06:23UTC As per Sudarshan's aLog, I changed the calibration line configuration. Below is an image of the SDF diffs accepted to go back into Observing.
All BS spectra look fine. ETMY shows the only slightly elevated HF noise. Nothing to be concerned with.
All HAM spectra looks good.
Violin modes.
We are running two Pcal lines at ENDX at 333.9 and 1083.3 Hz with amplitudes twice as large as yesterday to get better SNRs. These lines will be on for two hours. The SDF changes as a result of changing the amplitudes were accepted and monitored. Ed will turn these lines off in two hours and start a high frequency line at 3001.3 Hz.
It was a little more than two hours. See my aLog.
~01:00UTC It didn't report this afternoon.
J. Kissel I'm behind on my documentation as I slow process all the data that I'm collecting these days. This aLOG is to document that on this past Tuesday (2017-07-25) I took standard top-to-top mass transfer functions for the Triple SUS (BS, HLTS, and HSTS; 10 SUS in total), as I've done for the QUADs (see LHO aLOG 37689 and associated comments). I saw no evidence of rubbing during the act of measurement, but I'd like to confirm with a thorough comparison. As such, I'll post comparisons against previous measurements, other suspensions, and the appropriate model in due time. This leaves: 3 doubles, 9 singles. Data is stored and committed here: /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BSFM/H1/BS/SAGM1/Data/ 2017-07-25_1501_H1SUSBS_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p01to50Hz.xml 2017-07-25_1501_H1SUSBS_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p01to50Hz.xml 2017-07-25_1501_H1SUSBS_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p01to50Hz.xml 2017-07-25_1501_H1SUSBS_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p01to50Hz.xml 2017-07-25_1501_H1SUSBS_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p01to50Hz.xml 2017-07-25_1501_H1SUSBS_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p01to50Hz.xml /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/PR3/SAGM1/Data/ 2017-07-25_1507_H1SUSPR3_WhiteNoise_L_0p01to50Hz.xml 2017-07-25_1507_H1SUSPR3_WhiteNoise_P_0p01to50Hz.xml 2017-07-25_1507_H1SUSPR3_WhiteNoise_R_0p01to50Hz.xml 2017-07-25_1507_H1SUSPR3_WhiteNoise_T_0p01to50Hz.xml 2017-07-25_1507_H1SUSPR3_WhiteNoise_V_0p01to50Hz.xml 2017-07-25_1507_H1SUSPR3_WhiteNoise_Y_0p01to50Hz.xml /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/SR3/SAGM1/Data/ 2017-07-25_H1SUSSR3_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p01to50Hz.xml 2017-07-25_H1SUSSR3_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p01to50Hz.xml 2017-07-25_H1SUSSR3_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p01to50Hz.xml 2017-07-25_H1SUSSR3_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p01to50Hz.xml 2017-07-25_H1SUSSR3_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p01to50Hz.xml 2017-07-25_H1SUSSR3_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p01to50Hz.xml /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/ PR2/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1607_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p01to50Hz.xml PR2/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1607_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p01to50Hz.xml PR2/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1607_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p01to50Hz.xml PR2/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1607_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p01to50Hz.xml PR2/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1607_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p01to50Hz.xml PR2/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1607_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p01to50Hz.xml PRM/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1607_H1SUSPRM_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p03to50Hz.xml PRM/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1607_H1SUSPRM_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p01to50Hz.xml PRM/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1607_H1SUSPRM_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p01to50Hz.xml PRM/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1607_H1SUSPRM_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p01to50Hz.xml PRM/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1607_H1SUSPRM_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p01to50Hz.xml PRM/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1607_H1SUSPRM_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p01to50Hz.xml SR2/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1715_H1SUSSR2_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p01to50Hz.xml SR2/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1715_H1SUSSR2_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p01to50Hz.xml SR2/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1715_H1SUSSR2_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p01to50Hz.xml SR2/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1715_H1SUSSR2_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p01to50Hz.xml SR2/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1715_H1SUSSR2_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p01to50Hz.xml SR2/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1715_H1SUSSR2_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p01to50Hz.xml SRM/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1814_H1SUSSRM_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p01to50Hz.xml SRM/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1814_H1SUSSRM_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p01to50Hz.xml SRM/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1814_H1SUSSRM_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p01to50Hz.xml SRM/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1814_H1SUSSRM_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p01to50Hz.xml SRM/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1814_H1SUSSRM_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p01to50Hz.xml SRM/SAGM1/Data/2017-07-25_1814_H1SUSSRM_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p01to50Hz.xml
More detailed plots of BS, compared against previous measurements and model. We see perfect agreement with model and previous measurement, so this SUS is definitely clear of rubbing.
