Displaying reports 47761-47780 of 84690.Go to page Start 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 End
Reports until 14:29, Friday 04 August 2017
H1 CDS (DAQ)
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:29, Friday 04 August 2017 (37999)
CDS O2 model restart report: Monday 31st July - Thursday 3rd August 2017

model restarts logged for Thu 03/Aug/2017 No restarts reported

model restarts logged for Wed 02/Aug/2017
2017_08_02 14:28 h1alsex
2017_08_02 14:28 h1calex
2017_08_02 14:28 h1iopiscex
2017_08_02 14:28 h1iopsusb123
2017_08_02 14:28 h1iopsusex
2017_08_02 14:28 h1iopsusey
2017_08_02 14:28 h1iscex
2017_08_02 14:28 h1pemex
2017_08_02 14:28 h1susbs
2017_08_02 14:28 h1susetmx
2017_08_02 14:28 h1susetmxpi
2017_08_02 14:28 h1susetmy
2017_08_02 14:28 h1susetmypi
2017_08_02 14:28 h1susitmpi
2017_08_02 14:28 h1susitmx
2017_08_02 14:28 h1susitmy
2017_08_02 14:28 h1sustmsx
2017_08_02 14:28 h1sustmsy
2017_08_02 14:35 h1hpietmx
2017_08_02 14:35 h1iopiscex
2017_08_02 14:35 h1iopseiex
2017_08_02 14:35 h1isietmx
2017_08_02 14:36 h1alsex
2017_08_02 14:36 h1calex
2017_08_02 14:36 h1iscex
2017_08_02 14:36 h1pemex
2017_08_02 14:39 h1hpietmy
2017_08_02 14:39 h1iopiscey
2017_08_02 14:39 h1iopseiey
2017_08_02 14:39 h1iscey
2017_08_02 14:39 h1isietmy
2017_08_02 14:39 h1pemey
2017_08_02 14:40 h1alsey
2017_08_02 14:40 h1caley

Restart of all SUS Quad computers as part of noise investigation. Inadvertently restarted all EX and EY models.

model restarts logged for Tue 01/Aug/2017 - Mon 31/Jul/2017 No restarts reported

H1 PSL
jason.oberling@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:37, Friday 04 August 2017 (37998)
PSL Laser Head Flow Rates, 8-4-2017

Attached are trends of the HPO laser head flow rates for the last 3 days.  Nothing has changed since the last trends I posted on 8/1/2017; the reported flows are still holding steady, the reading from head 2 is still ragged as usual.

Images attached to this report
H1 General
travis.sadecki@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:04, Friday 04 August 2017 - last comment - 13:08, Friday 04 August 2017(37996)
Observing at 19:02 UTC

Robert is taking a lunch break from PEM injections while LLO is doing the same.  Both LHO and LLO are back to Observing for ~1 hour.

Comments related to this report
travis.sadecki@LIGO.ORG - 13:08, Friday 04 August 2017 (37997)
Link

Back to Commissioning at 20:07 UTC for more PEM injections.

H1 CDS
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:32, Friday 04 August 2017 (37995)
dataviewer xmgr plot clipping on right margin, work around

If your dataviewer real-time session is showing an xmgr plot with the right margin being clipped [attachment 1], here is a work around to view the complete plot.

1. resize the xmgr window to the right to provide enough space for the plot to "grow into" [attachment 2]

2. in the dataviewer window, while the real time plot is still running, activate a second channel (it doesn't matter which one) [attachment 3]

3. finally, while the real time plot is still running, turn off the second channel. Your plot should now look correct [attachment 4]

Images attached to this report
H1 General
travis.sadecki@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:18, Friday 04 August 2017 (37993)
Commissioning mode at 16:17 UTC

Robert starting PEM injections.

