Continuing on from Jenne's observation that there are still glitches in the new NPRO, I've tried to make a plot we can use to compare the glitch rate in the new and old NPROs, using the NPRO_PWR channel instead of the FSS channel which isn't available for the new NPRO. 

I've used a 3 hour stretch of observing time for the old NPRO, and a three hour stretch before the time when Jenne made a plot in 80837.  The ISS is not on for the new NPRO time, which is probably why the intensity is flcutuating and making it harder to see the small steps in power that are the glitches we are looking for.  In the second panel, I've plotted the data high passed with a 0.05 Hz butterworth, this helps to show the glitches, although not perfectly (in either case).  Based on this, the glitches look to be happening at a roughly similar rate, although somewhat less with the new NPRO.

This script in in sheila.dwyer/DutyCycle)4/dutycycleplots/PSL_glitches.py

Mon Oct 28 10:11:10 2024 INFO: Fill completed in 11min 6secs

Travis confirmed a good fill curbside. TC-B slightly off.

Working with Jason and with advice from Daniel, we powered down the 35.5MHz RF Amplifer in the CER at 10am PST.  We will power it back up when the EOM work is complete.

 F. Mera, J. Oberling, R. Short, M. Pirello

Last week a bulk of the mobilization and earthwork began on the new storage building nearest the Staging Building. Footings are dug, and layout has begun. Beginning this week, the DGR team will shift from a 4-10 schedule to 5-8's as they start to build forms. They expect a forklift to be delivered sometime this morning and rebar to follow shortly after. The construction is presently ahead of schedule and the hope at this time is to begin pouring concrete as early as the end of next week.

T. Guidry 

TITLE: 10/28 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Corrective Maintenance
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan S
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: USEISM
    Wind: 9mph Gusts, 5mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.52 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

• PSL Amp1 recovery continues today
• DGR contractor working land behind staging building
• Secondary microseism is partially above te 90th percentile

R. Short, J. Oberling

Weekend work on the PSL NPRO swap, continuing on from Friday.

Saturday, 10/26

We started today by taking a beam propagation measurement with only L01 installed, to get a better idea of if it was properly positioned as our Gaussian fit for the Amp1 beam was well off what we expected from JamMT.  However, the resulting Gaussian fit didn't make sense so we took another propagation measurement.  This fit differed from the first, so we suspected either something was up with the profiler or something in the beam path was distorting the beam (or maybe both).  To check if something was up with the profiler we switched profilers from the WinCam to the ThorLabs scanning slit; this required a different rail setup since the ThorLabs is larger than the WinCam and would be well above the beam with the rail we were using (we tried mounting it a couple different ways to the original rail we were using, to no avail).  We took a profile and got a completely different result for the fit.  I'm writing this from home so I don't have the numbers on me at the moment.  Going back to the WinCam and looking at the beam shape on the profiler, the beam wasn't exactly good looking (see first attachment).  Since we had seen the EOM change beam alignment I tried moving it around a bit while watching the WinCam and sure enough, as the EOM alignment changed the beam shape changed.  At this point we broke for lunch.

After lunch we removed the EOM from the beam path and looked at the profiler again, 2nd attachment.  The beam was more round and less "stretched."  So we took another beam propagation measurement with the EOM removed.  This one was different from the rest, and did not match what we expected based on JamMT's results with a f = +222mm lens 100.0mm from the NPRO.  Now the suspicion is our initial beam propagation measurement in the lab was somehow wrong.  At this point I remembered that while in the lab we needed 1.67A to get ~1.8W out of the NPRO, as measured by one of the small stick power meters; this same NPRO installed in the PSL needs 2.144A for ~1.86W.  My guess is the power meter in the lab is suspect, and if so means we were under-pumping the NPRO during the initial beam propagation measurement.  Under-pumping the NPRO changes the divergence of the output beam, and therefore our Gaussian fit and mode matching.  To check this we set a turning mirror to direct the leakage beam from M01 into a beam profiler and took a propagation measurement.  Sure enough, the results differed from what we got in the lab:

• Horizontal Waist: 153.0 µm @ -102.0 mm
• Vertical Waist: 143 µm @ -90.3 mm

Pretty different from what we had in the lab, which meant we had to redo the mode matching again.  We were able to find what looked like a good solution, see final attachment.  We broke for the day at this point, it had been a long one.

