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.
At mid shift all is good. Robert will be doing PEM injections until 13:00PT. Air quality from the wildfire smoke continues to be an issue. For 0.3um particle size, the outside air is a little better having dropped from 10 million particles per CF, to 8.9 million particles per CF. In the control room counts are: 0.3um = 11,000, 0.5um = 5500, 1.0um 2300 all per CF. Counts particle for all sizes in the LVEA and both VEA remain under 1000.
I took the opportunity to change the high freqeuncy calibration line from 4001.3 to 3501.3 when the IFO was changed to comissioning for PEM injection.
AlanW was curious about the changes happening at ENDX Pcal in the last ten days. All these changes are consistent with the work I am doing at ENDX pcal to gather data for high freqeuncy calibration. Attached is a screenshot of changes in excitation and the corresponding chnages in the TxPD signal. RxPD may show more erratic changes but that is because the RxPD is clipping. We will make sure the Pcal goes back to its original configuration once the data gathering is completed.
TITLE: 08/03 Owl Shift: 07:00-15:00 UTC (00:00-08:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 54Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Jeff
SHIFT SUMMARY:
LOG:
TITLE: 08/03 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 54Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Cheryl
SHIFT SUMMARY: Quiet shift, Dave seems to have fixed the hardware watchdog issue that had plagued us the last 2 nights.
LOG:
23:00 Sheila and TVo were preparing a measurement when I arrived, Jeff was just getting the IFO to NLN.
PI mode 26 popped up a couple times, otherwise nothing much happened.
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.
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.
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.
After our last failed attempt to transition to ETMX in low noise, I thought the problem might have been a pitch instability at 2.8 Hz. This partially motivated turning down the CSOFT gain. I copied the L2 L2P filters from ETMY to ETMX after talking to Kiwamu and remebering that we haven't actually used the L2 length to angle decoupling on ETMX.
TVo and I again redid the 75% transition, measured the OLTF down to 10 Hz and saw that it agreed well with the measurement when we were completely on ETMY, and tried the full transition. We stayed locked for about 60 after the ramp ended, starting at 20:41:40 UTC on August 2nd, then unlocked with a similar instability at around 2.8 Hz.
We probably need to do measure the OLTF down to 2 Hz, or measure the crossovers. This time the problem didn't look like pitch, it didn't show up in the oplevs (the L2P decoupling worked at least).
The attached screenshot shows the spectrum before and after this test, as well as the spectrum after the reboots described in 37969
(Reference alog 37923 and its comments) FRS 8666
In the past two evenings H1 was taken out of observation mode by a transient SDF difference on SUSITMX. Conlog reports that the channel being changed is H1:SUS-ITMX_HWWD_STATE (I had previously incorrectly said conlog did not see any change, but my query was in error).
Trending the ITMX_HWWD_STATE does show it flashing an LED error once in a while, which has been a known issue from before O2 and presumed related to the longer monitor cable in the corner station between the HWWD unit in the CER and the satellite-amp box in the Biergarten. No such transients are seen in EY where the cable run is shorter. Trends show the HWWD-LED glitching every day at a rate of 5-10 per day. So my first questions was: why has this not taking H1 out of observation-mode before? Here is the answer:
We know the LED monitor voltage dips below the trip level during loss-of-lock and lock-acquisition when the DAC outputs are being driven more aggressively. Trends show that prior to this week all the HWWD glitches had occurred when H1 did not have a range, an indication it is not in observation mode (an example 24 hour trend is the bottom plot of attachment).
On Monday and Tuesday evening this week the HWWD LED glitched for 3 seconds each time when the DACs were relatively quiet. Top plot of attachment shows Tuesday's event, middle plot shows Monday's event. This could be an indicator that this signal is slowly degrading. Why it only happened once per day, and on each day between the local times of 5pm and 6pm, we can only assume this is a coincidence.
On reflection, the SDF should not be monitoring these HWWD STATE channels. With Vern's approval I have taken them out of the OBSERVE.snap for the four quad suspensions (these are the only systems with HWWD units).
Attached are three 24 hour minute trend plots. In each plot, upper channel is the H1 range, lower is the ITMX HWWD STATE (0=good, 8=LED error). Bottom plot is a normal situation where there are no HWWD diffs when the IFO is in observation mode. Top plot shows Tuesday loss-of-observation-mode (spike near left margin), middle plot shows Monday loss-of-observation-mode (second spike in from left).
