Displaying reports 401-420 of 84531.Go to page Start 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 End
Reports until 14:16, Wednesday 27 August 2025
H1 ISC (SQZ)
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:16, Wednesday 27 August 2025 - last comment - 09:42, Thursday 28 August 2025(86596)
10MPc 30min Range Drop last night Related to SQZ FC

Sheila, Tony, Camilla

Sheila and Tony noticed that we had a ~30 minute 10MPc range drop last night with related extra low-freq glitches, from the range BLRMs this is most clear in th 20-34Hz band. This noise is broadband 15-100Hz  looking at DARM, plot. And trending the common range drop channels form last year, plot, we see a slight increase in FC2_M3_NOISEMON, plot, confirmed as the cause by the dtt spectrum. Sheila is proposes the cause could be FC backscatter into the IFO. There is no increase in FC1 noise apart from small regions at 80Hz, 160Hz, 190Hz, plot.

There is slighly more noise 8-20Hz in HAM8 in the low range time and 3 peaks at 7-9Hz are gone, plot.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - 09:42, Thursday 28 August 2025 (86608)SEI, SQZ

We see the same increased noise in H1:SUS-FC2_M3_NOISEMON_LL_OUT16 in the early morning range drop, see attached.

Running the same template as yesterday, attached yellow traces, there is increased noise in the FC2 and FC LSC control channels, more noise in HAM8 ISI, and a ISI peak at 3.3Hz (there was an earthquake 45mins before but the FC noise started before the EQ), however, the noise in DARM is actually less than yesterday so the coupling isn't constant.

Jim and I had a look at the HAM8 motion and although it increases at times when the ground motion increases, these times do not seem correlated with the FC excess movement and range drops, attached. Maybe the 3.3Hz ISI peak is related to the noisier ground motion times.

Images attached to this comment
LHO VE
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:46, Wednesday 27 August 2025 (86597)
Wed CP1 Fill

Wed Aug 27 10:09:46 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 9min 43secs

 

Images attached to this report
H1 ISC (CAL, SUS)
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:11, Wednesday 27 August 2025 (86595)
Possible test mass charging since bias change

Joe B, Elenna

Since the ETMX ESD bias was changed, kappa TST has been trending upwards. This could be due to charging. Kappa TST has increased nearly 3%.

Images attached to this report
H1 CDS (CDS)
erik.vonreis@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:30, Wednesday 27 August 2025 (86594)
Workstation conda environments updated

The following packages were added to the default CDS Conda environment on workstations.

- hws (Hartmann Wavefront Sensor)

- epics-striptool

- mypy, a linter and type checker for python programs

H1 General
anthony.sanchez@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:50, Wednesday 27 August 2025 (86593)
Wednesday Ops morning shift.

TITLE: 08/27 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 150Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Oli
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 6mph Gusts, 4mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.08 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
H1 Has been Locked in Nominal Low Noise for 17.5 + hours.
All Sub Systems seem to be running well.

 

 

LHO General
ibrahim.abouelfettouh@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:01, Tuesday 26 August 2025 (86592)
OPS Eve Shift Summary

TITLE: 08/27 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 153Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Oli
SHIFT SUMMARY:

IFO is in NLN and OBSERVING as of 21:14 UTC

We were locked for the entire shift. I had a chance to test out Jim and Elenna's new EQ survival ASC gain in which ASC gain is ramped when we are threatened by EQ-related lockloss. I manually turned it on when a 6.0 EQ came in from Eastern Russia upon activation of EQ mode (auto) and at least in this instance, we managed to stay locked.

Nothing else of note

LOG:

None

 

H1 SUS (SUS)
edgard.bonilla@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:10, Tuesday 26 August 2025 (86574)
Created new OSEM estimator fits for PR3 Pitch and Yaw

This logpost is a follow up to the executive summary on PR3 OSEM estimator Filter and Blend design [LHO: 86563]

Oli took the measurements needed to commission the PR3 OSEM estimator in P and Y [see LHO: 86459]. The P measurements were taken with all M1_DAMP gains at -1, except for M1_DAMP_P, which was set to -0.2. Similarly, Y, All M1_DAMP gains were -1, except for M1_DAMP_Y, which was set to -0.2.

Ivey and I used her vectfit3 scripts to fit the transfer functions. The fits were committed to the SUS SVN under revision 12616. They live in 'sus/trunk/HLTS/Common/FilterDesign/Estimator/'

We made a few minimal changes to the original output from vectfit to match our expectation of the plants:

The images of the resulting filters, together with the data that Oli took are summarized in the attached pdfs.

In order of appearance, the zpk of the fits are:

 

Suspoint Y to M1_DAMP_Y fit

    'zpk([-0.012+20.621i,0,0,-0.012-20.621i,-0.012+11.426i,-0.012-11.426i],[-0.218+6.292i,-0.218-6.292i,-0.382+14.697i,-0.382-14.697i,-0.226+21.579i,-0.226-21.579i],-0.001)'

M1 drive Y to M1_DAMP_Y fit

    'zpk([-0.024-8.341i,-0.024+8.341i,-0.011+19.405i,-0.011-19.405i],[-0.088+6.403i,-0.088-6.403i,-0.115+14.485i,-0.115-14.485i,-0.069+21.379i,-0.069-21.379i],13.34)'

 