Sunday, 10/27

With new mode matching solution in hand we began by installing it.  We checked and corrected the position of L01, then took a look at the EOM.  We put a spare EOM in the beam path (with no RF) and it did not distort the beam like the in-service one did.  We then put the in-service EOM back in the beam path and sure enough, it stretched the beam as we saw yesterday.  Unsure if this is normal (I don't recall seeing this during installation back in 2021), but not knowing RF well enough to feel comfortable messing with it on a Sunday with almost no one onsite, we decided to remove the EOM from the beam path, continue with the mode matching install, and talk to Fil on Monday.  We got the mode matching solution installed and aligned and took a beam profile measurement.  It took a few iterations, but we were able to get a beam with an average waist size and position where it needs to be for the 4S-HP amplifier.  Ultimately we had to move both L21 and L02 25mm away from the amplifier, increase the distance between L21 and L02 by ~3 mm (we had shorted it during install, the distance was supposed to by 86mm and we were at ~83mm), then move L01 away from the NPRO by 2.0mm.  The results of our final Gaussian Fit:

• Horizontal Waist: 159.0 µm @ 1791.0 mm
• Vertical Waist: 172 µm @ 1797.0 mm
• Average: 165.6 µm @ 1794.2 mm
• Target: 165.0 µm @ 1794.0 mm

We broke here for the day.  Tomorrow we will talk to Fil about the RF so we can take a look at the spare EOM and will then continue with Amp1 recovery.

Another quick installment of nothing but the reservation system!

Besides the PSL work, there hasn't been anything else going on around site, and the PSL team is done for the day.

Sun Oct 27 10:11:31 2024 INFO: Fill completed in 11min 27secs

TITLE: 10/27 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Corrective Maintenance
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan S
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 29mph Gusts, 17mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.09 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.40 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

• The NPRO work continues today

Only partially an operator today but I still wanted to put in the info from the reservation system today. NPRO work will continue tomorrow.                       

Sat Oct 26 10:10:15 2024 INFO: Fill completed in 10min 11secs

03:51 Sat 26oct2024 PDT: VACSTAT BSC3 PT132_MPD2 glitch. This is another sensor glitch, delta-P = 1.8e-08 Torr square-wave 2 seconds in width.

As before it is the delta-P which trips (180% of trip value) and not the dP/dt (50% of trip value).

I've reset VACSTAT.

TITLE: 10/26 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Corrective Maintenance
INCOMING OPERATOR:  Ryan S
SHIFT SUMMARY:

PSL is still down, PSL team will be in tomorrow to continue their work. 
I just worked on PCAL measurements for Oct.

PCAL:
Neil and I followed the instructions found on Procedure and Log T1500062 to get an End Y ES measurement done.
Beam Spots Looked great: Beam Spot

The Png files for Martel measurement , WS@TX , WS@RX , WS@ RX with Both Beams at the same time all look fine with out any transients of large spikes.

Analysis of ES data:
Anthony.sanchez@cdsws25: python3 generate_measurement_data.py --WS "PS4" --date "2024-10-25"
Reading in config file from python file in scripts
../../../Common/O4PSparams.yaml
PS4 rho, kappa, u_rel on 2024-10-25 corrected to ES temperature 299.7 K :
-4.710029781861174 -0.0002694340454223 4.653616030093759e-05
Copying the scripts into tD directory...
Connected to nds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu
martel run
reading data at start_time:  1413925750
reading data at start_time:  1413926150
reading data at start_time:  1413926530
reading data at start_time:  1413927000
reading data at start_time:  1413927400
reading data at start_time:  1413927750
reading data at start_time:  1413928050
reading data at start_time:  1413928750
reading data at start_time:  1413929200
Ratios: -0.5343062568395852 -0.5430208346109687
writing nds2 data to files
finishing writing
Background Values:
bg1 =        18.462896; Background of TX when WS is at TX
bg2 =        4.560107; Background of WS when WS is at TX
bg3 =        18.342034; Background of TX when WS is at RX
bg4 =        4.550359; Background of WS when WS is at RX
bg5 =        18.459919; Background of TX
bg6 =        -0.112689; Background of RX