Here are the SDF changes to the OBSERVE.snap files:
-H1:SUS-ETMY_HWWD_STATE 1 0.000000000000000e+00 1
+H1:SUS-ETMY_HWWD_STATE 1 0.000000000000000e+00 0
-H1:SUS-ETMX_HWWD_STATE 1 0.000000000000000e+00 1
+H1:SUS-ETMX_HWWD_STATE 1 0.000000000000000e+00 0
-H1:SUS-ITMX_HWWD_STATE 1 0.000000000000000e+00 1
+H1:SUS-ITMX_HWWD_STATE 1 0.000000000000000e+00 0
-H1:SUS-ITMY_HWWD_STATE 1 0.000000000000000e+00 1
+H1:SUS-ITMY_HWWD_STATE 1 0.000000000000000e+00 0
WP 7101
Sheila, Richard, Fil, Sudarshan, Dave:
We power cycled the front end computers and their associated IO Chassis for the systems h1susb123 (ITMX, ITMY, BS, ITMPI), h1susex (ETMX, TMSX, ETMXPI) and h1susey (ETMY, TMSY, ETMYPI). Prior to the reboots, Sheila checked the SUS safe.snap SDF files to see if they were up to date (which they were).
The power down sequence for each computer was:
The power up sequence was:
The power sequence in the corner station went well. We had problems at both end stations:
EX: the power up of h1susex caused the h1iscex computer to freeze, which in turn caused a Dolphin glitch on h1seiex.
EY: the power up of h1susey caused a dolphin glitch on this fabric, all ISC and SEI models were glitched.
Both problems were unexpected and unexplained and worrisome.
h1iscex was found to be frozen but powered on. Richard power cycled the computer.
The recovery from the Dolphin glitches at both end stations was the same:
note, h1iopseiey had a slight IRIG-B excursion to +50, which recovered in a few minutes.
Once all the models were running correctly, the system was cleaned up by resetting the IOP software watchdogs (SWWD), clearing the latched errors with DIAG_RESET, clearing the DAQ CRC errors.
Sudarshan reports a PCAL guardian issue with HIGH_FREQ_LINES node, which did not like h1calex being reset to its safe.snap settings.
While we were rebooting h1susey, Richard and I took a look at the BIOS settings on this computer (one of the faster models). We found that the 'Power Technology' setting is set to 'Max Performance', which Gerrit reports could be the source of our glitching.
Sheila, TVo
In trying to figure out if the suspension's hysteresis effect has any affect on the response of the actuators, we attempted another pitch swing test on ITMX and compared the actuator-to-OSEM response before, during and after the swinging. This a continuation of alog-37915.
The setup was as follows:
-Before the test we had the ISI in a Fully Isolated state, with local damping on the SUS activated.
- During the test we had the ISI in Isolated Damped, with local damping off on the top mass. We applied a range of offsets on the top mass pitch DoF with a .1 sec ramp time to emulate a short impulse, however, we found that we could not match the amount of motion seen by the earthquake and begain to saturate the DAC.
- After the test we had the same set up as before the test and the damping quickly smushed the motion. In general, we saw a 1.7 microradian DC shift after the test according to the optical lever and there were insignificant shifts in the OSEMs. No noticeable changes to DARM or the BNS range.
Attached are the PDFs of the responses and the time series and it's not the cleanest data but there aren't too many dramatic shifts in the response.
Attached are two 270-day trends of the HPO diode box powers (in relative %, first attachment) and the 35W FE and NPRO power (second attachment). Start date of the trends is 11-5-2016, roughly 3.5 weeks before the start of O2.
It is clear when we started adjusting the HPO diode box operating currents on 4-18-2017; previous to that date we were adjusting the currents on an as-needed basis. The large jump in H1:PSL-OSC_DB1_PWR near the end of the trend is when we swapped that diode box for a spare in early June. I was also going to include a trend of the HPO DB operating currents, but a read-back issue with DB3 makes this useless; the power supply reports an operating current to the PSL Beckhoff of 100 A, not the 52.3 A displayed on the front of the power supply (a power supply swap should fix this issue, planning for this as well after O2). In light of that I will make a plot similar to Matt's here and post it as a comment.
On the 2nd attachment, it is clear the drop in the FE power coincides with the drop in the NPRO power. This is an issue because we are currently unable to increase the FE power by adjusting the FE DB operating currents or temperatures; we suspect this is due to the low NPRO power. It should be noted that the calibration of H1:PSL-PWR_NPRO_OUTPUT is not correct; the NPRO output power was measured back in May to be 1.36 W. We will correct this when we swap our aging NPRO for a spare at the end of O2.
Attached is a graph of the HPO pump diode box operating current for the 4 HPO diode boxes. Graph starts on 4/18/2017, the date we started weekly adjustments of the operating current. The swap of DB1 is clearly seen on 6/6/2017. Since then the current increases have been linear, which we expect.