Suspoint P to M1_DAMP_P fit

    'zpk([-2.428-2.295i,-2.428+2.295i,-0.795-9.324i,-0.795+9.324i,-0.011-22.26i,-0.011+22.26i,0.034-5.811i,0.034+5.811i,0.382-13.672i,0.382+13.672i,1.168-1.459i,1.168+1.459i],[-0.507-1.499i,-0.507+1.499i,-0.395-10.253i,-0.395+10.253i,-0.204-4.167i,-0.204+4.167i,-0.141-4.759i,-0.141+4.759i,-0.13-13.137i,-0.13+13.137i,-0.066-22.16i,-0.066+22.16i],-0.001)'

Suspoint L to M1_DAMP_P fit

    'zpk([-0.773-7.242i,-0.773+7.242i,-0.635-18.11i,-0.635+18.11i,0.301-20.227i,0.301+20.227i,1.062-6.916i,1.062+6.916i,-99.035,-0.197,0.331,45.41],[-1.293-19.638i,-1.293+19.638i,-0.33-10.141i,-0.33+10.141i,-0.289-13.191i,-0.289+13.191i,-0.162-4.1i,-0.162+4.1i,-0.122-4.732i,-0.122+4.732i,-0.087-22.103i,-0.087+22.103i],0)'

M1 drive P to M1_DAMP_P fit

    'zpk([-0.339-4.576i,-0.339+4.576i,-0.031-21.157i,-0.031+21.157i,-0.009-5.455i,-0.009+5.455i],[-0.298-13.183i,-0.298+13.183i,-0.205-4.126i,-0.205+4.126i,-0.138-4.803i,-0.138+4.803i,-0.092-22.128i,-0.092+22.128i],80.907)'

Images attached to this report
Non-image files attached to this report
H1 General (DetChar)
anthony.sanchez@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:33, Tuesday 26 August 2025 (86591)
Tuesday Ops Maintenance Day Report

TITLE: 08/26 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 152Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
SHIFT SUMMARY:
We tried to run an Initial_ Alignment but SRC aligning didn't work because the New Whitening Chassis or cable that was installed had an issue.
NLN @ 21:14:27 UTC
Back to Observing by 21:20:06 UTC

21:52 UTC Tyler started pushing his rocks around with the tractor over at the far end of the Staging building.
22:50 UTC Tyler's tractor work has lost traction with the commissioning crew and there will be no more tractoring rocks around while locked.

LOG:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Start Time System Name Location Lazer_Haz Task Time End
15:03 FAC Erik EY No Changeing Presure release valve 15:38
15:04 FAC Randy LVEA N Forklifing from LSB to OSB 15:46
15:06 VAC Jordan HAM Shaq N Gauge work in FTCE 19:06
15:10 wFAC Chris EY N Filter Checks 16:20
15:14 FAC Kim & Nellie LVEA N Technical Cleaning. 17:44
15:16 VAC Travis & Janos Mid Y -> Mid X N Getting tools from Mid Y then heading to Mid X 23:26
15:17   Richard LVEA N Measure Viewport Simulator 15:26
15:22 FAC Tyler & Beaver Bark Staging Bld N Dumping rocks from a Dump truck, & Moving gravel with tractor 17:20
15:27 FAC Randy & Mitchel LVEA N Working on Clean room 15:46
15:31 EE Fil LVEA HAM 6&7 N SUS & IOC rack cable racks 18:56
15:33 3IFO Tyler LVEA & ES N 3 IFO checks 16:03
15:37 LN2 NORCO Both Mid X&Y no Liquid Nitrogen refill 17:30
15:45 SPI Jeff Optics lab N Dropping off parts 15:46
15:45 SUS Rahul End Station N SUS Charge measurements. 18:26
15:51 FAC Randy LVEA N Cleaning off Emod in West bay 17:51
15:52 EE Marc LVEA N Helping Fil with IOC & SUS racks 18:56
16:21 VAC Jordan , Gerardo, Anna, Mitchel HAM Shaq N FTCE Gauge work & a lil Craning, Mitchel Out early 19:08
16:32 FAC McCarthy LVEA N Joining Randy 16:50
16:53 FAC Chris End & Mids X&Y N Checking phones 16:08
17:05 FAC Eric HAM Shaq N Planning a 120V Electrical Run 17:24
17:20 PEM SAM LVEA + Y Arm N Checking accelerometers. 17:33
17:24 ISC Keita LVEA ISC Racks N Checking Cable Lengths at eh ISC racks 18:56
17:25 FAC Nellie EY N Technical Cleaning 18:52
17:29 FAC Kim EX N Technical Cleanin 18:52
17:47 FAC Eric EY N Moving an extension cord 18:08
17:53 SEI Jim LVEA HAM1 N HAM1 SEI Injections 18:58
18:17 FAC Richard LVEA Input arm N measuring the distance from the floor to Ceiling 18:45
18:17 PEM TJ HEPI Mezz N Setting up Dust Mon 19:08
19:56 ISC Daniel LVEA N Checking whitening chass for AS_C issues 20:21
20:14 ASC Daniel LVEA N Swapping ASC Whitening chassis 20:21
LHO General
ibrahim.abouelfettouh@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:24, Tuesday 26 August 2025 (86590)
OPS Eve Shift Start

TITLE: 08/26 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 153Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Tony
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 5mph Gusts, 2mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.09 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

IFO is in NLN and OBSERVING as of 21:14 UTC

IFO is still behaving. Expecting a quiet shift.

