Displaying reports 55421-55440 of 83097.Go to page Start 2768 2769 2770 2771 2772 2773 2774 2775 2776 End
Reports until 00:51, Saturday 16 July 2016
H1 AOS (ISC)
matthew.evans@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:51, Saturday 16 July 2016 (28454)
High Dynamic Range Images - no excess scatter found

Matt, Stefan

In an attempt to find our missing power, we decided to look for a change in the light scattered from the TMs.  The general idea was to use the camera images normalized to the input power, and see if the scattered light changed or increased faster than the arm power.  (A change in scattering could indicate heating of the mirror surface by a small absorber which leads to deformation and increased scatter T1000154).  This is similar to the OL test done earlier.

To investiage this and avoid camera saturation issues, I made a script to grab images of the TMs at a variety of exposure times (mexp.py).  This script takes 5 snapshots of each TM with exposure times from 30 to 10000 (micro seconds?).  I ran it during several power-up sequences to get images at 2W, 10W, 20W, 40W and 50W (all in /ligo/data/camera).

The accompanying matlab code loads these images and uses them to make a high dynamic range image (HDR) for each TM at each power level (see attached PNG for 40W images, and attached mat file for 2W and 40W data).

The overall conclusion is that the scattered light scales with the arm power.  That is, there is no evidence of increased scatter loss at higher power.

 

(About the HDR image: these use a log-color scale.  The ITMY scatter seems to be much larger than other optics.  ITMX has a strange crecent shaped collection of scatters.  The ETMs look like the usual stary night, though ETMY could use some focus adjustment.)

Images attached to this report
Non-image files attached to this report
H1 General
nutsinee.kijbunchoo@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:44, Saturday 16 July 2016 (28453)
Ops EVE shift summary

Quick Summary: Commissioning. Carl's working on PI, Stefan's working on PUM and RF45, and Matt's making pretty pictures. The goal tonight was to make sure ITM PI damping works. We locked at 40W for couple of hours.

H1 ISC
stefan.ballmer@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:01, Saturday 16 July 2016 (28452)
Some Guardian maintenance

- Added PUM coild driver switching to state 3 for 4 test masses into LOWNOISE_ESD_ETMY (at the end). It seems to take the transient.

- Down state switches back to state 2.

- Moved the pdList and pdSqList for the RF45 modulation depth lowering to the lscparams file.

- Updated the DOWN state to reset the gains of the PDs in pdList and pdSqList.

H1 ISC
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - posted 19:33, Friday 15 July 2016 (28449)
Large angle scatter doesn't change much as the power increases

Optical lever sum sees the large angle scattering from the test mass it looks at (see T1600085 for details, but note that the trans impedance and whitening gain in that document are not confirmed by measurements). This is a tiny thing compared with the power of the OL beam itself, but the scattered light is visible if you subtract the background OL beam.

I looked at the time series of OL SUM for four test masses together with MC-PWR_IN_OUT16, ASC-X_TR_B_SUM_OUT16 and ASC-Y_TR_B_SUM_OUT16 between Jul 12 23:35:44 and Jul 13 1:4:44 2016 UTC.

The first attachment is the (OL SUM -background)/TRX (or TRY), rescaled such that they are 1 at 10W. I cannot see any huge increase in large angle scatter as the IFO moves to 40W for any of the test masses.

The second attachment shows you just how the raw-ish data looks like, this is after removing the OL beam offset and taking into account the whitening gain and trans impedance. There's some difference between ITMs and ETMs but note that ITM OLs are about 5 or 6 times farther away from ITMs than ETM OLs are from ETMs.

Images attached to this report
H1 ISC
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - posted 19:27, Friday 15 July 2016 - last comment - 11:18, Saturday 20 August 2016(28448)
Low-noise DARM loop retuning

I removed the 300 Hz and 600 Hz stopband filters in DARM, along with the 950 Hz low-pass filter.

I increased the gain from 840 ct/ct to 1400 ct/ct, giving a UGF of 55 Hz. This seems to have improved the gain peaking situation around 10 Hz (see attachment).

The new settings have been added to the guardian (in the EY transition state), but have not been tested. The calibration has not been updated.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 22:09, Friday 15 July 2016 (28451)CAL
Tagging CAL Group. Evan Goetz has also been working on a better PUM roll-off. He'll be installing those improvements soon as well, and a full loop design comparison.
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - 11:18, Saturday 20 August 2016 (29218)

Since we spend a nontrivial amount of time commissioning at high powers (>20 W) with DARM controlled by EX, I moved the DARM gain increase so that it comes on once the PSL power reaches 20 W.

