After a bit of a battle with bounce/roll modes, we have made it back to NLN and Observing.

EvanG, RickS

The HWinj schedule file on h1hwinj1 was updated as well as the Inspiral directory.

The Schedule file was loaded in the Guardian. (by Travis in the control room).

The HF Pcal line at Xend was stopped at 6:41 UTC (by Travis in the control room).

Six CBC injections are schedule to go in tomorrow morning, starting at 6 AM PST and separated by 70 minutes.

We will want to restart the Pcal line at Xend when the injections are finished, around noon tomorrow (Friday).

I ran through IA twice because by the time I finished the first round, the arms had drifted off enough that ALS wouldn't lock.  The second time seems to have gone better as we are now past DRMI.

The earth has calmed down enough to start relocking finally.  I am struggling through IA since everything was way out of whack following the EQs.

Beverly, Terra, Young-Kim

Full results from the DQ shift may be found here.

• During the shift, the combined duty cycle was 68.5%.
• The range was typically 70 +/- 5 Mpc except for 6 Dec when the range dropped below 60 Mpc after (about) 13:00.
• Excess noise appeared daily at about 13:00 - 14:00 UT in the. 50 - 100 Hz band. Glitches during this period found by hVeto seem to confirm that the cause is seismic. The timing of the excess noise is correlated with a bump in the 10 - 30 Hz BLRMS and appears to be caused by heavy vehicle traffic on Route 10 from 5:00 - 6:00 PST.
• All locks had features seen before: glitching in a band around 1083 Hz, strong bounce and roll mode ring-up at the start of each lock, and ring-up of the violin mode fundamental at the start of most locks.
• The 1083 Hz glitches remain a problem for burst searches. While hVeto often has rounds that find them, precise analysis of glitch times shows failure to line up with glitches in the apparently correlated channels. Thus, the cause remains a mystery.

   Posted are the plots for the CPS Sensor Spectra. 

We have a diagnostic setup at BSC8 that we need to run for several consecutive days.  This setup utilizes rotating shaft vacuum pumps that have the potential of effecting the IFO data.  Prior to the start of O2, we had Robert S. monitor the IFO signal(s) while it was locked and in "Low Noise" both with the pumps on and also off, i.e. we did "on/off" tests (see alog entry 31802).  Additionally, and on more than one occasion, we had ran these for several consecutive days during which the IFO experienced long lock stretches at good sensitivity.  As such, we were hoping that someone could examine the pertinent IFO data during the following two time segments to look for any evidence of these pumps running.  In both cases, the pumps in question were running continuously:  


November 24th, 0230 UTC to November 29th, 1800 UTC and

December 5th, 1900 UTC to December 7th, 0035 UTC.  

Earthquakes continue to occur throughout the Pacific. Latest are a 5.2 off Chile, and two more 5.2 off the Solomon’s. Microseism had dropped below 1.0um/s but is now back up to over 8.0um/s. Continue to hold the IFO in DOWN until things settle down.   

After things started to settle down from the California eaethquake, we were hit by another mag 7.8 earthquake in the Solomon Islands. Put the SEI_CONF to LARGE_EQ_NOBRSXY. All ISI and several SUS have tripped many times. Microseism is over 300um/s.

IFO in down while we ride through the rumbling earth.  

Ops Shift Transition: 12/08/2016, Day Shift 16:00 – 00:00 (08:00 - 16:00) -  UTC (PT)

TITLE: 12/08 Owl Shift: 08:00-16:00 UTC (00:00-08:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Earthquake
INCOMING OPERATOR: Jeff
SHIFT SUMMARY: I had a few locklosses due to PIs, but I eventually wrangled them and got it locked for almost 2 hours before a 6.5M earthquake off of California knocked us out.
LOG:

• 08:15 Out of Observing to run a2l
• 09:54 Lockloss
• 10:45 Observing
• 11:07 Lockloss
• 11:45 Observing
• 12:10 Lockloss
• 12:33 As I approached DC_READOUT, there were lines in DARM at ~28hz and ~37hz, DHARD P seemed to start to run away. Bounce/roll/violin/PI seemed to all be ok. Not sure what happened there.
• 13:07 Observing
• 14:32 Out of observing to run a2l, the dtt template looks like it could us it.
• 14:37 Observing
• 14:52 Lockloss

It seems like there are some PI modes that we are no longer damping that are slightly run up according to the dtt. I also wonder if the peaks at around 13000hz are modes that we had not had issues with before, or maybe something else entirely? I don't see any mention of them on the PI medm and they are currently the highest. I will try to damp some of the other ones if they get any higher.