H1 SUS (ISC, SEI)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:12, Tuesday 26 August 2025 - last comment - 12:20, Monday 08 September 2025(86589)
H1 SUS SR3 M1 Pitch and Yaw Estimator: According to ASC -- Missing L to P Sus. Point Contribution Restores Damping on 0.64 and 0.75 Hz Mode
J. Kissel

After today's H1 SUS SR3 Pitch Estimator's inclusion of the Sus. Point L to M1 P feed forward from the HAM5 ISI GS13s (where we had mistakenly only installed Sus. Point P to M1 P) -- see LHO:86567, I now compare the times of ASC signals (using 0.02 Hz binwidth, 64 sec FFT chunks, 30 averages, and a Hanning window with 50% overlap):
    2025-08-20 18:29 UTC - Both P and Y Estimators are OFF 
    2025-08-24 18:18 UTC - Both P and Y Estimators are ON, but for the P estimator, only the Sus. Point P to M1 P contribution is included in the GS13 FF
    2025-08-26 22:00 UTC - Both P and Y Estimators are ON, and for the P estimator, both P to P and L to P contributions are included in the GS13 FF.

I'm showing only the control signals, and only the ASC DOFs which are impacted by SR3: DHARD, MICH, SRC1, and SRC2; both pitch and yaw.

In All DOFs, the 0.64 and 0.75 Hz modes that had been made worse with only the P to P model of suspension point contribution have now been restored to no-estimator levels.
In some DOFs, the 1-10 Hz broadband motion is just barely improved, but enforces the conclusion that SR3 is only partially, if not 'not the dominate contribution' to the ASC signals. 
Here's a fun one for you -- look at SRC2 Y CTRL -- and look at how much the SRC2 *yaw* motion has changed from including the *longitudinal* suspension point contribution to M1 *pitch* top mass. #ThrowsHandsInAir

But -- overall -- with the improvements and all design intent included -- the SR3 P and Y estimators slightly improve the ASC noise from 1 to 10 Hz. Great!

As Oli notes in LHO:86551 comparing all of these different configurations from totally different days and times is dubious. We'll get "official" versions of all of these ON vs. OFF configurations on Thursday 8/28.

I also attach the local estimator metrics for pitch described in LHO:86553, comparing "only Sus Point P to M1 P modeled contribution" against "P to P and L to P sus point to M1 contribution." That similarly shows that L to P contribution forms a good fraction of the signal needed for damping.
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
edgard.bonilla@LIGO.ORG - 14:18, Wednesday 27 August 2025 (86600)

Great to see that the inclusion of the SUSpoint L to M1 P block makes a difference.

Unfortunately, the P2Y coupling is a wierd non-reciprocal coupling we were seeing on the measurements [See page 21 about the SR3 measurements from june after an OSEM calibration test]. The Pitch to Yaw transfer function is consistent with the conversion of pitch motion to observed yaw signals on the LF and RT OSEMs, this apparent motion gets turned into yaw feedback drive and creates the transfer function you see in the measurements linked.

Brian and I discussed it before and we had decided against adding a cross-term in the estimator to address it because it is both not well understood (at least we don't know why the LF and RT OSEMs see Pitch signals) , and because it is possible that we might only be able to address it if we commission the estimators in a fully serialized way, which would be even more time consuming for (probably) minimal benefit.

Depending on schedule, we can figure out if it is worth adding an M1 drive P to M1 Y estimator path, and probably commission a baby version of it with the measurements that Oli already took to see if it makes a difference.

oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 12:20, Monday 08 September 2025 (86786)

I've confirmed in 86784 that the excess noise seen in the red trace between 1-3 Hz is not due to the SR3 Estimator having L2P compensation

H1 SUS (SUS)
edgard.bonilla@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:54, Tuesday 26 August 2025 (86588)
Blend filters for PR3 P and Y estimators

This logpost is a follow up to the executive summary on PR3 OSEM estimator Filter and Blend design [LHO: 86563]

Edgard, Brian, Ivey.

We used Brian's scripts to generate the blends for the PR3 OSEM estimator. We tuned these blends to the specific resonances of PR3 (which we expect to differ from SR3, as explored by Oli in [LHO: 86554]. We emphasized trying to match the bumps in the OSEM filter with the various resonances of the M1 to M1 plant [see in the figures attached].

The scripts used to create the filters, together with a script to load them into foton were updated to the SUS SVN inside 'sus/trunk/HLTS/Common/FilterDesign/Estimator'.

For pitch:
The pitch blends were created using 'blend_PR3_pitchv2.m' (see first pdf attached). The filters follow the same design principle as Brian did in [LHO: 86510] and [LHO:86452]. The blends are created by making the OSEM bandpass by adding an overall low-pass filter with four low-Q bumps  that match the observed resonanced of the M1 to M1 plant. The high-frequency gain of this filter does not asymptote to zero to keep the phase of the bumps close to zero at the resonances of the modeled PR3 M1 to M1 plant, while not creating a zero in between bumps.
The zpks are:

model_filter =

    'zpk([-0.083+22.156i,-0.083-22.156i,-0.097+13.118i,-0.097-13.118i,0,-0.037+4.136i,-0.037-4.136i,-0.045+4.738i,-0.045-4.738i],[-0.188,-0.171+4.106i,-0.171-4.106i,-0.199+4.771i,-0.199-4.771i,-0.438+13.125i,-0.438-13.125i,-0.37+22.177i,-0.37-22.177i],0.9)'


osem_filter =

    'zpk([-1.807+20.726i,-1.807-20.726i,-2.733+10.99i,-2.733-10.99i,-8.429,-0.227+4.431i,-0.227-4.431i,-1.381+2.186i,-1.381-2.186i],[-0.188,-0.171+4.106i,-0.171-4.106i,-0.199+4.771i,-0.199-4.771i,-0.438+13.125i,-0.438-13.125i,-0.37+22.177i,-0.37-22.177i],0.1)'

