Data for ETMX and ETMY for 3 EQs:

• January 22, 2017
• July 6, 2017, the Montana 5.8M
• July 29, 2017

I've included drive signals, sensors (osems), and then subtracted the drive signals from the sensor (osem) signals (on speculation, no claim this is completely valid, outside of M0), with some interesting results.

There are a number of sensors that have large changes compared to the other osems around them, and some that are large in both sensors and sensors-drives. 

This leads me to believe that further investigation into these osems may be warented.

All values the change from before to after the earthquakes, and all comments are regarding EQ2 only.

  Run the Ops SVN file checks. Checked in several Filter Files and SNAP files in the SVN repository.  

   Could not reach Pcal folks to confirm SDF differences. Accepted the differences (see file below) to get back to Observing.

PSL dust 102 has not been updating for some time, while PSL dust 101 is working fine. As a first try to fix the problem, I stopped the EPICS IOC code and restarted it. This did not fix the problem.

Before and after the restart, the IOC was reporting communication issues with PSL Dust-102

2017/08/11 12:47:22.773741 gt521s1 H1:PEM-CS_DUST_PSL102_OPSTATUS: No reply from device within 200 ms

Sheila, TVo

In attempts to switch DARM control from ETMY ESD to other methods (see aLOG-37984), we wanted to see if the ITM ESDs had enough range to be able to take on the DARM control signal during locking as well as estimate the ratio of low noise response.

Configuration:

We can compare the respective responses by dividing out the digital and driver gains and then taking the ratio between ITMX and ETMX TFs.

The first picture is the individual TFs and the second picture is the ratio of the magnitudes as a function of frequency.

Sheila trended a lock acquisition and found a time where the ETMX ESD was driving the hardest so we made an RMS measurement to get a sense of what is needed to lock.  Then we can estimate what is needed from the ITMX ESD and see if it is close to saturating the 18-bit DAC, also attached is the calculation.

Conclusions:

1) The ratio of ETMX to ITMX ESD drive is about 3.

2) The ITMX ESD range has enough range to lock with DARM, we'd only use up about 12% of DAC range.

model restarts logged for Thu 10/Aug/2017 - Fri 04/Aug/2017 No restarts reported

Based on some follow up from an HVeto journal club, I sanity-checked my claim that ETMY L1 NoiseMon channels are winning HVeto nearly every day. Attached are said results.

In viewing the data from Jun-8 until Aug-9, one of the four ETMY L1 channels begins showing up as the consistent round 1 winner on June 27; it occasionally pushes back to round 3 due to other exceptionally noisy aux channels. This trend continues through until today. Also, the LL channel is the most consistent winner (about 60% of all round wins).

In the attached plots, the regions where it is not a round winner (7-Jul to 13-Jul) simply have no HVeto output. I assume these channels would have continued to lead otherwise.

Further time series analysis of glitches to come.

TITLE: 08/11 Owl Shift: 07:00-15:00 UTC (00:00-08:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 52Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Jeff
SHIFT SUMMARY:
LOG:

12:59UTC

TITLE: 08/11 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 51Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ed
SHIFT SUMMARY:
LOG:

23:05 Lockloss while doing A2L, then ALS was uncooperative

5:30 Eq notification, 6.2 in the Philipines. I had 2500 seconds to think about it before the R-waves arrived, 1500 seconds before P&S, I switched the seismic configuration to Earthquake_V2, but the .03-.1 blrms never went above .3 microns. 

7:00 I switch seismic back to Windy. Never got exciting, seismically speaking.

TITLE: 08/11 Owl Shift: 07:00-15:00 UTC (00:00-08:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 52Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Jim
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    Wind: 8mph Gusts, 7mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.04 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.05 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

H1 locked. EQ ringing down.

J. Kissel

Similar to the BSC ISI ST2 X/Y (longitudinal) and RX/RY (pitch) broad-band excitations taken and projections made (see LHO aLOGs 37752 and 38122), I've processed the RZ (yaw) broad-band injections I took a few days ago (see LHO aLOG 38031).

The ISI basis RZ couplings are significantly less than that from pitch or yaw, but ETMX remains the worst offender.