GRB Alert - All sites Observing. Spoke to LLO.
Around 7:00UTC the dust levels at EY started to climb, and then started to alarm 10:00UTC. The level of dust at EY was similar to the dust levels from Maintenance. At some point last night smoke rolled in, and not sure how the EY VEA would get smoke inside, but this might be an explanation for the high dust levels. Plot attached.
Elevated counts and alarms are to be expected during these hazy high particulate laden days. Not much we can do about it until the air clears. Operators - Please keep an eye on the alarms. Let me know of any unusually high counts or persistent alarms. These may indicate a leak to the outside air.
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).
J. Kissel Still hunting for what's limiting our range, we took Valera's suggestion to drive stage 2 (ST2) the test masses' BSC-ISIs to check for, among other mechanisms, (a) scattered light problems, (b) charge coupling issues, or (c) mechanical shorting / rubbing The measurements indicate that ETMX and ITMY are the worst offenders, in that their ambient noise falls as ~1/f^{1/2} between 10 and 100 Hz, with some resonant features at 70 and 92 Hz. The features are presumably the first few cage bending modes, for which we have Vibration Absorbers that have already knocked down the Q of the ~70 Hz modes, thankfully. I've used the measurements to "calibrate" the error point of the ISI's ST2 Isolation Loops, and project the ambient noise to equivalent DARM displacement noise (a.k.a. primitive noise budgeting), see first attachment. Each come within a factor of 3-5 at their worst parts during ambient conditions; too close for comfort. Also, of course, there should be no such coupling at all if the cage were properly isolated from the suspension, and this appears to be a straight-forward linear coupling. Note that the precision of the projection is not great -- I did not try hard to get it right. There are addendum plots that show the residual between model and measurement. I don't think this is a / the limiting source now, since there is little coherence during ambient conditions, but this will certainly be a problem in the future if the coupling remains this bad for ETMX and ITMY. It definitely deserves a more careful calibration, further study with other degrees of freedom, and mapping out a broader frequency band. Perhaps we should check the coherence with these ST2 ISI channels after Jenne's subtraction of jitter (see LHO aLOG 37590) -- though the slope doesn't quite match up (from eye-ball memory). ITMX's coupling is about 1/2 as bad, and ETMY does not show any visible signs of bad coupling at this excitation level (which is damning evidence that it's related to charge, since ETMY has the largest effective bias voltage at the moment). %%%%%%% Details %%%%%%%% Measurement Technique (all while in nominal low noise): - choose obvious, simply to imagine coupling degrees of freedom: the longitudinal axis for the optics in the arm cavity (X for ETMX and ITMX, Y for ETMY and ITMY) - measure ambient error signals in those directions using DTT. - In the same DTT template, create a band-passed excitation where you suspect you're having problems (10-100 Hz), shape it to look roughly like that ambient spectra you see. I used ellip("BandPass",4,1,40,10,100)zpk([0.1],[1; 10],1,"n")gain(0.159461)gain(1e-4) copied and pasted to the 4 excitation banks (thanks Daniel!) so that I can pick and chose what I'm driving, and with what amplitude. - Grab a bunch of relevant response signals; the excitations, the error signals, the calibrated displacement (the pre-calibrated SUSPOINT signals are especially nice -- though the suffer from spectral leakage up to above 10 Hz). - Slowly creep up the drive (I started with 0.001 [ct] to be extra careful) until you start to see hints of something / coherence. - In case the coupling is non-linear, record the results at three different drive levels (I chose factors of three, 500 ct, 1500 ct, and 4500 ct, filtered by the above band-pass.) Analysis Techniques - Remember, to calibrate DELTA L EXTERNAL, one must apply the transfer function from /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O2/H1/Scripts/ControlRoomCalib/caldeltal_calib.txt i.e. copy and paste that file into the "Trans. Func." tab of the calibration for the channel, after creating a new entry called (whatever) with units "m". - For calibrated transfer functions of ISI displacement in local meters to DELTA L in global differential arm meters, just plot transfer functions between SUSPOINT motion (which comes pre-calibrated) and DELTA L EXT. - Store the transfer function between the ISI ST2 ISO error point and DELTA L EXT for the loudest injection - For "good enough" calibration of the error point, make a foton filter (in some junk file) that looks like the transfer function of error point to DELTA L EXT, and install into DTT calibration for that channel. Guess the gain that makes the driven error-point spectra line up well with the DELTA L spectra. For ETMX this was foton design: resgain(70 Hz, Q=8, h=8) * resgain(92 Hz, Q=30, h=10) * zpk(100,1,1) equiv zeros and poles: z=[10.6082+/-i*69.1915, 3.42911+/-i*91.9361, 100], p = [4.2232+/-i*69.8725, 1.08438+/-i*91.9936, 1], g = 1 dtt calibration: Gain: 1e-14 [m/ct] Poles: 4.2232 69.8725, 1.08438 91.9936, 1 Zeros: 10.6082 69.1915, 3.42911 91.9361, 100 For ITMY this was the same thing, but without the 92 Hz resonant feature: foton design: resgain(70 Hz, Q=8, h=8) * zpk(100,1,1) equiv zeros and poles: z=[10.6082+/-i*69.1915, 100], p = [4.2232+/-i*69.8725, 1], g = 1 dtt calibration: Gain: 1e-14 [m/ct] Poles: 4.2232 69.8725, 1 Zeros: 10.6082 69.1915, 100 This calibrates the channel, regardless of if there's excitation or not (assuming all linearity and good coherent original transfer function) --- in the region where your transfer function is valid, then this will calibrate the ambient noise. Since I didn't take enough data to really fill out the transfer function, I only bother to do this in the 10-100 Hz, and did it rather quickly -- only looking for factors of ~2 precision for this initial assessment. So as to not confuse the main point of the aLOG, I'll attach supporting plots as a comment to this log.
