Displaying reports 47781-47800 of 84693.Go to page Start 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 End
Reports until 13:45, Thursday 03 August 2017
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 General
jeffrey.bartlett@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:22, Thursday 03 August 2017 (37980)
Ops Day Mid-Shift Summary
   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.   
H1 CAL (CAL)
sudarshan.karki@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:56, Thursday 03 August 2017 (37979)
Changed the high freqeuncy line to 3501.3

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.

H1 CAL (CAL, DetChar)
sudarshan.karki@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:29, Thursday 03 August 2017 (37978)
Pcal ENDX status

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.

Images attached to this report
H1 General
jeffrey.bartlett@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:24, Thursday 03 August 2017 (37977)
Ops Day Shift Transition
Ops Shift Transition: 08/03/2017, Day Shift 15:00 – 23:00 (08:00 - 16:00) - UTC (PT)
State of H1: Locked at NLN, power at 28.9w, range is 53.4Mpc
Intent Bit: Observing at triple coincident
Weather: Smoky, Hazy, and Hot. Wind is Calm at 0 to 3mph. Air quality is bad due to the firs smoke. This morning recorded 0.3um particles at over 10 million per/ft3, and 0.5um particles at 1.3 million per/ft3. The haze is helping to hold temperatures down a little, however high are still forecast at 100 plus.    
Primary 0.03 – 0.1Hz: At 0.07um/s
Secondary 0.1 – 0.3Hz: At 0.03um/s
Quick Summary: IFO has been observing for the past 15.5 hours. All appears well, with no problems or issues at this time. Weather and atmospheric continues to be a challenge.  
Outgoing Operator: Cheryl
H1 General
cheryl.vorvick@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:05, Thursday 03 August 2017 (37976)
Ops Owl Summary:

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:

H1 General
jim.warner@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:01, Thursday 03 August 2017 (37975)
Shift summary

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.
 

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
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)

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 ISC
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:14, Wednesday 02 August 2017 (37973)
test of moving to ETMX

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

Images attached to this report
H1 CDS
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:04, Wednesday 02 August 2017 (37971)
SUS ITMX SDF transient differences causing loss-of-observation_mode

(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

 

Images attached to this report
H1 General
jeffrey.bartlett@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:00, Wednesday 02 August 2017 (37970)
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: Unlocked – recovery from lockloss and SUS reboot
Intent Bit: Commissioning
Support: Dave, Filiberto, Richard, Sheila
Incoming Operator: Jim
 
Shift Summary: GRB Alert – All sites good – One-hour stand down.  A2L is elevated in YAW, and in Pitch around 9Hz. Will run the repair script at the first opportunity.
Robert – Running PEM injections from 16:30 (09:25) to 19:00 (13:00)
After commissioning lockloss rebooted the SUS electronics (WP #7101)
After reboot finished ran Initial Alignment and start relocking
 
Activity Log: Time - UTC (PT)
15:00 (08:00) Take over from Cheryl
15:21 (08:21) GRB Alert – All sites observing
16:25 (08:25) Drop intent bit to Commissioning
16:25 (09:25) Robert – Going into LVEA to run PEM injections
16:25 (09:25) Run A2L repair script
18:17 (11:17) Lockloss – Commissioning
18:23 (11:23) Filiberto – Going to Mid-Y to look for parts
18:53 (11:53) Filiberto – Back from Mid-Y
19:18 (12:18) Relocked at NLN – Back to commissioning
19:27 (12:27) Damp PI Mode-28
19:30 (12:30) Damp PI Mode-27
20:20 (13:20) Robert – Finished with PEM injections
20:30 (13:30) Sheila – Commissioning
20:40 (13:40) Lockloss – Commissioning
20:45(13:45) SUS Electronics reboot – WP #7101
22:14 (15:14) Run Initial Alignment
23:00 (16:00) Turn over to Jim
H1 CDS (SEI, SUS)
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:37, Wednesday 02 August 2017 (37969)
power cycle of h1susb123, h1susex and h1susey computers

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.

H1 SUS (SUS)
thomas.vo@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:50, Wednesday 02 August 2017 (37968)
Hysteresis on ITMX Test

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.

Images attached to this report
Non-image files attached to this report
H1 PSL
jason.oberling@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:58, Wednesday 02 August 2017 - last comment - 15:43, Thursday 17 August 2017(37967)
PSL HPO Diode Box and Front End/NPRO Decay Since O2 Start

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.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jason.oberling@LIGO.ORG - 15:43, Thursday 17 August 2017 (38257)

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.

Images attached to this comment
Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 General
jeffrey.bartlett@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:25, Wednesday 02 August 2017 (37964)
GRB Alert
   GRB Alert - All sites Observing. Spoke to LLO. 
H1 General
jeffrey.bartlett@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:19, Wednesday 02 August 2017 (37963)
Ops Day Shift Transition
Ops Shift Transition: 08/02/2017, Day Shift 15:00 – 23:00 (08:00 - 16:00) - UTC (PT)
State of H1: Locked at NLN, power at 28.7w, range at 54.1Mpc  
Intent Bit: Observing
Weather: Very hazy due to wildfire smoke, winds 7 to 12mph, temperatures hot at 103 a forecast high
Primary 0.03 – 0.1Hz: Y Axis to 0.08um/s, X Axis at 0.02um/s, Z Axis at 0.001um/s
Secondary 0.1 – 0.3Hz: Centered at 0.05um/s
Quick Summary: IFO locked for past 18 hours. No issues or problems at this time.
Outgoing Operator: Cheryl
H1 PEM (PEM)
cheryl.vorvick@LIGO.ORG - posted 06:10, Wednesday 02 August 2017 - last comment - 08:45, Wednesday 02 August 2017(37960)
EY dust alarms tonight - maybe from the smoke rolling in?

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.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jeffrey.bartlett@LIGO.ORG - 08:45, Wednesday 02 August 2017 (37965)
   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.      
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 SEI (DetChar, ISC)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:58, Monday 24 July 2017 - last comment - 09:48, Wednesday 02 August 2017(37752)
Test Mass BSC ISI ST2 Drive (i.e. QUAD Cage) Noise Projection to DELTA L EXTERNAL
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.
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 23:05, Monday 24 July 2017 (37753)DetChar, ISC
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.
Images attached to this comment
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 14:40, Tuesday 25 July 2017 (37770)

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.   

Images attached to this comment
jim.warner@LIGO.ORG - 15:33, Tuesday 25 July 2017 (37772)

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.

Images attached to this comment
anamaria.effler@LIGO.ORG - 12:04, Wednesday 26 July 2017 (37791)DetChar, INJ, SEI

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).

richard.mittleman@LIGO.ORG - 13:08, Friday 28 July 2017 (37851)

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

jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 13:11, Friday 28 July 2017 (37852)DetChar, SEI
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
    
richard.mittleman@LIGO.ORG - 09:48, Wednesday 02 August 2017 (37966)

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)

 

Images attached to this comment
Displaying reports 47781-47800 of 84693.Go to page Start 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 End