The uncertainty reported below are Relative Standard Deviation in percent

Intermediate Ratios
RatioWS_TX_it      = -0.534306;
RatioWS_TX_ot      = -0.543021;
RatioWS_TX_ir      = -0.527076;
RatioWS_TX_or      = -0.534647;
RatioWS_TX_it_unc  = 0.057219;
RatioWS_TX_ot_unc  = 0.053201;
RatioWS_TX_ir_unc  = 0.057906;
RatioWS_TX_or_unc  = 0.061871;
Optical Efficiency
OE_Inner_beam                      = 0.986371;
OE_Outer_beam                      = 0.984424;
Weighted_Optical_Efficiency        = 0.985397;

OE_Inner_beam_unc                  = 0.044054;
OE_Outer_beam_unc                  = 0.045775;
Weighted_Optical_Efficiency_unc    = 0.063530;

Martel Voltage fit:
Gradient      = 1637.918309;
Intercept     = 0.377773;

 Power Imbalance = 0.983952;

Endstation Power sensors to WS ratios::
Ratio_WS_TX                        = -0.928223;
Ratio_WS_RX                        = -1.383682;

Ratio_WS_TX_unc                    = 0.045315;
Ratio_WS_RX_unc                    = 0.040949;

=============================================================
============= Values for Force Coefficients =================
=============================================================

Key Pcal Values :
GS           =      -5.135100; Gold Standard Value in (V/W)             
WS           =      -4.710030; Working Standard Value             

costheta     =      0.988362; Angle of incidence
c            =      299792458.000000; Speed of Light
             
End Station Values :
TXWS         =        -0.928223; Tx to WS Rel responsivity (V/V)
sigma_TXWS   =        0.000421; Uncertainity of Tx to WS Rel responsivity (V/V)
RXWS         =        -1.383682; Rx to WS Rel responsivity (V/V)
sigma_RXWS   =        0.000567; Uncertainity of Rx to WS Rel responsivity (V/V)

e            =        0.985397; Optical Efficiency
sigma_e      =        0.000626; Uncertainity in Optical Efficiency

Martel Voltage fit :
Martel_gradient         =        1637.918309; Martel to output channel (C/V)
Martel_intercept   =        0.377773; Intercept of fit of     Martel to output (C/V)

Power Loss Apportion :
beta          =        0.998844; Ratio between input and output (Beta)  
E_T          =        0.992098; TX Optical efficiency
sigma_E_T          =        0.000315; Uncertainity in TX Optical efficiency
E_R          =        0.993246; RX Optical Efficiency
sigma_E_R          =        0.000316; Uncertainity in RX Optical efficiency

Force Coefficients :
FC_TxPD          =        9.135057e-13; TxPD Force Coefficient
FC_RxPD          =        6.218936e-13; RxPD Force Coefficient
sigma_FC_TxPD          =        5.086596e-16; TxPD Force Coefficient
sigma_FC_RxPD          =        3.245715e-16; RxPD Force Coefficient
data written to ../../measurements/LHO_EndY/tD20241025/

EY ES Trends found here:
../../measurements/LHO_EndY/tD20241025/

PS4_PS5 Lab measurements
There was also Lab measurements to pair with this:
https://git.ligo.org/Calibration/pcal/-/tree/master/O4/lab/measurements/t20241025_183704_PS4_PS5_FB?ref_type=heads
https://git.ligo.org/Calibration/pcal/-/tree/master/O4/lab/measurements/t20241025_200318_PS4_PS5_BF?ref_type=heads

I checked out these measurements, added them to a trend to see where they fall next to our previous lab measurements , and used them to run the analysis of the ES data with the Latest PS4/PS5 measurments. 
Lab Trends ( Found Here):

This Adventure has been brought to you by Tony S and Neil D.
 