X1 DTS (CDS, DAQ)
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:54, Friday 15 July 2016 (28446)
Timing System for DTS reprogrammed

repost, somehow the original was erased during edit testing

The DAQ test stand timing components which includes the timing fanout, IRIG-B, and the powered-up I/O chassis have been reprogrammed to a version of the firmware which eliminates flahsing of LEDs when the components are sync'ed.

H1 PEM (CDS, SEI)
brian.lantz@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:22, Friday 15 July 2016 - last comment - 22:05, Saturday 16 July 2016(28445)
wind direction monitors not reading correctly
The wind direction part of the anemometers still seems to not be reading correctly.
There was some discussion on the SEI call today that maybe it had started working, but a look at the DetChar page at
https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~detchar/summary/day/20160714/pem/wind/
shows good info for wind speed, but nothing sensible for wind direction.

I put some data into the SEI log about wind direction as seen at the Tri-cities airport. 
https://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/SEI/index.php?callRep=1035
The FAA and Jim agree that strong winds come from the southwest. 

Comments related to this report
john.worden@LIGO.ORG - 21:54, Friday 15 July 2016 (28450)

 

Speaking as an ex hang glider I don't think we will get reliable wind measurements unless the sensors are placed well above the buildings.  Here is a quote from the World Meteorlogical Organization;

https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/IMOP/publications/CIMO-Guide/Prelim-2014Ed/Prelim2014Ed_P-I_Ch-5.pdf

 

"When wind instruments are placed on top of a building, they should be raised at least one building width
above the top."
 
Our instruments are only ~6 feet above the flat roof of a 40 foot tall building.
 
 
 
 
 When wind instruments are placed on top of a building, they should be raised at least one building width
above the top.
robert.schofield@LIGO.ORG - 15:16, Saturday 16 July 2016 (28456)

John W. is right that the wind direction at our roof weather stations is not what it would be on a weather mast far above land topography.  The wind affecting the buildings is funneled by the buildings themselves as well as by the berms and other topography around them. Since we care more about the direction of the wind that is flowing over and around the buildings, than we do about the direction at altitude, I have not pushed to build weather masts as was done at LLO, but, of course, this means that the sensors do not read what masts read. Mast wind directions are available from Hanford weather services (http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/HMS/RealTimeMetData), station 9 is closest to the corner station and station 1 is closest to EY. But I think you have to contact them to get historical data.

To reflect that our roof weather station direction sensors are very local sensors and do not report what meteorologists think of as wind direction, for aLIGO we started using our own X, Y coordinates:

Wind travelling in +X direction (from corner station towards X end): 0 (degrees)

Wind travelling in the +Y direction (from the corner station toward EY): 270

Wind travelling in the -Y direction, EY to CS (approx. direction of typical storm): 90

Wind travelling in the -X direction, EX to CS (the other most common storm direction): 180

That being said, the wind direction system has not yet been installed. This is because all sensors were broken by the beginning of aLIGO, long past their life span. Paul Schale and I installed a new direction sensor at EX in summer of 2014 for BRS studies.  I looked back at the data, and for some reason it starts in April of 2015, but from then on the data is good.  The channel is: H1:PEM-EX_WIND_WEATHER_DEG. I just now went up on the roof and made sure that it was still functioning with directions as given above. However, even this new sensor has problems typical of the Davis system: it sometimes produces huge values, I believe when the brushes loose contact around 0 degrees.

Let me say that for most studies,  I am inclined to use proxies that are closer to what we care about than wind direction at one particular location on the roof.  Thus for studies of how the BRS performs under different wind tilt conditions, such as dominant tilt direction, I suggest using the 0.03 to 0.08 Hz seismic band of uncorrected seismometers.  This gives both tilt axes so that the performance can be compared when most of the tilt is in the Y direction or in the X direction (we only have real tilt sensors (BRS) at EX and EY for the beam axis direction, hence the need for a proxy).  Of course earthquake spikes must be filtered out. This is how Dipongkar did his year long study of tilt behavior (https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=17574, https://wiki.ligo.org/viewauth/DetChar/WindInducedTilt). Included in this study are plots showing how well this seismometer band correlates with the tilt as measured by the BRS.