The attached shows the PI dtt just after reaching low noise.

J. Kissel for S. Karki
WP #6368

I've moved the PCALX roaming line, its long duration sweep, from 4001.3 Hz to 4301.3 Hz. See schedule status below.

Since it looks like we'll have the duty cycle to just finish the schedule within a week, I'm just going to continue to re-gathering the highest frequency data. As such, Sudarshan has something consistent and straightforward with which to work instead of data with a bunch details or qualifications. 


Frequency    Planned Amplitude        Planned Duration      Actual Amplitude    Start Time                 Stop Time                    Achieved Duration
(Hz)         (ct)                     (hh:mm)                   (ct)               (UTC)                    (UTC)                         (hh:mm)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1001.3       35k                      02:00                   39322.0           Nov 28 2016 17:20:44 UTC  Nov 30 2016 17:16:00 UTC         days    @ 30 W  
1501.3       35k                      02:00                   39322.0           Nov 30 2016 17:27:00 UTC  Nov 30 2016 19:36:00 UTC         02:09   @ 30 W         
2001.3       35k                      02:00                   39322.0           Nov 30 2016 19:36:00 UTC  Nov 30 2016 22:07:00 UTC         02:31   @ 30 W
2501.3       35k                      05:00                   39322.0           Nov 30 2016 22:08:00 UTC  Dec 02 2016 20:16:00 UTC         days    @ 30 W
3001.3       35k                      05:00                   39322.0           Dec 02 2016 20:17:00 UTC  Dec 05 2016 16:58:57 UTC         days    @ 30 W
3501.3       35k                      05:00                   39322.0           Dec 05 2016 16:58:57 UTC  Dec 06 2016 21:09:56 UTC         ~15:00  @ 30 W
4001.3       40k                      10:00                   39322.0           Dec 06 2016 21:09:56 UTC  Dec 07 2016 18:50:09 UTC         ~20:00  @ 30 W
4301.3       40k                      10:00                   39322.0           Dec 07 2016 18:50:09 UTC
4501.3       40k                      10:00                   39322.0           
4801.3       40k                      10:00                   39222.0           
5001.3       40k                      10:00                   39222.0         

Frequency    Planned Amplitude        Planned Duration      Actual Amplitude    Start Time                 Stop Time                    Achieved Duration
(Hz)         (ct)                     (hh:mm)                   (ct)               (UTC)                    (UTC)                         (hh:mm)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1001.3       35k                      02:00                   39322.0           Nov 11 2016 21:37:50 UTC    Nov 12 2016 03:28:21 UTC      ~several hours @ 25 W
1501.3       35k                      02:00                   39322.0           Oct 24 2016 15:26:57 UTC    Oct 31 2016 15:44:29 UTC      ~week @ 25 W
2001.3       35k                      02:00                   39322.0           Oct 17 2016 21:22:03 UTC    Oct 24 2016 15:26:57 UTC      several days (at both 50W and 25 W)
2501.3       35k                      05:00                   39322.0           Oct 12 2016 03:20:41 UTC    Oct 17 2016 21:22:03 UTC      days     @ 50 W
3001.3       35k                      05:00                   39322.0           Oct 06 2016 18:39:26 UTC    Oct 12 2016 03:20:41 UTC      days     @ 50 W
3501.3       35k                      05:00                   39322.0           Jul 06 2016 18:56:13 UTC    Oct 06 2016 18:39:26 UTC      months   @ 50 W
4001.3       40k                      10:00                   39322.0           Nov 12 2016 03:28:21 UTC    Nov 16 2016 22:17:29 UTC      days     @ 30 W (see LHO aLOG 31546 for caveats)
4301.3       40k                      10:00                   39322.0           Nov 16 2016 22:17:29 UTC    Nov 18 2016 17:08:49 UTC      days     @ 30 W          
4501.3       40k                      10:00                   39322.0           Nov 18 2016 17:08:49 UTC    Nov 20 2016 16:54:32 UTC      days     @ 30 W (see LHO aLOG 31610 for caveats)   
4801.3       40k                      10:00                   39222.0           Nov 20 2016 16:54:32 UTC    Nov 22 2016 23:56:06 UTC      days     @ 30 W
5001.3       40k                      10:00                   39222.0           Nov 22 2016 23:56:06 UTC    Nov 28 2016 17:20:44 UTC      days     @ 30 W (line was OFF and ON for Hardware INJ)  