H1 AOS (AOS, SEI, SUS)
travis.sadecki@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:56, Friday 04 August 2017 - last comment - 09:23, Friday 04 August 2017(37992)
Optical Lever 7 Day Trends

The Pit and Yaw plots all within the +/- 10 urad spec.  The Sum plot for SR3 shows step down during the past day.  ITMx Sum is also showing a trend downwards, and BS Sum is trending upwards.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jason.oberling@LIGO.ORG - 09:23, Friday 04 August 2017 (37994)
Link

Everything looks normal except that step down in the SR3 oplev SUM.  Looking at the DetChar summary page for the SR3 oplev, the step down corresponds with the beginning of an especially glitchy period for the laser (which also happened to be the 2nd such glitcy period of the day); up until this point the laser was decently quiet, with some small glitches.  This laser is now top of the list for replacement.  I am finishing up stability tweaks on a laser in the LSB optics lab and will swap it into SR3 as soon as it's ready.

H1 General
travis.sadecki@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:09, Friday 04 August 2017 (37991)
Ops Day Shift Transition

TITLE: 08/04 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 52Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Patrick
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    Wind: 2mph Gusts, 1mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.08 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:  Locked for 14 hours.  No issues.

LHO General
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:02, Friday 04 August 2017 (37990)
Ops Owl Shift Summary 
TITLE: 08/04 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: Travis
SHIFT SUMMARY: Observing entire shift. No issues.
LOG:

07:26 UTC Restarted nuc5 (bottom right SEI BLRMS had disappeared)
12:02 UTC GRB alert
14:39 UTC Bubba to mid X to look at chiller pump
14:52 UTC Bubba back
LHO General
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - posted 04:00, Friday 04 August 2017 (37989)
Ops Owl Mid Shift Report 
Have remained in observing. No issues.
LHO General
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:32, Friday 04 August 2017 (37988)
Ops Owl Shift Transition 
TITLE: 08/04 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: 4mph Gusts, 3mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.07 μm/s 
QUICK SUMMARY: No issues to report.
H1 General
jim.warner@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:02, Friday 04 August 2017 (37987)
Shift Summary

TITLE: 08/04 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 52Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Patrick
SHIFT SUMMARY: Quiet, except for an earthquake
LOG:
23:30 Chandra to MY

0:30 Lockloss when I switched to an earthquake state during the EQ

4:00 A2L while LLO is down

H1 AOS (DetChar)
robert.schofield@LIGO.ORG - posted 19:54, Thursday 03 August 2017 (37986)
cWB outlier likely produced by ice-craving ravens

The attached figure shows a cWB outlier that Brennan H. sent around to DetChar. It is compared to likely raven pecks discussed in this log: https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=37630  The match is quite good (see figure), though, in this case, the peck did not produce a very loud sound. But the above log suggests that the coupling path for pecks is not through the air, but through the GN2 vent to the vacuum enclosure. While the sound for the cWB outlier was not that loud, the vibration of the enclosure was strong and sensed by the BSC10 accelerometers. The vacuum enclosure motion likely couples to DARM through the P-Cal periscope (see above log). It looks like there is a broader resonance in the vent/vacuum enclosure system, excited by ice-craving ravens, that overlaps with the 94 Hz resonance of the P-Cal periscope, that is strongly coupled to DARM through scattered light.

Non-image files attached to this report
MoreRavens.pdf
H1 General
jeffrey.bartlett@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:03, Thursday 03 August 2017 (37985)
Ops Day Shift Summary
Ops Shift Log: 08/02/2017, Day Shift 15:00 – 23:00 (08:00 - 16:00) Time - UTC (PT)
State of H1: Locked at NLN; Power is 28.7w; Range is 54.2Mpc
Intent Bit: Observing
Support: Sheila
Incoming Operator: Jim
 
Shift Summary: A2L check script shows PITCH is OK, YAW is rung up around 12Hz.  
In Commissioning mode – Robert doing PEM injections
Sheila – commissioning work on EDS transitions
After relock back into Observing
A2L PITCH is OK. YAW is rung up between 10 and 16Hz to 0.8. Need to run the repair script at the next opportunity
 