J. Oberling, R. Short

We continued on from yesterday.  We started by rough aligning our beam through Amp1 in preparation for beam propagation measurements to assess how well we installed our mode matching solution.  We had done a rough alignment previously so expected this to go quick, but it was more off than I expected.  We also checked our beam polarization going into FI01 (after WP01) and going into Amp1 (after WP02) using a temporary PBSC as an analyzer.  The beam should be vertically polarized w.r.t. the table top in both locations.  Going into FI01 the beam was definitely as vertically polarized as WP01.  But after WP02 roughly 50% of the beam was in horizontal polarization (~50mW beam, almost 24mW in horizontal polarization).  This is not good and not how we left this after our PSL recover work in March of 2023; wrong polarization through the amplifiers has a large effect on output beam quality (as learned with the O3 70W amplifier).  This immediately sent up red flags for us, referencing our slowly increasing PMC Refl (increasing since March '24, we swapping the PMC in July because of this).  Immediately we suspected something in FI01 was bad/broke/wrong, and could have been for a while (if something in FI01 had been slowly failing and changing the output beam polarization while failing, that would explain the slowly increasing PMC Refl, as changing the beam polarization from vertical through the amps negatively affects their output beam quality).  We have been using the old Faraday isolator from the 35W Front End laser, but we have 2 spare Newport FIs, identical to the one being used between the amplifiers.  Unfortunately we only have one other FI pedestal base, and it puts the FI at a 100mm beam height, not 4".  We looked through all of the spare pedestal bases from the O4 laser upgrade hoping to find one like is used for FI02 (puts the beam height at 4"), but no other spare FI bases were found.  We also measured the throughput of this Faraday at ~85%, which is lower than the ~93% we had at install.  Something here isn't right.

While checking the FI mount situation out, the alignment situation was bugging me so we took another look.  Checking back through our alignment again we noticed it was off on our alignment iris in front of L02.  So L21 and the EOM were removed and alignment checked again.  The alignment was fine on our first iris but a little off on our second.  M02 was tweaked to fix this, then the EOM installed and its alignment tweaked.  At a point where the EOM alignment looked good on our iris near L02 we decided to check power in and power out, and found we were losing ~6mW through the EOM (this is at a lower alignment power of ~74mW).  We put the power meter at the output of the EOM and adjusted the EOM alignment until the power out of it was maxed; best we could do was ~70mW out with 74mW in.  At this point we looked at the iris near L02 and the beam was a tiny bit high but for the most part looked OK, so we moved on.  L21 was reinstalled and its alignment tweaked.  Now to deal with the Faraday, but first lunch.

After lunch we swapped the Faraday with one of the Newport spares.  Since the pedestal base was a little too short we used a couple of shims under the Faraday to get it at the correct height.  Without making any adjustments to the Faraday we checked the beam on our temporary PBSC, still installed after WP02, and found almost no beam in transmission.  With no changes to the waveplates or tweaking of the Faraday the beam was now much better vertically polarized, lending credence to the theory that something had finally failed in the older Faraday we'd been using (we'll see if this was the source of our PMC Refl issue once we have the PMC up and running again).  We tweaked the angle of the input PBSC on the Faraday to minmize the rejected beam; lowest we could get was 0.40mW.  We then flipped it around and tweaked the output PBSC to minimize the transmitted beam, lowest we could get here was ~17µW; we saw ~11µW once, but we were unable to maintain this while clamping the output PBSC.  Since we found this at ~55 µW we called it a win and moved on.  The Faraday was flipped once again and we began setting up for beam propagation measurements.

These measurements are done with a leakage beam through M03, so we installed a rail (we have blocks in place to make this easy) and set up the WinCam beam profiler.  We then increased the power back to ~1.8W by rotating WP14.  After a little bit figuring out the basics of Varun's script, which we haven't ran since 2023, we were able to take one measurement before we called it for the day:

• Horizontal waist: 86µm @ 1774.0mm
• Vertical waist: 102µm @ 1766.0mm
• Average: 94µm @ 1770.1mm

Our target is 165µm @ 1794.0mm, so we have a little work to do here.  We called it here for the day and will continue with mode matching tweaks and Amp1 recovery tomorrow.

TITLE: 10/25 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Corrective Maintenance
INCOMING OPERATOR: Tony
SHIFT SUMMARY: NPRO swap continues...
LOG:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

• 16:32 UTC LVEA to LAZER HAZARD (Transition)
• ~17:00 h1pslcam1 is back online, PSL team didn't actually do anything to it
  • 20:00 UTC it's dead again?
• 18:29 UTC Hepi HAM1 WD tripped
• I added a function to take a screenshot of a camera to ISC_library and removed an old version of DUMP_SDF
• 20:20 UTC I turned off EndY sei SC for PCAL team
• 21:45 UTC EY VAC low pressure alarm (VE)
• 22:30 brought EY SC back

TJ and I marked the position of the in-loop ISS PD ASSY-D1201065-S1400286, photo, removed it and placed a beam dump to catch the beam, photo. 

