Jeff B, Sheila, Jim W by phone
I came in to do some commissioning. Jeff B was starting to work on violin 1st harmonics while I planned to some ESD measurements so we took the IFO out of observing. Jeff B made a modest increase in the violin damping gain the moment before the IFO unlocked and both end station ISIs and HPI's tripped.
This seems to be a coincidence, not some sort of violin mode/pump controller conspiracy. The attached plot shows EY pump pressure goes to not OK about one second before EX pump pressure goes to not OK, which was about one second before Jeff changed the gain for ETMX MODE10 (with a 10 second ramp). I am not sure if we can trust the timing of the pump controller channels relative to the front ends.
With advice from Jim W on the phone, and using instructions from 37359 we are bringing back the pump controllers.
Opened (and will shortly close) FRS Ticket 8644 to add statistics to the common failure mode.
IFO locked at NLN and Observing for past 15.25 hours. Environmental conditions are good. Another Mag 4.6 earthquake in Eureka CA. Very sharp up and down on the signal, and no apparent disturbance to the IFO. Monitoring the Violin Modes. Several are elevated. No action taken as the IFO is locked at 55.1Mpc and both LLO and Virgo are in science mode.
Handing Off an H1 which has been locked over 11hrs to Jeff B. As mentioned earlier, violin harmonics are rung up, but no action taken since range appears unaffected and Glitch monitor shows no issues (also been in triple/quadruple coinicidence for much of shift).
H1 locked for almost 7.5hrs. Violin harmonics are still rung up (1k & 1.5k are above e-15 & others lower), but H1 Glitch tool (on nuc0) & range look fine. Since we are in the middle of L1/V1/H1 triple coincidence for the last 7.5hrs, no action being taken.
TITLE: 07/29 Owl Shift: 07:00-15:00 UTC (00:00-08:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 54Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Patrick
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
Wind: 9mph Gusts, 7mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.06 μm/s
useism inching up.
QUICK SUMMARY:
Bad News: Violins: Fundamental is low (e-18), but 1st harmonic is up to e-16 & all higher harmonics are higher than normal.
Good News: Rung up violins aren't affecting our range (drifting up to our post-MT-EQ 55Mpc).
TITLE: 07/28 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: Corey SHIFT SUMMARY: Jim and Sheila were damping violin modes at DC_READOUT when I arrived. I damped ETMY mode 9 (1009.2 Hz) using FM4, FM5, FM7 +100 gain in YAW. This is a change but I am not confident enough to update the wiki table or guardian code. Moved on to NLN in time to be hit by a magnitude 5.1 earthquake in California but remained locked. Reverted a SDF difference for the HAM4 ISI per Jim's instructions. Sheila and Marc did work at end X. Lost lock at 01:09 UTC. Stopped at DC_READOUT_TRANSITION to damp violin modes (the fundamentals were bad again). Damped the fundamentals. Accidentally rang up the second harmonics while trying to damp them. After damping them back down to where they were before I decided to move on to NLN and observing. PI mode 28 has rung up both times in NLN. My attempts to damp it by changing the phase do not seem to have much effect, but eventually it comes down anyway. The range is slowly improving. There are DIAG_MAIN notifications for both PCAL X and Y RF PD being greater than 1% off. LOG: 00:00 UTC Trying DC_READOUT -> NLN. Changed intention bit from observing to lock acquisition. 00:08 UTC Earthquake Sheila and Marc to end X 00:50 UTC Sheila and Marc back Sheila running measurement ~01:00 UTC Reverted HAM 4 ISI SDF difference 01:09 UTC Lock loss 01:35 UTC Stopped at DC_READOUT_TRANSITION to damp violin modes. Fundamentals are bad again. 03:44 UTC NLN 03:58 UTC Observing
Set to observing at 03:56 UTC. Accepted H1:LSC-REFL_SERVO_IN1GAIN SDF difference (changed from 7 to 6). Reverted other SDF differences (attached).
Lost lock at 01:09 UTC. Back to DC_READOUT. Damped first fundamental violin modes. Working on second harmonics.
Sheila, Daniel, Marc, TVo
To eliminate some possible candidates for the 10-80Hz noise, Sheila and Daniel wanted to install a shield grounding box at EX and test various configurations to see if there is any affect on DARM, which there wasn't.
This afternoon we made an attempt to transition to ETMX ESD in low noise to see what impact it would have on our noise. We spent most of our commisioning window damping violin modes, so didn't make a lot of progress on this.
Attached is some text which can be copied and pasted into a guardian terminal to do the transition (read comments). We were able to transition half way to ETMX by setting the gains equal. The red trace in the attached screenshot is the OLTF measured with equal gains on the two ETMs, the gold is a reference from before any changes. Based on this, I think that we should use a gain of 1.5 in L3_LOCK_L to transition to ETMX (ETMY is 1.25) and preserve the UGF.
The IFO unlocked at the end of this measurement, I am not sure why.
M 5.1 - 74km WNW of Ferndale, California Showed up in BLRMS around 00:08 UTC. H1 remained locked.
TITLE: 07/28 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Acquisition
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Jim
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
Wind: 10mph Gusts, 8mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.16 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.14 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Jim and Sheila were damping violin modes at DC_READOUT. I damped ETMY mode 9 (1009.2 Hz) using FM4, FM5, FM7 +100 gain in YAW. Sheila requested that we attempt NLN. We made it to NLN in time for ~5 mag earthquake from California. Have remained locked through it. Sheila went to end X. PI mode 28 started ringing up and my changes in phase did not seem to affect it. It seems to be slowly coming back down on its own. We are not ready to go to observing, but there are SDF differences that I do not know what to do about (see attached).
<b>TITLE:</b> 07/28 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
<b>STATE of H1:</b> Observing at 6Mpc
<b>INCOMING OPERATOR:</b> Patrick
<b>SHIFT SUMMARY:</b>
<b>LOG:</b>
Locked until the commissioning window, then the transition to ETMX ESD broke the lock. We're now damping more violins because DARM looks crazy.
21:30 Kyle to VEAs, then ends to take pictures of turbos.
FAMIS4738
ETMY is trending near -10urad, but everything else looks good.
On 2017-07-27, during the lock loss around 2 UTC, I noticed a sudden increase in kappa_tst from about 1.05 to 1.07. See the summary page for that day: https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~detchar/summary/day/20170727/cal/time_varying_factors/ It is likely correlated with the end reaction mass being moved at that time: https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=37800 LLO observed a similar issue, reported here: https://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=31108
Attaching plot for easier reference. Links to aLOGs: Documentation of the reaction mass move: LHO aLOG 37800 Documentation that LLO has seen this as well: LHO aLOG 31108
Plots showing changes in both kappa_tst and ETMY Pitch (at the same time).
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)