Activity Log: Time - UTC (PT)
15:00 (08:00) Take over from Cheryl
16:42 (09:42) Drop to Commissioning – Robert doing PEM injections
17:30 (10:30) GRB Alert – All site doing commissioning work
20:37 (13:37) Lockloss – Commissioning
21:05 (14:05) Relocked at NLN – Commissioning work continues
21:07 (14:07) Damp PI Mode-28
21:08 (14:08) Damp PI Mode-27
21:09 (14:09) Damp PI Mode-26
21:36 (14:36) Sheila – Going to End-X
21:37 (14:37) Damp PI Mode-26
21:49 (14:49) Lockloss – Commissioning
22:30 (15:30) Relocked at NLN
22:33 (15:33) Back in Observing
22:37 (15:37) Damp PI Mode-28
22:41 (15:41) Damp PI Mode-26
23:00 Turn over to Jim
H1 ISC (ISC, SUS)
thomas.vo@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:49, Thursday 03 August 2017 (37984)
Switch DARM control from ETMY to ETMX

Sheila, TVo

After a few attempts to fully switch the DARM control from ETMY to ETMX on the L3, L2, and L1 stage which resulted in lock losses, we decided to only switch the L3 stage to ETMX to test whether or not differences in the test mass charge is the culprit for this 10-80 Hz noise.

The python script we used to swap is attached as well as the resultant DARM signals.

After stably swapping to ETMX, we also flipped the bias sign on ETMY and reduced the biases to zero.  Then Sheila grounded the ESD to the chamber.  All of these configurations did not change the DARM spectrum.

Images attached to this report
Non-image files attached to this report
DARM_on_ETMX_ESD.xml
Switch_ETMY_2_ETMX.py
H1 SUS (SUS, SYS)
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:45, Thursday 03 August 2017 (37972)
One more look as suspension channels around EQ

I have slowly been looking at suspension pitch sensors around the times of the EQ, here are a few more plots.

Quads during comparable EQs

From December 10th to January 25th, we had three EQs which were larger (in 30-100mHz BLRMS of vertical ground velocity) than the July 6th Montana EQ. (One of these EQs was also larger in the 100mHz-300mHz band)  The attached plots are directly comparable to the plots in 37799  except that each color is the time period between a different EQ. While there are some shifts in the top mass (smaller than what we had in the Montana EQ), there are not comparable shifts in the relationship between the top mass pitch and the oplev pitch.

Triples

I was hoping that the triples would be easier to understand than the quads, since all the sensors are relative to the cage.  In the end I don't think this is very illuminating, but I am posting the plots anyway.  Attached are plots for all the small triples showing scatter plots of different osems before and after the Earthquake, analogous to the plots attached to 37799

You can see that for some of the triples, there is no change in the linear relationship between top mass torque and pitch and top mass vs intermediate mass pitch, and small offsets between the intermediate mass and bottom mass.  These could just be unreliable readings from the bottom mass osems (MC1, and MC3 are good examples)  PR2+SR2 seem to have real shift similar to the shifts we see on all the quads.

 

Images attached to this report
H1 SEI
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:04, Wednesday 02 August 2017 - last comment - 12:13, Monday 07 August 2017(37974)
H1 ISI CPS Noise Spectra Check - Weekly 
FAMIS 6909

HAM3 V1 seems elevated.
BS ST1 all DOF seem elevated.
ETMY ST1 H2 seems elevated.
ETMY ST2 V2 seems elevated.
ITMX ST1 all DOF seem elevated.
ITMX ST2 V3 seems elevated.
ITMY ST1 all DOF seem elevated.
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 15:08, Thursday 03 August 2017 (37983)DetChar, OpsInfo
Link 

J. Kissel, R. McCarthy

Some investigation on this...
Date         Jun 26 2017                    Aug 02 2017
Time GPS    1182506160 - 1182506760         1185730620 - 1185731220
Time UTC    09:55:42 - 10:05:42             17:36:42 - 17:46:42
Time PDT    02:55:42 - 03:05:42             10:36:42 - 10:46:42

Richard points to data from the Jun 26th FAMIS check, in LHO aLOG 37138, worried that this might be exposing something wrong after the July 6th Montana EQ.