 

For yaw:
For the yaw estimator, we used 'Estimator_blend_skinnynotch_PR3yaw_20250825.m'  which follows the design procedure on [LHO: 86265]. In this case the procedure is more similar to designing blends for the ISI: we pick a rolloff for the Highpass (model filter) and Lowpass (OSEM) filter, but add a few notches onto the model filter. Then by using the SEI SVN function 'maketruecomplements_tol' they are turned into complementary blends.  The advantage of this process is that we can ensure the OSEM filter rolls off at high frequencies. One disadvantage is that it is a bit harder to tune the amplitude and phase of the OSEM blend around the suspension resonances.
The zpks are

model_filter =

    'zpk([-0.306+21.389i,-0.306-21.389i,-0.242+14.516i,-0.242-14.516i,-0.128+6.404i,-0.128-6.404i,0],[-1.528-21.337i,-1.528+21.337i,-1.21-14.467i,-1.21+14.467i,-0.641-6.374i,-0.641+6.374i,-0.628],1)'


osem_filter =

    'zpk([-0.81-18.387i,-0.81+18.387i,-0.473-9.928i,-0.473+9.928i,-0.216-3.503i,-0.216+3.503i],[-1.528-21.337i,-1.528+21.337i,-1.21-14.467i,-1.21+14.467i,-0.641-6.374i,-0.641+6.374i,-0.628],6.034)'

Non-image files attached to this report
H1 SEI
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:01, Tuesday 26 August 2025 (86587)
H1 ISI CPS Noise Spectra Check - Weekly

FAMIS26547

Script reports ETMX_ST1_CPSINF_V2 is high. HAM3 H2 also seems high.

Non-image files attached to this report
H1 General
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:53, Tuesday 26 August 2025 (86584)
LVEA Swept

I unplugged two unused extension chords and I also unplugged what is labeled as the PCALX camera computer, but it is really the the computer to take pictures of ITMX from the spool. The computer is off and not being used, so I unplugged it. I turned the lights off as I left.

H1 SUS
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:51, Tuesday 26 August 2025 - last comment - 13:37, Tuesday 26 August 2025(86578)
H1 SUS PR3 Pitch and Yaw Estimator: Installed and Run for 1 hour
J. Kissel, E. Bonilla

Thanks to the hard and quick work of the Stanford team overnight designing blend filters and super sensor model filters (LHO:86563), I was able to install everything needed to get the H1SUSPR3's estimator up, running, and functional this morning. After having run it for bit during maintenance (and thus corner-station sensor correction was off), I've turned the "use OSEMs or use Estimator" switch to "use OSEMs" such that the SUS is performing in a functionally equivalent way as "no estimator." We'll run like this until (a) I make some plots analyzing the performance and (b) Until Thursday's commissioning period when we're in nominal low noise, so we can do similar ON vs. OFF comparisons with ASC as our metric.

The P and Y estimators were ON from 2025-08-26 18:05 UTC to 19:00 UTC.

Some extra design points beyond whats made in LHO:86563, with the mind-set of "can we 'just' copy and paste SR3's filters into PR3?"
In short: No.
In long: 
    The existing OSEM-only damping is different -- all SR3's damping loop's overall EPICs gain is -0.5, where PR3's is -1.0. This is demonstrated by LHO:86554, that means the damped M1 drive to M1 response "damped plant" is different. Namely, on resonance, the loop suppression 1/(1+G), is different because G is different, and thus P/(1+G) is different. This has the effect of shifting the fundamental mode frequencies and changing the residual Q. *That* means two things:
    (1) that the OSEM vs. Estimator blend filters -- which are relatively tight notches around resonances -- in principle, should be different. That being said, depending on the performance we end up getting we could *see* if making the blend filters generically wide enough would work. But, for now, we err on the side of "let's make the blend filters specific" because we have the measurements and the person power.
    (2) The "undamped plant" measurements for the estimator -- which are really "lightly damped" plants with whatever loop suppression is left from the broadband OSEM damping that's still always used; an EPICs gain of -0.1 for SR3 and -0.2 for PR3's damping loop controllers -- are different. So, the filters that are modeling that response -- the Sus. Point drive to M1 response filters and the M1 drive to M1 response filters -- will also necessarily be different. However, the differences are almost entirely resonance shifts and Q changes that are proportional to the differences in 1/(1+G) of the light damping (one with scaled with G = -0.1 and one with G=-0.2). Said differently, so far, only the on-diagonal M1 to M1 transfer functions are proving to be needed, and only the P to P, L to P, and Y to Yaw suspension point to M1 transfer functions are needed, and these are almost identical between PR3 and SR3.

I'll put a comparison of the filters and details of the installation in the comments.
Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 13:08, Tuesday 26 August 2025 (86580)
Here're the comparison between the PR3 and SR3 Suspension Point to M1 response transfer functions.