More detailed plots if PR3 and SR3. Both are clear of rubbing. The new measurements agree with old measurements of the same suspension, the model, and other suspensions of its type. PR3's L2L transfer function shows "extra" unmodeled resonances that were not there before, but they line up directly with the Y modes. This is likely that, during the measurement the Y modes got rung up, and the power is so large that it surpasses the balance the of the sensors, so they're not subtracted well. I can confirm that these frequencies are incoherent with the excitation, and we've seen such inconsequential cross coupling before. Nothing about which to be alarmed.
More detailed plots of PRM, SRM, and SR2 compared against previous measurements and model. We see good agreement with model and previous measurement, so these SUS are clear of rubbing. There is a subtle drop in response scale factor for all of these suspensions (and in retrospect it's seen on the other SUS types too), and I suspect this is a result of the OSEMs LEDs slowly loosing current over the series of measurements, see attached 4 year trends.
While PR2 shows all resonances are in the right place, there is a suspicious drop in scale for the L and Y DOFs with respect to prior measurements. However, this is the first measurement where we've measured the response with the nominal alignment offsets needed to run the IFO (!!). These DOFs (L and Y) have the LF and RT OSEM sensor / actuators in common (see E1100109 for top mass OSEM layout), so I checked the OSEM sensors, an indeed the LF OSEM sensor is on the very edge of its range at ~1400 [ct] out of 32000 (or 15000 [ct] if it were perfectly centered). I'll confirm that the suspension is free and OK tomorrow by retaking the measurements at a variety of alignment offsets. I really do suspect we're OK, and the measurement is just pushing the OSEM flag past its "closed light" voltage and the excitation is becoming non-linear, therefore reducing the linear response. I attach the transfer function data and a 4 year trend of the LF and RT OSEM values to show that we've been operating like this for years, and there's been no significan change after the Jul 6th EQ.
I'd forgotten to post about the OMCS data I took on 2017-07-25 as well.
The data lives here:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/OMCS/H1/OMC/SAGM1/Data/
2017-07-25_1812_H1SUSOMC_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
2017-07-25_1812_H1SUSOMC_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz.xml
2017-07-25_1812_H1SUSOMC_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to50Hz.xml
2017-07-25_1812_H1SUSOMC_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to50Hz.xml
2017-07-25_1812_H1SUSOMC_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to50Hz.xml
2017-07-25_1812_H1SUSOMC_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml
Detailed plots now attached, and they show that OMC is clear of rubbing; the data looks as it has for past few years, and what difference we see between LHO and LLO are the lower-stage Pitch modes which are arbitrarily influence by ISC electronics cabling running down the chain (as we see for the reaction masses on the QUADs).
The C00 vs. C01 comparison pages have been updated and include all C01 data between 2016-11-30 0:00 and 2017-06-20 0:00.
As part of this analysis, I've got updated PCAL-to-DARM ratio trends at 36.7, 331.9 and 1083.7 Hz. Plots of both magntidue and phase residual timeseries trends are attached. As a reminder, these trends are computed by demodulating 300-second segments at each PCAL line frequency, then averaging to get a magnitude and phase out of each channel. In practice, I break up each 300-second segment into overlapping 100-second chunks, apply a Kaiser window, and then average over chunks to get a less noisy measurement. (It's basically Welch's method, except I'm demodulating rather than computing a PSD.) Finally, I remove outliers that are due to locklosses and loud transient glitches.
In each plot below I show PCAL/strain trends for C00 (blue) and C01 (red) data. The trend shown in aquamarine applies a correction for f_cc to C01 data at the appropriate PCAL line frequency. Gray shaded regions correspond to times when we had a break in O2, once during the holiday season and once for commissioning work. This is identical to a similar study done on Livingston data; see L1 aLog 35102.
You can see that in the bucket (331.9 Hz) we continue to have no systematics and only very small (~1%) statistical fluctuation when we correct for f_cc. At high frequency (1083.7 Hz) there's a slight systematic offset in magnitude and phase, but it's at the level of 2% or so which is consistent with Craig's error budget. At low frequency (36.7 Hz) there's a 3-4% systematic offset since we came back after the break on June 8 that isn't accounted for by f_cc, but I'll bet it's due to optical spring detuning. The offset also shows up in ASD ratio spectra; see the DetChar summary page from the first day after break. I have it as an action item to look into this in the next few days, so stay tuned!
