
Cavity pole, f_cc (Hz)                   | 409.8, 410.6, 411.3
Detuned SRC spring frequency, f_s (Hz)   | 4.425, 4.469, 4.513
Detuned SRC spring quality factor, 1/Q_s | 64.37, 52.19, 43.88
Residual time delay, tau_c (usec)        | 0.5522, 0.9963, 1.438
------------------------------- OR ----------------------------------
Optical gain, H_c (ct/m)                 | 3.25e+06 (+1430,-1408) or (+0.04399%,-0.04333%)
Optical gain, H_c (mA/pm)                | 4.34 (+0.001909,-0.00188) or (+0.04399%,-0.04333%)
Cavity pole, f_cc (Hz)                   | 410.6 (+0.7268,-0.7248) or (+0.177%,-0.1765%)
Detuned SRC spring frequency, f_s (Hz)   | 4.469 (+0.04354,-0.04401) or (+0.9743%,-0.9847%)
Detuned SRC spring quality factor, Q_s   | 52.19 (+275.5,-275.9) or (+18.94%,-18.92%)
Residual time delay, tau_c (usec)        | 0.9963 (+0.4416,-0.4441) or (+44.32%,-44.58%)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
UIM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Force Coefficient "answer" in terms of ...
    Force per count of longitudinal DAC request (just down stream of DRIVEALIGN bank):
    Gain = 7.67e-08 (N/ct)
    Force per actuator signal (current or voltage):
    Gain = 1.634 (N/A)
 
All MCMC Results (w/ Uncertainty) for UIM Parameters:
    Parameter                              | Quantiles (0.15, 0.50, 0.84)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Actuator gain, H_c (N/ct)              | 7.666e-08, 7.67e-08, 7.673e-08
    Residual time delay, tau_A (usec)      | 58.27, 61.05, 63.85
    ------------------------------- OR ----------------------------------
    Actuator gain, H_c (N/ct)              | 7.67e-08 (+3.684e-11,-3.709e-11) or (+0.04803%,-0.04835%)
    Residual time delay, tau_A (usec)      | 61.05 (+2.794,-2.786) or (+4.576%,-4.563%)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
PUM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Force Coefficient "answer" in terms of ...
    Force per count of longitudinal DAC request (just down stream of DRIVEALIGN bank):
    Gain = 6.036e-10 (N/ct)
    Force per actuator signal (current or voltage):
    Gain = 0.02947 (N/A)
 
All MCMC Results (w/ Uncertainty) for PUM Parameters:
    Parameter                              | Quantiles (0.15, 0.50, 0.84)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Actuator gain, H_c (N/ct)              | 6.033e-10, 6.036e-10, 6.039e-10
    Residual time delay, tau_A (usec)      | 38.6, 40.88, 43.17
    ------------------------------- OR ----------------------------------
    Actuator gain, H_c (N/ct)              | 6.036e-10 (+3.143e-13,-3.131e-13) or (+0.05207%,-0.05187%)
    Residual time delay, tau_A (usec)      | 40.88 (+2.296,-2.276) or (+5.617%,-5.569%)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
TST
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Force Coefficient "answer" in terms of ...
    Force per count of longitudinal DAC request (just down stream of DRIVEALIGN bank):
    Gain = 4.727e-12 (N/ct)
    Force per actuator signal (current or voltage):
    Gain = 4.427e-11 (N/V**2)
 
All MCMC Results (w/ Uncertainty) for TST Parameters:
    Parameter                              | Quantiles (0.15, 0.50, 0.84)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Actuator gain, H_c (N/ct)              | 4.724e-12, 4.727e-12, 4.729e-12
    Residual time delay, tau_A (usec)      | 5.352, 5.947, 6.538
    ------------------------------- OR ----------------------------------
    Actuator gain, H_c (N/ct)              | 4.727e-12 (+2.411e-15,-2.393e-15) or (+0.051%,-0.05062%)
    Residual time delay, tau_A (usec)      | 5.947 (+0.5917,-0.5942) or (+9.951%,-9.993%)