These we installed using the scripts
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/Common/FilterDesign/Estimator/
    make_PR3_pitch_model.m     rev 12622
    make_PR3_yaw_model.m       rev 12622
which push the filters from the saved .mat files 
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/Common/FilterDesign/Estimator/
    fits_H1PR3_P_2025-08-19.mat    rev 12622
    fits_H1PR3_Y_2025-08-19.mat    rev 12619
(Most are at rev 12622 because the file names had differing arrangements of underscores and hyphens, so I cleaned that up before running.)

Notably -- we uncovered the oversight of missing L to P filter install in SR3 (LHO:86567) in enough time to make sure the same oversight didn't happen with PR3.

So -- PR3 has 
   - Pitch Estimator P to P, H1:SUS-PR3_M1_EST_P_FUSION_MODL_SUSP_P_2GAP, comparison plot
   - Pitch Estimator L to P, H1:SUS-PR3_M1_EST_L_FUSION_MODL_SUSP_P_2GAP, comparison plot and 
   - Yaw Estimator Y to Y, H1:SUS-PR3_M1_EST_Y_FUSION_MODL_SUSP_Y_2GAP,  comparison plot.

Images attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 13:09, Tuesday 26 August 2025 (86581)
Here's the comparison between the M1 to M1 drive transfer functions. 

These are also installed with the same run of the scripts
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/Common/FilterDesign/Estimator/
    make_PR3_pitch_model.m     rev 12622
    make_PR3_yaw_model.m       rev 12622
which push the filters from the saved .mat files 
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/Common/FilterDesign/Estimator/
    fits_H1PR3_P_2025-08-19.mat    rev 12622
    fits_H1PR3_Y_2025-08-19.mat    rev 12619
(Most are at rev 12622 because the file names had differing arrangements of underscores and hyphens, so I cleaned that up before running.)

Images attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 13:37, Tuesday 26 August 2025 (86583)
Here's the comparison between the blend filters.

Because I want to have a bit more conversation about this, I show the comparison in detail for each PIT and YAW, and when showing them all together, I show both zoomed in and out in frequency.

Namely: The pitch super sensor blend filter magnitude tops out at 0.9 rather than the traditional 1.0 for a complimentary blend filter. As Brian briefly mentions in his design aLOG (LHO:86510) this because he is mindful of the phase of the sum of this filter and its compliment. The pitch super sensor blend filter was designed to be 
    (SS Blend) = 1 - (OSEM Blend). 
In his design aLOG, he phrases it as "The low-pass [OSEM Blend] is a zero-pole pair so that it levels off to a transmission of 0.1. This is so the gap between the two [0.64 and 0.75 Hz] resonant peaks [which were designed as separate, single z:p pairs] will be well behaved. [The pairs] will cross at about 180 degrees of phase shift and make a sharp zero [between resonances], and [that] deep zero seemed to be causing numerical issues when Oli was implementing the yaw blends. The flat bottom at 0.1 prevents that."
     
    So, if you force the OSEM blend to bottom out at 0.1, then the super-sensor blend will top out at 1 - 0.1 = 0.9.

    This, in effect, sacrifices 10% loop gain for numerical stability.

    Brian says he's working on a -v3 design that might improve this.
    Honestly, I think it's probably fine from an overall loop gain perspective -- I guess this can be rectified by increasing the estimator control filter by 10%, but even if not, 10% less damping is totally fine.

    If loop or numerical stability demands that we can't increase the overall gain can we augment this design such that *well* above the 0.64 and 0.75 Hz resonances -- can we still roll off the OSEM contribution? Say, multiply the whole -v2 OSEM filter by a high-pass at, 10 Hz (and then adjust the SS blend accordingly to keep things complimentary)?
Images attached to this comment
H1 ISC
daniel.sigg@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:38, Tuesday 26 August 2025 - last comment - 13:21, Tuesday 26 August 2025(86568)
Whitening chassis for ASC-AS_C and OMC-REFL_A changed

This continues work from alog 86442. A new cable, D2500252, was made to replace the old ISC_455 (D2200327) and ISC_39 (standard 25-pin d-sub cable).

The DC offset have been adjusted but not accepte din SDF.

The second anti-whitening filter of OMC-REFL_A is now a normal anti-whitening filter, zpk([10],[1],1,"n"), and not the antiLP, zpk([49.63],[497.5],-0.9995,"n"). However, the filter files are not updated yet.

Comments related to this report
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 12:53, Tuesday 26 August 2025 (86579)

Initial alignment post-maintenance is currently failing at SR2_align because there is no signal on AS_C. We think this change may be the culprit.

daniel.sigg@LIGO.ORG - 13:21, Tuesday 26 August 2025 (86582)

And back to the old board. Seems we have an issue with the new cable...

H1 TCS
matthewrichard.todd@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:27, Tuesday 26 August 2025 - last comment - 14:20, Tuesday 26 August 2025(86566)
Changing TCS-SIM values for surface defocus effects

M. Todd, C. Compton, S. Dwyer


We changed the gain settings in TCS-SIM that convert the powers of each actuator (including self-heating) to surface defocus for calculating the overall radius of curvature of each test mass at a given thermal state.

The motivation for this was that the simulation seems to be largely overestimating the Higher Order Mode spacing. Hopefully, with these new predictions, we will observe better agreement between the simulation and HOM measurements.