Cable (labeled H1:TCSY_4 PD_1) was unplugged moved out the way, corresponds to channels H1:TCS-ITMY_CO2_ISS_IN. We will temporarily use this PD in the CHETA experiment at Caltech. 

We haven't used the CO2 ISS since at least O3, still need to understand if we'll need to start suing the ISS again in O5. 

Camilla C, Brice W, TJ S

Following the procedure written out by Alastair - T1600050 - today we did a full flush of both chiller lines with ~13gal each.

The last time a full flush was done, and not just refills from line leaks or chiller swaps, was back in 2016 (alog30017). This is notably, much longer than the 6mo service interval the manufacturer recommends. Just like back then, after turning off the lasers, power supplies, and AA chassis, we disconnected all electrical and tried to drain the chillers to start. We struggled to get much out of the chiller via the drain pipe, but a trickle would come out of the process input if the ball valve on the back of the chiller is set to a 45deg angle. After the chillers were mostly drained, we tried to wipe the reservoirs to get out any junk that was in there. We then set up a hose with a quick connect and connected it to the process input line and ran it to a bucket below the mezzanine to avoid carrying large quantities of water down those stairs (see attachment 1). The process output was hooked up to the chiller, then with two people on the mezzanine and one below to watch the bucket and hose, we turned on a chiller and filled the reservoir as the level dropped. We put about 13 gal through the system for each before turning off the chiller, which should be more than each system contains (alog30638).

Seperately, I noticed while we were swapping the TCSY laser that some of the 1/4" tubing connected to the RF driver felt softer than others also connected to it. Turns out, 2 of the 8 connected to it are a different type - Tygon 2001 (softer) vs Tygon2475. According to a data sheet I found, the 2001 has a max working pressure of  30psi compared to the 2475 max at 50psi. We should really think about replaing all of these lines post O4, but I'll need to look into how much pressue these lines actually have.

Jonathan, Dave:

The GC UPS went onto battery power yesterday evening at 20:38 and sent email to sysadmin. The MSR UPS did not send email, it went onto battery power for less than one second. The attached mains_mon trend shows that this glitch was seen in the CS-EBAY, but it was a very slight dip in voltage on two of the phases. Perhaps the glitch was more significant in the GC server area.

Sheila, Daniel, Vicky

On Tuesday, Sheila and I took some beam profiles of the squeezer pump beam after the pump AOM used for ISS (GAOM1). This is trying to understand and fix the squeezer pump ISS issues that result from GAOM1 becoming misaligned on SQZT0.

Summary and proposed plan: the vertical beam profile we measured looks reasonable, the horizontal profile looks off (potentially related to measuring after the AOM). We could move GAOM1 closer to SHG by 1-2 holes to get closer to the beam waist of ~100um that is about 1.3m after SHG. While GAOM1 is out, we could re-measure the horizontal beam profile to make sure it is OK.

Here are plots of the pitch beam profiles we took before, and the very quick a la mode plot code that adapts Sheila's and Georgia's previous codes. I think the vertical beam profiles we took line up with Georgia's previous measurements and D1201210, which both say there should be a waist like 1.25m - 1.3m after SHG. In real life, we measured from z=0 at the EOM mount edge closest to GAOM1, to the face of the beam profiler (may need to take into account beam profile distance..).

So it seems possible that GAOM1 is like 0.02-0.05 meters (~2 inches?) downstream of the waist. From photos and SQZT0 layout D1201210, there is room to try moving GAOM1 closer to L15 (closer to SHG) by 1-2 holes.

• At LLO (example photo), GAOM1 misalignments are not a pump ISS problem - and their GAOM1 is also several holes closer to L15 than LHO's  (which is what these profiles suggest to try).
• Kinda ignoring the horizontal beam profiles here since we measured after GAOM1, and the beam's yaw profile was not fitting well while measuring. The pump beam after GAOM1 looked kinda double-lobed with some smaller outer fringes even with the AOM drive at 0V, where it should be "passing everything" and not diffracting, but maybe there was some RF leakage.. The profiler's fitting function was fitting both lobes at once and being thrown off by the fringers, so likely over-estimating the waist in yaw (blue). Worth checking the beam profile without the AOM in place.