Keita, Rana, Evan

After refocusing the HAM5 camera, we see in full lock that there are at least two ghost beams hitting the SRM composite mass. These ghost beams move when CPY (but not CPX) is moved.

The attached plots show the DARM spectrum for different CPY alignments. There is no obvious sweet spot, but perhaps we will find one by looking at some long-term DARM BLRMS.

This image shows the HAM5 camera with the nominal CPY alignment (-150 µrad in pitch, 0 µrad in yaw). The two bright, vertically aligned spots on the left-hand side are the CPY ghost beams.

C. Cahillane

The ER10 LHO Actuation Uncertainty Budget

What has been done:
(1) Gathering all the Newtons/count actuation function measurements for the three stages (UIM, PUM, TST) from November 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, and 18th.  
(2) Running an MCMC over the physical parameters gain and delay for all three stages.  (Only used freq < 10 Hz for UIM, freq < 100 Hz for PUM)
(3) Plot MCMC cornerplots and resulting residuals uncertainty budget from the MCMC PDFs.  
(4) Take the residuals from the MCMC physical parameters' fit, and plug them into a Gaussian Process with kernel k(x,y) = a + b * exp(-0.5*(x-y)**2/l**2), where a, b, and l are the hyperparameters of the GP.
(5) Train the GP on the residuals, and produce a mean posterior fit and an uncertainty budget from the trained kernel.

TL:DR : Take measurements -> Physical MCMC -> Unmodeled GP -> Frequency-Dependent Systematic Error +- Uncertainty Budget

The mean posterior fit is the frequency-dependent systematic error.  The uncertainty budget is also frequency-dependent.  
The Gaussian Process results are shown in Plots 1, 2, and 3 for the UIM, PUM, and TST stages.  The 1-sigma, 68% confidence intervals are plotted.

I want to call attention to how small the uncertainty is in the bucket.
The frequency-dependent uncertainty in the bucket is on the order of 0.1%

This is exciting, but is it real?  
Points in favor:
(1) We have five sets of measurements, and uncertainty roughly goes as 1/sqrt(N) where N = measurement number.  This allows us to win a lot where the measurements are nearly the same and the errorbars are small.
(2) The GP fit hits most of the measurement errorbars.
(3) Uncertainty expands where we have less information.
Points against:
(1) Overfitting might be a problem.  There seem to be unphysical wiggles that nail our data in the bucket. 
(2) This uncertainty budget is lower than ever before by a factor of 10.  This requires extraordinary proof.   
Rebuttals:
(1) We might be able to combat overfitting by lengthening the kernel length-scale and adding more noise to our measurements.  Also, the whole point of this method is to capture unmodeled wiggles.  
(2) The data analysis methods used are more advanced and designed to handle frequency-dependence.  

Plots 4, 5, and 6 are the UIM, PUM, and TST physical model MCMC fits with the measurements.  
Plots 7, 8, and 9 are the UIM, PUM, and TST physical model MCMC parameter cornerplots.

A couple of points: 
(1) The GP uncertainty doesn't take into account the uncertainty from the MCMC physical parameters.  The GP uncertainty dominates nearly everywhere, since the MCMC uncertainty is so tiny (See plots 4, 5, 6).  I may try to incorporate the MCMC uncertainty directly into the measurement errorbars that I input into the GP.
(2) A lot remains to be done.  LLO actuation, sensing at both sites, and final response uncertainty.  
(3) If these results hold, we may have uncertainty dominated by time-dependence.  Stay tuned.