We also changed the absorption values using values taken from alog 80714 for the ITMs, and using galaxy for the values for the ETMs.

 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
anthony.sanchez@LIGO.ORG - 14:20, Tuesday 26 August 2025 (86585)

Hey.... these are some SDF's that I think are related to your work.
I accepted them all.

Images attached to this comment
H1 General
anthony.sanchez@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:43, Tuesday 26 August 2025 - last comment - 13:12, Tuesday 26 August 2025(86565)
Tuesday Ops Maintenance Day

TITLE: 08/26 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Acquisition
OUTGOING OPERATOR: TJ
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 15mph Gusts, 9mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.09 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
H1 has been locked for 10+ hours.

Today At 14:21 UTC it appears the Magnetic Injections started.
At 14:40 UTC Back to Observing.
Down to Commissioning again at 14:45 UTC



Expected Tuesday Maintenance Work:
VAC - MX and MY pump install work continuing (booster pumps will be connected)
VAC - BSC1 AIP troubleshooting. Needs LASER SAFE condition.  Postponed
VAC - LN2 delivery: MX (CP5) and MY (CP3)
VAC - FC guage work (pumping)
Randy - North Bay - cleaning of top of eMod
Randy - East Bay - remove C3 cleanroom sock cover over HAM5 & 6
FAC - rock delivery at Staging building
CDS -Daniel - Change the whitening chassis that is currently used for the ASC-AS_C QPD
Fil - HAM5&6 racks - install of BHD stuff
LN2 - MY & MX
Charge meas't ?

 

 

Comments related to this report
anthony.sanchez@LIGO.ORG - 12:29, Tuesday 26 August 2025 (86576)

SNEWS Test @ 16:59 UTC 
Vaccum Mid X Pressure alarm Low 17:53 UTC.
12 Hours ago there was an increase in CER Temps

Expected Tuesday Maintenance Work:
Done - VAC - MX and MY pump install work continuing (booster pumps will be connected)
Postponed ------ VAC - BSC1 AIP troubleshooting. Needs LASER SAFE condition. 
Done - VAC - LN2 delivery: MX (CP5) and MY (CP3)
"Done ....For Now...." ~ Gerardo - VAC - FC guage work (pumping)
Done North Bay - cleaning of top of eMod
Done  East Bay - remove C3 cleanroom sock cover over HAM5 & 6
Done -  FAC - rock delivery at Staging building 
Done - CDS -Daniel - Change the whitening chassis that is currently used for the ASC-AS_C QPD
Done - Fil - HAM5&6 racks - install of BHD stuff
Done - LN2 - MY & MX
Done - SUS Charge meas't ?
Done - Beaver Bark gravel dumps 
Done - Dust Mon Pump Swap
 

CER temps are now dropping

camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - 13:12, Tuesday 26 August 2025 (86577)OpsInfo, SQZ

Elenna noticed that we dropped from Observing 8 times last night, for around 2 minutes each time, plot. This was mainly due to the OPO loosing lock, reporting "2025-08-26_08:04:01.503798Z SQZ_OPO_LR [LOCKED_CLF_DUAL.run] USERMSG 0: OPO not really locked or maybe locked in a wrong mode" and taking itself to DOWN. I don't see a clear reason why, plot attached.

The OPO PZT was around 100V but we can operate up to 110V and the OPO ISS AOM was at it's central value of 5V. 

There is some OPO TRANS glitches where the power drops by more than 20% but the OPO stays locked, plot attached.

  • 7:10UTC OPO lost lock
  • 7:14UTC OPO lost lock
  • 7:18UTC FC lost lock
  • 8:03UTC OPO lost lock
  • 9:05UTC FC lost lock
  • 10:06UTC ISS LL counter.
    • Message "2025-08-26_10:06:12.261378Z SQZ_OPO_LR [LOCKED_CLF_DUAL.run] USERMSG 0: Disabling pump iss after 10 lockloss counter. Going to through LOCKED_CLF_DUAL_NO_ISS to turn on again."
    • The OPO ISS turned off, we see no reason why, it was at 5V, the middle of it's range, see attached plot.
  • 10:07UTC OPO lost lock
  • 10:15UTC OPO lost lock

Tagging OpsInfo, please check for drops in Observing overnight using the verbal alarms computer and tag the relevant team in your alog it it's obvious what caused the observing drop. For SQZ, there is a ndscope under sitemap > SQZ > SQZ Overview > ! SQZ Scopes > SQZ Guardians that compares the H1:GRD-IFO_OK channels to all SQZ Guardian to see if they were the reason for the observing drop.

Images attached to this comment
H1 SUS (ISC, SEI)
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:55, Monday 25 August 2025 - last comment - 14:22, Tuesday 26 August 2025(86551)
Correction/Update: SR3 Estimator Impact on ASC (plus new OMC and ASC-AS plots)

Jeff, Oli

On Thursday (86507) I alogged the differences we were seeing in the ASC with the SR3 estimator on. The time that I was taking as our 'reference time' for the estimator off, however, doesn't seem like it was a good time showing the lowest the ASC noise could be. You could say this caused us to over estimat(or) the differences.
So I plotted some more times with the estimator off, then with the estimator on, and I found that maybe the SR3 noise is limiting the ASC noise less than shown in 86507. However, I also found that below 0.2 Hz, where we thought that the estimators were elevating the noise, that also seems to have been not related to the estimator, so that is something we might not have to worry about. 
Of course the peaks at 0.6 and 0.7 Hz are elevated in the estimator plots below due to not damping them in the inital blend filter (mentioned in 86507), and this is something that we partially fixed this morning (86544), and will be working on further damping at the next available commissioning time.