For the person installing the new anemometer/wind direction sensors (Hugh is considering taking this big job on), in order to get the direction system above, align the bar in the Y-direction with the anemometer towards Rattlesnake mountain.  Use a CDS laptop displaying the weather screens for fine adjustment.

Robert

richard.mccarthy@LIGO.ORG - 22:05, Saturday 16 July 2016 (28460)
We are hoping to have the the units replaced in time for O2.  This will be the 3rd exchange on 2 buildings and the 4th on the rest.
H1 ISC
stefan.ballmer@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:09, Friday 15 July 2016 - last comment - 17:08, Friday 29 July 2016(28442)
Recycling gain does not depend on PR2 spot position

Kiwamu, Stefan

Using the pr2spotmove script (see alog 28420), we moved the spot on PR2 in lock by almost 1 milimeter.

Conclusions:

- The carrier recycling gain desn't care about the PR2 spot positon.
- The POP beam from PR2 to the invacuum POP diode is fairly close to the edge of the visibility aperture. This might be an issue for LSC aux noise.

Details:

- To be able to explore the full range of motion, we had to switch back to the REFL B WFS for PRC2 / PR3 control. We BTW verified that this WFS also works at 40W (and during the power increase).
- With that, the move-limiting aperture is the path from PR2 to POP. We can move until the POP_A loses the beam. The pitch and yaw min/nominal/max values for PR3 alignment angles are
    Pitch value / delta:
     min: -302.95  / -4.6urad
     nom: -298.35 / 0urad
     max: -275.35 /  +23urad
    Yaw value / delta:
     min: 257.45 / -16urad
     nom: 273.45 / 0urad
     max: 281.45 / +8urad
  Notice how close to the edge we are in pitch - this could be a factor for PRCL/SRCL/MICH auxiliary length noise and scatter coupling. We have to revisit this in low-noise.

- The 27.6urad move in pitch (24urad in yaw) peak-to-peak move corresponds to 0.9mm (0.8 mm) for the PR2 spot position. Note though that for the beam in transmission of PR2 that corresponds to several spot sizes of motion. (The virtual beam waist behind PR2 is 114u, i.e. we moved the spot more than 7 beam waists. As a result the beam completly left the POPAIR camera view.)


 


 

Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
stefan.ballmer@LIGO.ORG - 17:08, Friday 29 July 2016 (28748)

Here is the theoretical matrix for this move (note that signs will vary for pitch and yaw):

    PR2/PR3=-9.041812537326308*t3;

    PRM/PR3=1.824484077268346*t3;

    IM4/PR3=0.964764706304192*t3;

 

This was calculated with the following data (in meters):

RPRM=-11;

RPR2=-4.555;

RPR3=36.0;

RITM=1939;

LPRM=16.6128;

LPR2=16.1551;

LPR3=24.88797;

LARM=3994.5;

LIM4=0.413;

LIM3=1.17;

n=1.45;

f=-RITM/(n-1);  # thin lens approximation

fm=-RPRM/(n-1); # thin lens approximation

 

 

 

H1 General
jeffrey.bartlett@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:13, Friday 15 July 2016 (28440)
Ops Day Shift Summary

Title:  07/15/2016, Day Shift 15:00 – 23:00 (08:00 – 16:00) All times in UTC (PT)
State of H1: IFO unlocked. Relocking not successful. Need to do initial alignment.   
Commissioning: IFO locked at DC_READOUT, 2.0W, Wind is a moderate breeze (13 – 18mph) and a corresponding bit of elevated X and Y seismic motion. 
Outgoing Operator:  None
 
Activity Log: All Times in UTC (PT)

15:00 (08:00) Start of shift
15:52 (08:52) Richard – Going to HAM6 to check if HV shutter is on
15:55 (08:55) Lockloss – Richard turned on HV shutter
16:22 (09:22) Keita & Travis – Going to End-Y to reset camera
16:57 (09:57) Kyle – Going to Mid-X to check on moving a vacuum pump
17:06 (10:06) Keita & Travis – Out of Mid-Y
17:10 (10:10) IOF locked at NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE 24.9W
17:15 (10:15) Lockloss – commissioning
17:45 (10:45) Kyle – Back from Mid-X
18:03 (11:03) Richard – Going into LVEA to work on HV shutter near HAM6
18:08 (11:08) Richard – Out of LVEA
18:39 (11:39) IFO locked at DC_READOUT 
18:54 (11:54) Lockloss – commissioning
19:14 (12:14) IFO locked at DC_READOUT
19:25 (12:25) Kyle – Going to Mid-Y to look for rigging
20:00 (13:00) Kyle – Back from Mid-Y
20:15 (13:15) Kyle – Going to Mid-X (WP #6000)
20:24 (13:24) Lockloss – commissioning
20:46 (13:46) IFO locked at DC_READOUT
20:49 (13:49) Betsy – Going to Mid-Y
21:16 (14:16) Lockloss – commissioning
21:36 (14:36) IFO locked at DC_READOUT
21:45 (14:45) Betsy – Back from Mid-Y
21:50 (14:50) Kyle – Back from Mid-Y
23:00 (16:00) Turn over to Nutsinee
 