Recall that an ISI basis RZ drive does not just cause Yaw of the suspension point, it also creates Longitudinal and Translational for the QUAD as well (see T1100617). This is similar to an RX / RY drive causing some X/Y and Z motion. If we still had the CART2EUL drive matrices installed, we might be able to create a pure Yaw drive, but this is likely not worth it based on these results. My gut says that what coupling we do see from RZ drive, is just the small Longitudinal component of the RZ drive.

However, the L, P and Y couplings may be a little underestimated: the coherence between X/Y IN1s ,RX/RY IN1s, and RZ IN1s is non-negligible, but it's still small enough (0.1 to 0.2) that adding these noise predictions are incoherent (i.e. adding them in quadrature) may be close enough.
RZ of the platform is controlled, but bandwidths are limited to 30-40 Hz.

The remaining open questions regarding the L and P coupling / noise:
- Is this the cause of some transient features we've seen in the 70 and 90 Hz regions throughout aLIGO at H1?
    - The coupling is likely stationary, but we know the input is not ... 
- Should we check the HAMs or Beam Splitter for similar nastiness?
- What is the coupling mechanism?
    - Charge interactions between the cage / EQ stops / ring heaters and the test mass?
    - Scattered light?
    - Impressive that H1 was so much more unlucky than L1 in this...
- Is there any evidence of this happening before the July 6th 2017 EQ?
    - We'll be taking long-duration coherence measurements to check for coherence, but this may be thwarted by the non-stationary of the input noise (and jitter + new mystery noise masking the issue)
- What should we look for when we first go in chamber for vent in 1 month?
- We presume this is the pre-damped QUAD cage resonance. What can we do about it in the future?
    - Even the non-resonant, 1/f^2 slope is high enough that the noise is well above the designed sensitivity. We need to fix this if we're to get there!
    - Strive for increasing the bandwidth of the ISIs? We've run out of phase margin because of signal processing phase loss to go beyond where we are now, plus table motion is already below the GS13 sensor noise
    - Try to move the cage resonance by subtracting / adding weight, or make the vibration absorbers more lossy to reduce the Q further?

Thomas Vo, Sheila, Fil

We lost lock on our attempt to transition from ETMY ESD to the ITMX ESD, because of a mistake I made in the script.  We want to be able to lock DARM on the ITM ESD driver so that we can lock the interferometer with one of the end station ESDs grounded and still transition to low noise low voltage (it seems like we have plenty of range to do this on ITMX).  

While we were unlocked we went to the floor with Fil and grounded all 5 cables, shield and pin, from the ITM ESDs.  We were locked like this from 22:52:00 UTC until 23:01 UTC on August 10th.  We saw no difference in the spectrum compared to our normal noise.  I went to the floor and attempted to reconnect the ESD cables for ITMY, with the driver powered off.  I connected the cables for the 4 quadrants but unlocked the IFO connecting the bias cable.  At LLO they were able to disconnect and reconnect these cables while in lock. (3502)

Following up on some remote MEDM display problems Sheila was experiencing which could have been due to some screens with (x,y) origin coordinates at high values, I wrote a python script to find which ADL files with bad origins.

Rather than scan every ADL file under the userapps area (there are 9,449 of them) my code starts at the SITEMAP.adl and drills down through all the related displays. It is not totally inclusive as some related display paths heavily use macro substitution.

Of the 4085 files scanned, 111 of them have an origin outside of the single monitor iMac resolution range of (2560,1440). Since these files are under svn control, I'll see how we can go about fixing this.

23:00 (16:00) Turn over to Jim

Nutsinee, Dan, Jeff K, Angus

This is a follow up on the alog17529. Below you'll find the list of violin mode frequencies we found and averaged frequencies including possible alternatives. The fiber is determined using data gathered in alog16614 (which cites alog11184, alog9359, alog11044, and alog6858). The air frequency included in the last column. 

The way alternatives work is that, if you choose to use one, you have to use the next alternative as well. For instant, if you decide for 508.00075 line to be averaged violin mode for the ETMY FR, you have to use 508.176 as the ETMY FL line. Or if you were to pick 508.21725 as the ETMY FL, you have to use 508.213 as the ETMY BL. This seems a little bit confusing so I attached the original Excel file as well. 

Any comments, questions, and suggestions welcome.

Ps. I don't know why alog keeps making new entries everytime I add things to the table and update the file. Sorry for the spam!