I attach support plots that show For each test mass: The DELTA L EXTERNAL spectra during excitations, along with calibrated displacement of each excitation, the resulting transfer function, and coherence. For those who may have to repeat the measurement, I attach screenshots of the DTT configuration and what channels I used explicitly. The template's too big to attach, but it lives in /ligo/home/jeffrey.kissel/2017-07-242017-07-24_BSCISI_ST2_BB_Injections.xml Also, shown for ETMX and ITMY, the projected ST2 Error Point both under excitation and during ambient conditions, with the residual transfer function shown below to expose how poor the calibration is.
Jeff and I added his data to the simple noise budget. We are still using a pre-EQ darm noise in this plot, and you can see that the couplings he found explain some of our unexplained noise around 60-70 Hz.
Adding a couple plots to show that ETMX ST2 coherence to CAL_DELTAL has changed, but measured motion doesn't seem to have changed. First plot is the coherence for 500 averages from the long lock on June 22, 2017 from 18:00 UTC on (in blue) to a similar window from the lock last night (red). The lump at 70-ish hz in red is new, not visible in the pink trace from June. Second plot shows the ST1 L4Cs and ST2 GS13s (both in meters) for the same periods (the June measurement is red and blue, last night are green and brown). The ST2 motion especially is nearly identical around the lump at 70 hz. Talking to Sheila, this maybe implies that scatter at EX is worse now than before.
I looked at all of the other BSCs as well for the lock segment last night, but none of the them showed the same coherence as ETMX.
For the record, here are two alogs from LLO on tests we've done:
BSC injections before O2 (when we found the problem with ITMY). We plan to repeat these before the end of the run.
O2 HAM injections (all clear to at least x10 above ambient).
If we are making a budget of the stage 2 motion to DARM then we should take into account the rotation motion also, since the bottom of the cage has ~2 meter lever arm
For off-site interested parties, I've committed the above template to the seismic repository here: /ligo/svncommon/SeiSVN/seismic/BSC-ISI/H1/Common/Data/2017-07-24_BSCISI_ST2_BB_Injections.xml and corresponding key to all of the 100+ references in the template (as well as documentation of measurement times) is in the same location, with a similar name: /ligo/svncommon/SeiSVN/seismic/BSC-ISI/H1/Common/Data/2017-07-24_BSCISI_ST2_BB_Injections_ReferenceNotes.txt
I've replotted some of Jeff's data for the stage to beam direction drive to Darm and added a plot from Ryan and Valera's (24820) similar data.
There are the four stage 2 motion to Darm transfer functions from H1 (I made the ETMY data dotted because it has no coherence)
There is a 1/f^2 line (light blue) which is what you might expect for the coupling from a charged path on the test mass to a moving charge (not quite a matching slope, but the transfer function phases all look like 0 degrees)
I wasn't able to recover transfer functions from the LLO data so I plotted the amplitude ratio for the one platform where there is excess signal in Darm (ITMY in green). The vertical black lines mark the limits of where there is excess signal and where you can believe that we have a decent estimate of the transfer function. The sensitivity on the other LLO chambers is much less (at least a factor of 5)
One more plug for a rotation measurement, a good measurement of the rotation to Darm transfer function on ETMX and/or ITMY would let us do some geometry to guess at the height of the coupling location (again assuming a point like integration between the cage and the suspension cage)