End of Shift Summary:

Title: 07/15/2016, Day Shift 15:00 – 23:00 (08:00 – 16:00) All times in UTC (PT)
Support: Keita, Stefan, Kiwamu,        
Incoming Operator: Nutsinee 

Shift Detail Summary: IFO locked at DC_READOUT, at 2W. Locking went relative well today. Had the IFO to NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE at 24.9Ws. Commissioners working on system. Rode out a 5.1mag EQ with no problems noted in the IFO operation.  
LHO VE
kyle.ryan@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:04, Friday 15 July 2016 (28439)
Relocated stored vacuum pumps at X-mid
Kyle, Gerardo 

Used overhead crane to move EH2600 vacuum pumps from the elevated BT slab to the VEA floor -> Had rearranged pallets of HEPI actuators yesterday so as to create floor space to position (1) ea. EDP200 and (3) ea. EH2600 vacuum pumps adjacent to each other and near the 480 and 208 power receptacles, chilled water connections and LN2 boil-off vapor line.  Now I will be able to run these pumps periodically which will extend there useful life while in storage.
LHO VE
kyle.ryan@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:02, Friday 15 July 2016 (28436)
Manually over-filled CP3
1235 - 1255 hrs. local -> To and from Y-mid 

Opened exhaust check valve bypass valve, opened LLCV bypass valve 1/2 turn -> LN2 at exhaust in 1 minute -> Restored valve configuration to as found.  

Next CP3 overfill to be Monday, July 18th.  
H1 ISC
stefan.ballmer@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:18, Friday 15 July 2016 (28420)
Script for moving the beam spot on PR2 in lock

While Sheila was exploring the input alignment my moving PR3 and letting the initial alignment follow the beam, I recorded the required drive vector for PR3, PR2 and IM4, in both pitch and yaw.

This combination of alignment sliders keeps the spot positions on PR3 and IM4 the same, but moves the spot on PR2 (and therefore somewhat on PRM).

The matrix to convert PR3 alignment slider counts into corresponding alignment slider counts of PR2 and IM4 is
pitPR3toPR2=-9.2;
yawPR3toPR2=+9.2;
pitPR3toIM4=56;
yawPR3toIM4=11;
 

The attached script continuosly reads PR3 slider values and updates PR2 and IM4 slider values, walking the beam on PR2 only.

The script still doesn't have the PRM matrix elements - we will have to addd this in DRMI or full lock.

=========================================================================

Also updated the script to include PRM. This was done in the PRM align state.

pitPR3toPR2=-9.2;
yawPR3toPR2=+9.2;
pitPR3toIM4=56;
yawPR3toIM4=11;
pitPR3toPRM=1.5;
yawPR3toPRM=2.2;
 

Note that this should work in-lock once the PRC1 pointing loop is off (despite the fact that PR3 is WFS controlled).

Non-image files attached to this report
H1 AOS (AOS, CAL, ISC)
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:34, Friday 15 July 2016 (28434)
PCal EY camera error (Travis, Keita)

Last night I took a bunch of pictures using PCal EX and EY camera to check the large angle scattering at 20W.

This morning, while I was taking pictures while IFO was unlocked to capture images without 1064 light, EX worked fine but EY stopped working after 10 or 11 pictures. Camera control software stopped responding, I cannot trigger shutter, see the live view, see the camera settings, really nothing.

Rebooting the camera, the camera interface and h1pcaly multiple times didn't help.