Useful DCC references:

• SQZT0 layout D1201210 and mode-matching document here: see pg.4, should be a waist of w0~100um at z~1.3m from SHG.
• SQZT0 Green AOMs for PUMP + FCGS paths: E2000561. GAOM1 for pump ISS is M1250-P200L-0.75, a 200 MHz AOM with aperture of 0.75 mm. Updated +200MHz label on SQZT0 medm screen. GAOM1 has a visibly smaller hole than the other AOMs.

J. Kissel
WP 12140

I've completed 6 SUS + 4 ISI = 10 of 12 total DOF excitations that I wanted to drive before I ran out of time this morning. Each drive was "successful" in that I was able to get plenty of coherence between the 4 DOFs of ISI drive and SUS response, and some coherence between 6 SUS drive DOFs and ISI response. As expected, the bulk of the time was spent tuning the ISI excitations. I might have time to "finish" the data set and get the last two missing DOFs, but I was at least able to get both directions of LPY to LPY transfer functions, which are definitely juicy enough to get the analysis team started.

Measurement environmental/configuration differences of the HAM2 ISI from how they are nominally in observing:
    - PR3 M1 DAMP local damping loop gains are at -0.2, where they are nominally at -1.0. (The point of the test.)
    - CPS DIFF is OFF. (needed to do so for maintenance day)
    - Coil Driver z:p = 1:10 Hz analog low-pass (and digital compensation for it) is OFF. (need to do so to get good SNR on SUS M1 drive without saturating the SUS DACs)

Interesting things to call out that are the same as observing:
    - The PR3 alignment sliders were ON. P = -122 [urad]; Y = 100 [urad]. (Don't *expect* dynamics to change with ON vs. OFF, but we have seen diagonal response change if close an EQ stop. Haven't ever looked, but I wouldn't be surprised of off-diagonal responses change. Also DAC range gets consumed by DC alignment request, which is important for driving transfer functions.)
    - Corner station sensor correction, informed by the Bier Garten "ITMY" T240 on the ground. (the h1oaf0 computer got booted this morning, so we had to re-request the SEI_CS configuration guardian to be in WINDY. The SEI_ENV guardian had been set to LIGHT_MAINTENANCE.)
    - PR3 is NOT under any type of ISC global control; neither L, P, or Y. (global ISC feedback for the PRC's LPY DOFs goes to PRM and PR2.)

There are too many interesting transfer functions to attach, or even to export in the limited amount of time I have. 
So -- I leave it to the LSC team that inspired this test to look at the data, and use as needed.

The data have been committed to the SVN here:
    /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/PR3/SAGM1/Data/
        2024-10-15_1627_H1SUSPR3_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2024-10-15_1627_H1SUSPR3_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2024-10-15_1627_H1SUSPR3_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2024-10-15_1627_H1SUSPR3_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2024-10-15_1627_H1SUSPR3_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2024-10-15_1627_H1SUSPR3_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml

    /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/PR3/Common/Data
        2024-10-15_1627_H1ISIHAM2_ST1_WhiteNoise_PR3SusPoint_L_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2024-10-15_1627_H1ISIHAM2_ST1_WhiteNoise_PR3SusPoint_T_0p02to50Hz.xml
            [ran out of time for V]
            [ran out of time for R]
        2024-10-15_1627_H1ISIHAM2_ST1_WhiteNoise_PR3SusPoint_P_0p02to50Hz.xml
        2024-10-15_1627_H1ISIHAM2_ST1_WhiteNoise_PR3SusPoint_Y_0p02to50Hz.xml


For the SUS drives templates, I gathered:
     Typical:
     - The top mass, M1, OSEM sensors, in the LTVRPY Euler Basis, calibrated into microns or microradians, [um] or [urad].
         H1:SUS-PR3_M1_DAMP_?_IN1_DQ             [Filtered with the 64x filter, then downsampled to to fs = 256 Hz]
     - The top mass, M1, OSEM sensors, in the T1T2T3LFRTSDD OSEM Sensor/Coil Basis, calibrated into microns, [um].
         H1:SUS-PR3_M1_OSEMINF_??_OUT_DQ         [Filtered with the 64x filter, then downsampled to to fs = 256 Hz]
     - The top mass, M1, OSEM coils' requested drive, in the T1T2T3LFRTSD OSEM Sensor/Coil Basis, in raw (18 bit) DAC counts, [ct_M1SUS18bitDAC].
         H1:SUS-PR3_M1_MASTER_OUT_??_DQ          [Filtered with the 32x filter, then downsampled to to fs = 512 Hz]