I have restarted SegGener_H1 to include the H1:DMT-ITMY_L2_DAC_OVERFLOW as defined by TJ. This shouldn't have any side effects other than a loss of 1-2 secons of segment data. The H1 IFO was not in low noise data taking at the time so this shouldn't matter much.
John reported via email this change was successful on the production machine, but the DMT test machine hung (probably for other reasons) when he was testing the change. I've now power cycled h1dmt3, and it is up again. This completes LHO WP 7094.
I think I have the seismon code running a bit better now. At least it is running on it's own, and hasn't needed restarting since last week. The main differences are now the 5 event epics code looks like its running, and the seismon_run_info script I'm using now touches on the current event folder every loop. I think this was getting "cleaned up" before and not getting recreated or something. I've added a test to diag main if any earthquake has an arrival time in the future, so there is at least some notification that an earthquake is coming. This should be in addition to the verbal test (which may need updated? I'm not sure what TJ has done) that also has a threshold on the predicted ground velocities. The earthquake today was below the verbal threshold, so didn't get noticed by verbal alarms, but seismon gave us plenty of warning.
TITLE: 07/27 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Earthquake
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Jim
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
Wind: 15mph Gusts, 12mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.05 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.06 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Observatory mode was put into "Environment-EQ" after the earthquake. Since then we've made it to NLN but not for very long. I'm leaving it in "Environment until we get re-locked with stable range.
TITLE: 07/27 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Earthquake
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ed
SHIFT SUMMARY:
LOG:
16:15 Bubba to EY
17:00 Kyle to MX
18:30 Lockloss due to eq in the Atlantic
The rest of the day was spent recovering after a lockloss due to Ed's violin settings not being automated yet ( they are now and seem to work) and gremlins in the michelson loops.
Attached are the HPO Laser Head flow rates for the last 3 days. Pretty much unchanged from the report I posted on Monday, the flow rates are holding pretty steady. The reported flow through Head 2 is still ragged, as is usual.
J. Kissel, J. Warner We've lost lock due to a non-exciting earthquake, re-acquired up to DC Readout Transition watching the violin modes carefully, but we lost lock there (while sill controlling DARM with ETMX). Upon the *next* re-acquisition, though, the ETMX violin modes were incredibly rung up. As such, we stopped at Shutter ALS and baby-sat the ETMX modes until the DCPD RMS was reduced from 1e4 to 2e3. We used Ed Merilh's as our babysitter configuration for the now-problematic ETMX MODE 4 at 505.805 Hz, namely driving in Length, Pitch, and Yaw, ~75 gain, FMs 1 (505.805), 2 (-60 deg), and 4 (100dB). This was successful, so we've now programmed this into the guardian. We highly recommend operators hold any re-acquisition from now on at SHUTTER_ALS, wait for the OMC to lock, then grab a ~0.005 mHz spectra, and opening the outputs of ETMX first 5 violin MODE filters to make sure that violin modes are not rung up. Then, if violins are OK (i.e. RMS of DCPDs is less that 2e3 [ct]), you can go to the first Violin Mode Damping state but be prepared to turn the damping filters off before things get terrible! Only one more month of this, team -- we can do it!
It may be that the violins are so rung up that you're saturating AS_C, which makes SRC2 loop unstable -- so you'll see pitch go into slow oscillation. To prevent this, after every lock loss (for now), park the IFO in ENGAGE_REFL_POP_WFS, and run a DTT spectra with the following channels. H1:OMC-DCPD_A_IN1 H1:OMC-DCPD_B_IN1 H1:ASC-AS_C_SEG1_IN1 H1:ASC-AS_C_SEG2_IN1 H1:ASC-AS_C_SEG3_IN1 H1:ASC-AS_C_SEG4_IN1 To move past ENGAGE_REFL_POP_WFS, you need the AS_C segments to have an RMS of ~2000 [ct] or less below the 500 Hz violin mode cluster, and all peaks should be below 20000 [ct/rtHz]. Once that's true, you can move on the turn on the automatic violin mode damping as normal, so select VIOLIN_MODE_DAMPING_1. To move past that, it's the same criteria: and RMS of ~2000 [ct] or less below the 500 Hz violin mode cluster, and all peaks should be below 20000 [ct/rtHz]. It won't be until you get an RMS of ~100 [ct] RMS that you'll stop seeing huge shoulders around the lines, so *keep baby sitting*.
Templates can't be attached 'cause they're too big. Look in /ligo/home/jeffrey.kissel/Templates/ H1ASC_AS_C_forViolins.xml H1DCPDs_forViolins.xml
J. Kissel
Performed same check on ETMs as I did yesterday on ITMs with standard Top Mass to Top Mass transfer functions.