- I've trended the global seismic configuration, and we were in "WINDY" at both these times, so this rules out a different configuration of the ST1 controls (i.e. I'd thought it was maybe that we were in a higher blend filter, or sensor correction for the site was off or something.)
- The summary pages don't show a difference between the ST2 / Suspension Point performance on these two days, which means whatever excess that ST1 is seeing is controlled below the sensor noise of ST2 GS13s, which is good. (Not summary pages are a media spectra for the entire UTC day, not just for these 10 minute periods used for this FAMIS test).
- Then I realized there should be a large difference in the 1-3, 3-10 Hz input ground motion, just due to the difference between 3am local and 10am local anthropogenic activity. 

I attach spectra comparing ground motion (as measured by the STSs on the ground in all VEAs), and they agree with what's shown in the ST1 CPS -- in the 0.8 to 20 Hz region, there are features that show roughly an order of magnitude more motion in all buildings comparing the Jun 26th time and Aug 02 time. This is not at all indicative of anything wrong.
(Aug 02 is the reference, Jun 26 is the non-reference data).


We should standardize at what time of day we use to gather data for inspection in this FAMIS task. 
The test was designed to look for elevation in the *sensor noise* of the ISI's capacitive position sensors, indicative of problems we've seen with the electronics -- i.e. the flat, above 10 Hz, featureless part of the spectra will be elevated above the black line if there's badness.
There will likely *always* be feature-full, residual seismic motion that's visible in these spectra that can be different from test-to-test, especially on stage 1 in the 1-30 Hz range because ST1 does not isolate this region (that job is left for stage 2 / ST2). 
One can't necessarily *know* that the feature-full full stuff is "real" residual seismic data, but this test is designed for you to ignore that stuff, and focus on the high frequency flat portion of the spectra.
Standardizing that we take the data in the middle of the night, local time, when there is less 1-30 Hz input ground motion (since most people are asleep), means the platform will be moving less, and expose more CPS sensor noise, and this'll be a more focused test.
Images attached to this comment
jim.warner@LIGO.ORG - 12:13, Monday 07 August 2017 (38045)
Link

I've updated both HAM and BSC python scripts to look at 2 am local using gpstime.tconvert('2am today') . I've also left code in, commented out, so that the measurement time can be specified in the terminal. It would be nice to have some easier to find or use documentation for some of these libraries. I knew there was tconvert python stuff, but had no idea where to find how to use it.

H1 SUS
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:29, Thursday 27 July 2017 - last comment - 13:35, Thursday 03 August 2017(37830)
SUS Triples Checked for Rubbing with Top-to-Top Mass TFs 
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
Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 18:33, Thursday 27 July 2017 (37831)
Link 

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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 13:28, Friday 28 July 2017 (37853)
Link 

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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 16:24, Monday 31 July 2017 (37912)
Link 

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.
Images attached to this comment
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 16:34, Monday 31 July 2017 (37914)
Link 

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.
Images attached to this comment
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 13:35, Thursday 03 August 2017 (37981)
Link 

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).
Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 CAL (CAL)
travis.sadecki@LIGO.ORG - posted 04:05, Monday 24 July 2017 - last comment - 15:20, Thursday 03 August 2017(37726)
PCAL X glitch at lockloss

After the 10:16 UTC lockloss, DIAG_MAIN began reporting that, in addition to the known PCAL Y issues, PCAL X was also off by more than 1%.  Trending the RX PD OUTPUT shows that the output changed in a step coincident with the lockloss.  I'll not attempt to do anything about this at the moment and let those in the land of the living decide what actions to take. 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
shivaraj.kandhasamy@LIGO.ORG - 15:20, Thursday 03 August 2017 (37982)CAL
Link

The Y-end TX PD doesn't show any changes during this time and hence that end would not have been cause of any problem. The X-end changes are small and hence wouldn't have been a cause either. Actually the full rate X-end channel (16 kHz DQ) doesn't show any changes (first plot) and so the changes we see in '*OUTPUT'  channel might be some artifact. The small changes we see in Y-end is response to the lock loss. The second zoomed-in plot show that the changes in Y-end happen after the lock loss and only in RX PD. This is indication of test mass moving (oscillating) after the lock loss, due to kick. The PCal could cause lock losses when most of it's power (~100%) changes suddenly or the optical follower servo loop becomes unstable. It wasn't the case here. 

Images attached to this comment
Displaying reports 47761-47780 of 84690.Go to page Start 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 End