     For this set of templates:
     - The bottom mass i.e. optic, M3, OSEM sensors, in the LPY Euler Basis, calibrated into microns or microradians, [um] or [urad].
         H1:SUS-PR3_M3_WIT_?_DQ                  [Filtered with the 64x filter, then downsampled to to fs = 256 Hz]
     - The bottom mass i.e. optic, M3, optical lever, in PIT YAW Euler Basis, calibrated into mircoradians, [urad].
         H1:SUS-PR3_M3_OPLEV_???_OUT_DQ          [Filtered with the 64x filter, then downsampled to to fs = 256 Hz]
     - The ISI's Stage 1 GS13 inertial sensors, projected to the PR3 suspension point LTVRPY Euler basis, calibrated into nanometers or nanoradians, [nm] or [nrad]
         H1:ISI-HAM2_SUSPOINT_PR3_EUL_?_DQ       [Filtered with the 4x filter, then downsampled to to fs = 1024 Hz]
     - The ISI's Stage 1 super sensors, in the ISI's Cartesian XYZRXRYRZ basis, calibrated into nanometers or nanoradians, [nm] or [nrad]
         H1:ISI-HAM2_ISO_*_IN1_DQ                [Filtered with the 2x filter, then downsampled to to fs = 2048 Hz]

Note: The six M1 OSEM sensors in the Euler Basis are set to be the "A" channels, such that you can reconstruct the transfer function between the M1 Euler Basis to all the other response channels in the physical units stated above. As usual the excitation channel for the given drive DOF (in each template, that's H1:SUS-MC3_M1_TEST_?_EXC) is automatically stored, but these channels are in goofy "Euler Basis (18-bit) DAC counts," so tough to turn into physical units.

For the brand new ISI drive templates, I gathered:
     - The ISI's Stage 1 super sensors, in the ISI's Cartesian XYZRXRYRZ basis, calibrated into nanometers or nanoradians, [nm] or [nrad]
         H1:ISI-HAM2_ISO_*_IN1_DQ                [Filtered with the 2x filter, then downsampled to to fs = 2048 Hz]
     - The ISI's Stage 1 GS13 inertial sensors, projected to the PR3 suspension point LTVRPY Euler basis, calibrated into nanometers or nanoradians, [nm] or [nrad]
         H1:ISI-HAM2_SUSPOINT_PR3_EUL_?_DQ       [Filtered with the 4x filter, then downsampled to to fs = 1024 Hz]

     - The top mass, M1, OSEM sensors, in the LTVRPY Euler Basis, calibrated into microns or microradians, [um] or [urad].
         H1:SUS-PR3_M1_DAMP_?_IN1_DQ             [Filtered with the 64x filter, then downsampled to to fs = 256 Hz]
     - The bottom mass i.e. optic, M3, OSEM sensors, in the LPY Euler Basis, calibrated into microns or microradians, [um] or [urad].
         H1:SUS-PR3_M3_WIT_?_DQ                  [Filtered with the 64x filter, then downsampled to to fs = 256 Hz]
     - The bottom mass i.e. optic, M3, optical lever, in PIT YAW Euler Basis, calibrated into mircoradians, [urad].
         H1:SUS-PR3_M3_OPLEV_???_OUT_DQ          [Filtered with the 64x filter, then downsampled to to fs = 256 Hz]
     - The ISI's Stage 1 actuators' requested drive, in the H1H2H3V1V2V3 ISI actuator basis, in raw (16-bit) DAC counts, [ct_ISIST116bitDAC].
         H1:ISI-HAM2_OUTF_??_OUT                 [Didn't realize in time that there are DQ channels H1:ISI-HAM2_MASTER_??_DRIVE_DQ stored at fs = 2048 Hz, or I would have used those.]

Note: Here, I set the number of "A" channels to twelve, such that both the ISI's Cartesian basis and the PR3 Suspoint basis versions of the GS13s can be used as the transfer function reference channel.