I similarly attach sneak peak screenshotss of fully processed data, but having watched the TFs go by,
The ETMs are clear of rubbing.
Left to do: all 10 of the triples, 3 doubles, and if we really care, the 9 singles.
(PS, we should get these as reference anyways, in prep for the up-coming vent)
Please ignore the difference with the black references on the reaction chains -- to save time, rather than figure out good templates for the ETMs, I copied over the ITM template and replaced the characters ITM with ETM. We know that ITM reaction chains have different resonance shapes and frequencies that the ETM reaction chains. From years of staring at these, I can tell they're fine. Again, will process these later to show how they really compare what's expected.
The main chains between ETMs and ITMs are identical, so their comparison can be treated as legit.
Data is stored and committed to svn here:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGM0/Data/
2017-07-21_2004_H1SUSETMX_M0_WhiteNoise_L_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2004_H1SUSETMX_M0_WhiteNoise_P_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2004_H1SUSETMX_M0_WhiteNoise_R_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2004_H1SUSETMX_M0_WhiteNoise_T_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2004_H1SUSETMX_M0_WhiteNoise_V_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2004_H1SUSETMX_M0_WhiteNoise_Y_0p01to50Hz.xml
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGR0/Data/
2017-07-21_2051_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_L_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2051_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_P_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2051_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_R_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2051_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_T_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2051_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_V_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2051_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_Y_0p01to50Hz.xml
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGM0/Data/
2017-07-21_2005_H1SUSETMY_M0_WhiteNoise_L_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2005_H1SUSETMY_M0_WhiteNoise_P_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2005_H1SUSETMY_M0_WhiteNoise_R_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2005_H1SUSETMY_M0_WhiteNoise_T_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2005_H1SUSETMY_M0_WhiteNoise_V_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2005_H1SUSETMY_M0_WhiteNoise_Y_0p01to50Hz.xml
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGR0/Data/
2017-07-21_2055_H1SUSETMY_R0_WhiteNoise_L_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2055_H1SUSETMY_R0_WhiteNoise_P_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2055_H1SUSETMY_R0_WhiteNoise_R_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2055_H1SUSETMY_R0_WhiteNoise_T_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2055_H1SUSETMY_R0_WhiteNoise_V_0p01to50Hz.xml
2017-07-21_2055_H1SUSETMY_R0_WhiteNoise_Y_0p01to50Hz.xml
More detailed plots of ITMX, compared against previous measurements and model. Both Main and Reaction chains show expected dynamics and are clear of rubbing.
More detailed plots of ITMY, compared against previous measurements and model. The reaction chain checks out OK. This latest main chain's data set (2017-07-20) resolution is at 0.02 Hz instead of the previous measurement which was at the standard 0.01 Hz -- so it *looks* like some resonances are truncated, but upon close inspection, they're just not resolving the resonance. Not sure what happened during the (main chain) pitch measurement at high frequency, but this behavior has been present in the 2017-04-25 and 2017-01-17 data sets. The last clean undamped data set is way back in 2014-10-28; there is a 2.5 year gap in the data for this chain... so difficult to say. From my experience, I propose is that the main chain is OK too, given that data points surrounding the resonances match up nicely for all other DOFs. However, while I finish out the single / double rubbing checks (or during yet another earthquake) I'll remeasure the main chain with a high resolution and focus on getting a good pitch measurement.
More detailed plots of ETMX. I'm 10% suspicious about the main chain (M0) and reaction (R0) chain showing their first two L 2 L resonances a little stunted since these were last measured on 2014-12-22, but this may just be due to lack of coherence. But, as with ITMY above, the data points surrounding the resonances all line up nicely. My yellow flag trigger is twitchy, likely because this is the suspension with one of the worst BSC ISI ST2 longitudinal coupling (see LHO aLOG 37752). All other dynamics check out... Further investigation is needed here (sheesh).
More detailed plots of ETMY, compared against previous measurements and model. Both Main and Reaction chains show expected dynamics and are clear of rubbing.
Because we're also considering TOP Mass flags moving around (not big enough to cause rubbing, but enough to cause (a) a moment of inertia change and therefore resonant frequency change, or (b) a change in cross-coupling to non-diagonal response to diagonal drive, e.g. L to P, or V to L, etc), I also post the individual transfer functions for each QUAD, and a previous measurement against which to compare. I've taken a look through all of these, and they don't show much difference. If anything, the new transfer functions just show a more coherent TF because I've improved the drive parameters to get better SNR. Cross-coupling plots start on pg 7 of each attachment.