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!

LHO fellow: Kentaro Mogushi

• The duty cycle was 95.6% on Monday, 36.0% on Tuesday and 27.9% on Wednesday, 53.2 in overall. The range was around 55 Mpc over three days.
• On Monday, the range was degrading slightly and had many dips while glitches appeared between 10Hz and 30Hz during before 10:00UTC, this is maybe because of the wind. Then, glitches in PCAL X showed up after the lockloss at 10:16UTC which is due to unknown cause. 
• On Tuesday, the lockloss occured at at 9:10UTC, then we had a trouble with OMC DCPD saturations after the lockloss. But we were mainly fighting against violin modes. 
• On Wednesday, we succeeded damping violin modes around 5:40UTC and went back to observing. RF45 glitches appeared around 10:00UTC. Then, we lost lock around 11:00UTC probably due to the earthquake for Japan and we had violin modes again. 
• Apart from that, we had GRB alerts at 00:50 UTC and 13:03UTC on Monday, 05:59UTC on Wednesday.

TITLE: 07/27 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: Jim
SHIFT SUMMARY:

H1 Observing for 10.5+hrs & no other items worth noting.

Quiet shift thus far with H1 in OBSERVING for last 6.5+hrs with a range of ~53Mpc.

Jess, Andy

The RF45 glitches returned on July 26 between about 8:50 and 11:00 UTC.

These glitches are identified by hveto in Round 1. Looking at the LSC-MOD_RF45_AM_CTRL channel identifies these as RF45 glitching. A spectrogram of that channel for half an hour is attached.

TITLE: 07/27 Owl Shift: 07:00-15:00 UTC (00:00-08:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 53Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ed
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    Wind: 6mph Gusts, 5mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.06 μm/s

useism remains at low from yesterday.
QUICK SUMMARY:

Violin modes look much better than what I handed off this morning!  Ed mentioned an A2L could be run (especially since L1 is down), but it doesn't look like a pressing issue, so I'll hold off. 

OSB Walkthrough:  Noted water from tubing draining into drain in Receiving.  Tubing comes from toward the Chiller, but maybe I've just never noticed water from this before.  It was only a trickle, but just noting something new-to-me.

This is to report that the violin resonances were much larger on July 24 and 25, which produced cross-coupling effects and impacted a large band for CW and stochastic analysis. The situation seems to be much better on July 26 although only 5-hr data were collected on July 26. Also there were a lot new lines from ~ 20Hz to 70Hz, which got better on July 26 too.

There seem to be quite a few entries about the rung-up violin modes and this probably is an known issue, but we are flagging this from the perspective of CW/stochastic analysis. 

Attached are the full 4k and 0-100Hz spectra on July 24, 25, 26, respectively. 

We ran two additional Pcal lines at 333.9 Hz and 1083.3 Hz using the ENDX Pcal for about two hours during the observational ready time. This work is carried out under the WP 7093. The start time and end time are listed below:

Start Time: 1185156397

EndTime:  1185164145

We switched to commissioning for about five minutes to switch off these lines and also resumed the HIGH_FREQ_LINES guardian node which was turned off because we didn't have enough Pcal power to drive the high frequency lines and these two additional lines. We changed the starting frequency in the HIGH_FREQ_LINES guardian node to 4251.3 Hz and manually entered 4501.3 Hz as the current high frequency line.

4:20UTC Sudarshan dong his thing. LLO fell out of lock prior to this.

When we moved the Pcal beam spots on ENDX on Tuesday we were not able to get the outer beam(bottom beam) to exit the vacuum properly. We suspected that the clipping was happening on the receiver side (after reflecting off the ETM). We wanted to confirm this today so I ran a calibration line at 333.9 Hz during an opportunistic commissioning break to check if the displacement predicted by TxPD matched the displacement measured by the CAL-DELTAL_EXT. Following were the displacement reported by different channels:

CAL-DELTAL_EXT : 6.95E-18 m/sqrt(Hz)

CAL-TX_PD           : 6.75E-18 m/sqrt(Hz)

CAL-RX_PD           : 3.42E-18 m/sqrt(Hz)

The ratio between CAL-DELTAL_EXT/CAL-TX_PD is 1.03 and CAL-DELTAL_EXT/CAL-RX_PD is 2.03.  3% difference between CAL-DELTAL_EXT and TxPD could be because CAL-DELTAL_EXT is not accurately calibrated at  few % level but this clearly shows that the clipping is definitely happening on the receiver side (after the beam has reflected off the ETM). This will make the calibration of RxPD useless but we will still be able to use the TxPD calibration. 

Jeff K., Ed M.

ETMX mode 4 damping was in progress from Day shift when I arrived. Jim had found good results at 0 phase, 75gain and both YAW and PIT to activate on via the DARM damp matrix. I was slowly increasing the gain until I hit a "wall" where the RMS leveled off. Empirical switching on and off of various components/combos of the filter bank ended up with me activating on L/P/Y @ -60phase and 95gain. Modes 2 and 3 were also being tended as they would seem to be excited by actions to mode 4. These settings have brought H1 completely out of fundamental violin frequency domination (for the time being).

As I noted in my previous aLog, care (which I did not heed), must be taken when attempting to damp violin modes while in Observing. While it is acceptable to do so, one must UNmonitor the filter bank channels to be used or the SDF will bounce the intention bit out of Observing. As of now there is a ragged smattering of monitored vs unmonitored channels for these modes. Below are a couple of stragglers that had to be accepted as a result of our successes.

Jeff, Sheila, Sudarshan

01:26UTC A mere flip of a phase during violin mode damping kicked the intention bit out (oops). So,  the "frontline" decided some commissioning would be in order. Sudarshan also took the opportunity to do Pcal calib work. Livingston was informed. Violin modes are crushed and as soon as Sudarshan is satisfied we will be back into Observing.

T Vo, Keita, Sheila

I will write a longer alog later explaining the motivation, but we have moved the end reaction masses in pitch to restore the L2 osem values to what they were before the earth quake.  So far we see no change in DARM or in the violin mode damping. We accepted the new pitch offsets in SDF.

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

Keita, TVo

In Keita's previous alog-33547 , he checked the free swinging ITMs for rubbing by comparing the angular response to the SUS M0_TEST drives during initial alignment by the operators.  Looking at the shifts from the norm of the responses as a function of time could signal rubbing as was shown in his aLOG.

In trying to investigate the 10-80Hz noise, we tried to run this script again from June 27th 00:00:00 to July 14th 00:00:00.  Picture 1 shows the results:

1) The first plot is the range, operators only run initial alignment out-of-observing.

2) The second plot is the response of the individual optics, you can see that even after the earthquake, they don't change much as a function of time.

3) The third plot shows the ITMY vertical position and a guess at what the rubbing threshold could be based off of Keita's alog above.

4) The fourth plot shows ITMX vertical position.

I tried editing the script to run a similar measurement for ETMs, but the results are much more scattered and will require more investigation.  It is possible that the ETM responses are different because they undergo different actuation during initial alignment than the ITMs.