In an effort for robustness we had installed a UPS on the safety system power supply last year to help ride through any minor power bumps.  This morning at 14:34 UTC the UPS failed and took down the lasers that are connected to it.   We probably would not have been down as long but I misinterpreted the error message.   It was a communication error the Term6-Term20.  I took this to mean term 20 which is the TCS CO2 laser interlock had failed.   Sure enough there were no link lights.  Swapped out the module but still not link lights.  So new interpretation is it was terminal through 20 not just 20.  Went to the chassis in the LVEAj and power was off.  The UPS that feeds the 24V power supply was off.  Bypassed the unit for now and the system has been restored.  Since we were down anyway rebooted the computer since it had been running for months.  Reset all the systems and turned on all the lasers that were off. Finishing with EY ALS.

Laser that went down.

TCS CO2-X

TCS CO2-Y

SQZ-

ALS X

ALS Y

We've measured the DARM plant to have a prospring at 6 Hz and a Q of about 4. About the spring frequency, the phase goes through around -90 degrees, and not the expected +180 degrees alog 48083 

This +180 degrees is not typical for causal control systems, but it is expected from SR IFOs as discussed in Section II B from BnC.

Using the Ward DARM model (Eq 3.83) I was unable to achieve a satisfactory fit of the H1 DARM plant at low frequencies, so I made some sliders to see if I could get a heuristic match.  I was not able to for reasonable IFO parameters.

I discovered that our Q is far too low given our optic transmissions.  One can lower the Q of the optical spring by increasing the SRM transmission or reducing the ITM transmission.  However, changes to these parameters also change the frequency of the optical spring and the DARM pole.  The pictured plot shows the best Ward model I was able to come up with to explain the current plant, featuring detuning of -0.5 degrees.

DARM Plant Measurement
I began questioning the measurement itself, but the procedure is pretty simple.  A PCAL to DARM measurement gives C/(1 - G), where C is the DARM plant, and G is the DARM OLG.  Then a DARM OLG is taken to get 1/(1 - G), and these two measurements are divided to give the DARM plant C. 
 
The PCAL calibration into meters is just two real poles at 1 Hz.  This has phase of -160 degrees at 6 Hz, i.e. there is some dynamic phase rotation happening at LF due to the calibration which may not be real.  

WP 8158

AA chassis S/N S1102788

Channels 13-16 were modified with faster OpAmps for U2 and U3. New opAmp installed ADA4075-2ARZ. Same mods as were done with the CM SQZ readback channels, alog 47459.
Verified the following capacitors for the Twin T notch were all removed as mentioned in alog 28010 (CH15 & 16): C1, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C9, C10, and C11.

F. Clara, J. Kissel, D. Sigg

Anamaria, Georgia, Danny, Corey, Craig

Locking has been a problem since we keep saturating our ETMX PUM drive.
The problem is a combination of this oft-referenced 4.1 Hz ringing somewhere in our pitch ASC (from the control signal, CHARD P is the most likely culprit), in combination with high microseism finding it's way into the PUM length drive.  Together, these two effects ask too much of the PUM stage and causes locklosses.

Similar to last night, we've sacrificed range for stability to get more observing time for ER14.  We decreased L2 LOCK gain from 23 to 15, increased L1 LOCK gain from 1.06 to 1.16, and left all quad coil drivers in the "1" high noise state rather than the "3" low noise state.  These changes are in guardian.  We have not tried putting the coil drivers into low noise with the gain changes.  

We updated and checked the calibration, it seems fine from 25 Hz up, so the high noise is real.

The first attachment is the PCAL BB injection.  The second is the ETMX PUM Coil MASTER OUT channels before changing the suspension hierarchy around.  The third is the same plot after.  It is clear our coils were saturating before, and now are not coming close to their rails.  More thought required on why our LSC microseism is showing up so strongly in PUM.