There are still times where the estimator on makes the noise better at some frequencies, but there are also other times where the estimator is on, but something else is limiting the noise, so it looks like SR3 isn't limiting the noise very much at all. It will still be interesting to see if adding estimators onto the rest of the SRC give us different results.

In the plots below, I am showing the variation in noise with the estimators off and the estimators on,
The 'bad' time for the estimators OFF is: 2025-08-17 09:00 UTC (green)
The 'good' time for the estimators OFF is: 2025-08-20 18:29 UTC (blue)
For the estimators ON times, they're both 'good' and 'bad' at different frequencies, so I'll just list their times:
2025-08-21 16:35 UTC (red)
2025-08-24 18:18 UTC (gold)

  Pitch Yaw
ASC-DHARD Error
Est OFF Est ON Both Est OFF Est ON Both
Control
Est OFF Est ON Both Est OFF Est ON Both
ASC-MICH Error
Est OFF Est ON Both Est OFF Est ON Both
Control
Est OFF Est ON Both Est OFF Est ON Both
ASC-SRC1 Error
Est OFF Est ON Both Est OFF Est ON Both
Control
Est OFF Est ON Both Est OFF Est ON Both
ASC-SRC2 Error
Est OFF Est ON Both Est OFF Est ON Both
Control
Est OFF Est ON Both Est OFF Est ON Both
ASC-AS_A_DC Control
Est OFF Est ON Both Est OFF Est ON Both
ASC-AS_B_DC Control
Est OFF Est ON Both Est OFF Est ON Both
ASC-OMC_A Control
Est OFF Est ON Both Est OFF Est ON Both
ASC-OMC_B Control
Est OFF Est ON Both Est OFF Est ON Both
OMC-DCPD_SUM_OUT Est Off Est ON Both
OMC-REFL_A_LF_OUT Est Off Est ON Both

 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
edgard.bonilla@LIGO.ORG - 22:02, Monday 25 August 2025 (86562)

Jeff, Oli, this is good to know!

I also noticed that the SUSpoint L to M1 P block of the estimator does not have the corresponding filter fit. For the Pitch degree of freedom, we expect the ISI longitudinal contribution to be relevant enough that it should be modeled. Maybe this explains some of the inconsistent behavior around the length/pitch modes.

I modified 'make_SR3_pitch_model.m' inside sus/trunk/HLTS/Common/FilterDesign/Estimator to ensure that we get the correct fits into this filter bank. This update is current as of SVN revision 12616

In total, autoquack should populate 3 filter banks for the pitch estimator:

SR3_M1_EST_Y_FUSION_MODL_SUSP_L_2GAP
SR3_M1_EST_Y_FUSION_MODL_SUSP_P_2GAP
SR3_M1_EST_Y_FUSION_MODL_DRV_P_2GAP
brian.lantz@LIGO.ORG - 14:22, Tuesday 26 August 2025 (86586)

Wow. Thanks for all the data. One quick clarification. Above it says "Of course the peaks at 0.6 and 0.7 Hz are elevated in the estimator plots below due to not damping them in the inital blend filter" 

To be clear, the first version of the pitch estimator was designed to damp these peaks. But - recall that "estimator" is the blend of the model and the measurements. In the first version, nearly all of the damping signal in the estimator was from the MODEL, whereas the 2 higher frequency peaks (and all 3 yaw peaks) use the MEASUREMENT path from estimator. In version 1, the model path for the estimator wasn't working well. This seems to mean that the model is not correctly predicting the gap motion. We suspect that this is because of an unmodeled drive, which we think is DAC noise.

So we were applying damping with the estimator, but it was not working as expected. Version 2 has updated blend filters which use the osem signals around all 4 peak frequencies, and hopefully this will improve the estimator performance.

H1 SQZ
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:38, Monday 18 August 2025 - last comment - 12:16, Wednesday 27 August 2025(86414)
DHARD, SRCL1 anmd Camera Offset Changes with Mid-sqz at 5kHZ
Elenna, Jennie, Camilla. Contining from 86361
 
We saved  H1:OMC-DCPD_524K_A2_IN1 data with the PD sum, it was already changed from last week as in  85937. DTT saved as /ligo/home/camilla.compton/Documents/sqz/templates/dtt/20250819higher_order_modes.xml screenshot attached. Elenna opened POP beamdiv.
Changed DHARD/SRCL1 settings with H1:ASC-{SRCL1,DHARD}_{P,Y}_OFFSET and the camera offsets in steps of +/-1 as in 76695Didn't see a change with DHARD or camera offsets, found improvement with SRCL1 PIT and YAW,
 
Starting angle is (-)133, took SQZ_ANG SERVO to DOWN. After each step of SRCL1/camera offsets/DHARD, we changed SQZ angle to get level back to 4dB ASQZ, as our 5kHz modes look clearest here.
To get mean sqz, pause SQZ_MANAGER, SQZ_LO_LR to DOWN, ADF off, SQZ_FC to MISALIGNED.
 
Type Time (UTC) Angle DTT Ref Notes
SQZ 15:30:00 - 15:35:00 (-)133 ref 0  
FDS Mid - SQZ 15:37:00 - 15:39:00 (-)111 ref 1 At 4dB ASQZ
FDS Mid SQZ, SRM YAW -1urad (offset -0.3) 15:47:00 - 15:49:00 (-)108 ref 2 Made better today and in 86363
Mid SQZ, , SRM YAW -1urad,  +8cts DHARD YAW 15:51:30  - 15:53:30 (-)108 ref 3 No change at 5 or 10kHz
Mid SQZ, , SRM YAW -1urad,  CAM3Y -1count 16:04:30 - 16:06:30 (-)108 ref 4 Loop takes ~5 minutes to converge, buildups worse. No change at 5 or 10kHz.
Mid SQZ, , SRM YAW -1urad,  CAM3Y +1count 16:15:30 - 16:16:30 (-)108 not taken Builds-ups same as normal. No change at 5 or 10kHz.
Mid SQZ, , SRM YAW -1urad, SRM PIT +2urad (offset +0.6) 16:23:00 - 16:25:00 (-)110 ref 5 Buildups worse, saw 5kHz was a little worse at 5kHz with +0.3 so went further. DHARD PIT started to grow at 1Hz.
Mid SQZ, , SRM YAW -1urad, SRM PIT -1urad (offset -0.3) 16:27:00 - 16:29:00 (-)107 ref 6 5kHz better
Mid SQZ, SRM YAW -1urad, SRM PIT -2urad (offset -0.6) 16:30:00 - 16:32:00 (-)106 ref 7 5kHz slightly worse
Mean SQZ 16:35:00 - 16:37:00 N/A ref 8  
 
Best for 5kHz is -0.3 on both SRCL PIT and YAW. We then took the data for the SRCL offset SQZ brontosaurs plots at these (-0.3,-0.3) SRCL1 offsets, as in 8479485362. Plot saved in camilla.compton/Documents/sqz/templates/dtt/20250818_SQZdata.xml and attached.
 
Type Time (UTC) SRCL Offset Angle DTT Ref
FIS SQZ 16:42:30 - 16:45:30 -382 (-)124 ref 1
FIS SQZ 16:48:30 - 16:51:30 -200 (-)153 ref 2
FIS SQZ 16:58:30 - 17:01:30 0 (-)224 ref 3
No SQZ 17:02:30 - 17:05:30 -382 N/A ref 0

Took above data at NLG of 16.0, checked and improved the NLG after data taken 76542.

OPO Setpoint Amplified Max Amplified Min UnAmp Dark NLG Note
80 0.108523 0.00199724 0.0067894 -1.22e-5 16.0 Without Optimizing Temp
80 0.154115 0.00199724     22.7 After Optimizing Temp
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 11:53, Monday 18 August 2025 (86422)

I think we like these SRC ASC offsets, so I set up the guardian to keep them. While the overall effect is minimal, there was a small increase in the buildups that was repeatable: we switched these offsets on and off a few times as we were commissioning today and the buildups got slightly worse when they went off and slightly better when they went on. I tried to process the FIS data, and I think it shows that the overall change in the SRCL offset is minimal, but maybe someone else can confirm. Similarly, the calibration report show the fit of the sensing function is very good in the current model.

Now the guardian engages these SRC ASC offsets in the LOWNOISE_ASC state.

I have attached the results (plot one and plot two) from the FIS measurement, and the fit indicates that our current SRCL offset is fine (I think that's the correct interpretation here).

Here is a trend of the buildups and SRC ASC offsets (pitch and yaw are right on top of each other in the bottom plot). The plot shows that the buildups increase when we add these offsets and decrease when we disengage these offsets.

The calibration report is linked in this alog, and shows that the calibration model is still very good. (There are some strange errors in the report generation, but they are unrelated to this change).

Images attached to this comment
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 15:08, Monday 18 August 2025 (86428)

Here is a more to-the-point executive summary of what these results today are indicating:

  • the lower frequency mode seems to be most effected by yaw SRM offsets
  • the higher frequency mode seems to be the most effected by pitch SRM offsets
  • DHARD pitch and yaw offset seem to have no effect on these modes
  • Y-arm yaw camera offsets (effectively a DSOFT offset) seem to have no effect on these modes
    • stepping both up and down by 1 ct camera offsets also made the buildups worse

A large positive SRM pitch offset caused a growing 1 Hz oscillation in DHARD pitch as well. I'm not sure what to make of that yet, but I wanted to re-emphasize for future moves.

Since we are seeing an improvement in the buildups when adding SRM offsets, I think some of the prevalence of these modes could be related to some uncontrolled AS 72 offset which is changing the SRM alignment offset. We reran dark offsets when coming back from the vent, so the dark offset change on AS 72 could be effecting the SRM alignment in some way.

elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 12:16, Wednesday 27 August 2025 (86598)

In a follow up discussion, Sheila and I referring Matt's slides regarding the HOMs here.

Based on Matt's work, we think that the lower frequency mode is the Y-arm mode, and the higher frequency mode is the X arm mode.

Therefore, this indicates that the SRM yaw alignment offset effected the Y arm mode and the SRM pitch alignment offset effected the X arm mode.

Also, as a follow up test, we should try CAM2 offsets, which is the X arm soft degree of freedom.

We could also try MICH alignment offsets.

Displaying reports 401-420 of 84531.Go to page Start 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 End