H1 AOS (ISC)
richard.mccarthy@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:33, Friday 15 July 2016 - last comment - 11:26, Friday 15 July 2016(28433)
H1 Fast Shutter Driver Found in off State
The other day when verifying rack layout Filiberto felt like something was wrong.  Upon further reflection he came to me this morning thinking he saw the HV shutter drive off.  No readbacks on the lcd screen.  I went out on the floor this morning and sure enough the +-15VDC switch was in the off position.  I turned it on and knocked the IFO out of lock.  At this time I am not sure how long it has been off (will run Dataviewer on a channel.) or why but will investigate.  When we work on this chamber for vacuum reasons we switch off the High Voltage supply so no one should have shut this unit off.   Investigation will continue to see how long we have been running in this state.
Comments related to this report
richard.mccarthy@LIGO.ORG - 11:26, Friday 15 July 2016 (28435)
Further investigation looks like the unit has been off since early April.  The HV Enable was also in the off position and the Trigger PD was disconnected.  Someone really wanted this off.
H1 ISC
kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:05, Thursday 14 July 2016 - last comment - 11:46, Friday 05 August 2016(28414)
Quick analysis of shot noise from last night

The shot noise level from last night seems higher (worse) than the O1 level by 6%. Here is the spectrum:

You can see that the red trace (which is the one from the last night) is slightly higher than the (post-) O1 spectrum. The 6% increment was estimated by dividing the two spectra for frequencies above 1200 Hz and taking a median of it.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - 16:41, Friday 15 July 2016 (28441)

Evan H. suggested looking at the null and sum channels to see if the excess in shot noise is from an addition technical noise or not. The attached shows the spectrum of the null and sum channels at the same duration as the spectrum in the above entry.

From this plot, it is evident that the excess is not due to technical white noise.

Images attached to this comment
kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - 20:15, Thursday 21 July 2016 (28576)CAL, ISC

It is quite likely that the calibration is wrong -- the true shot noise level can be smaller than what we have measured.

I have checked the calibration of the DARM signal by comparing it against the Pcal excitation signals. I used the same lock stretch as the above entry. The height of the Pcal line at 331.9 Hz in the DARM spectrum was found be too high by 13% relative to the Pcal TR and RX PDs. See the attached. This means that we have overestimated the DARM signal at 331.9 Hz due to a calibration error. If we assume this is all due to an inaccurate optical gain, actual shot noise level should be smaller by the same factor of 13% that what we thought, corresponding to a ~7% smaller shot noise level than that in O1. We need to nail down whether this is an error in the optical gain or cavity pole in order to further evaluate the calibration error.

Note that the Pcal Y uses a fresh set of the calibration factors that was updated a month ago (27983). The ratio of RX PD over TX PD was found to be 1.002 at 331.9 Hz and this makes me think that the Pcal Y calibration is reliable.

Images attached to this comment
shivaraj.kandhasamy@LIGO.ORG - 09:53, Friday 05 August 2016 (28863)CAL

Here I have attached plots of the optical gain during this lock as well a few locks randomly picked during the month of July. I used O1 model as reference (wasn't not quite sure whether there was new time zero reference after O1 with all kappas set to 1). The first plot showing kappa_C over a few locks during July show that kappa_C values were close to 1. However here we note that the gain in the inverse sensing function during July was set to 1.102e-6 compared to 8.834e-7 during O1 (the referene model has changed). At high frequencies, the relation between corrected h(t) and h(t) recorded in front-end is,

corrected h(t) ~ h(t) / kappa_C ~ inv_gain * DARM_ERR / kappa_C

So for same DARM_ERR, kappa_C of 1 during July 2016 corresponds to 0.8 * h(t)  (= 8.834e-7 / 1.102e-6) as that of during O1. This assumes that there wasn't any change in the gain of the electronic chain on the OMC side.  The second plot show trend of kappa_C during the lock Kiwamu was looking at. An interesting thing to note here that there was ~10% change in the optical gain during this lock.  Kiwamu's plot correspond to time of the second peak we see in the plot (a coincidence!). The kappa_C value of 1.15 suggests that the measured h(t) in the above a-log would correspod to 0.70 ( = 8.834e-7/1.102e-6/1.15) times that of h(t) we would be measured during O1. Since the trend plot show that there were times in the same lock during which the kappa_C values were different, I tried to compare the power spectrum between those times. The third plot show that comparison. The mystery is that eventhough the ratio between the 331.9 Hz photon calibrator line and DELTAL_EXTERNAL line is ~10 % different between the times compared (and hence corresponding to ~10% different optical gain), the shot noise level looks same! We couldn't get the exact cavity pole frequencies because at this point I don't have the new LHO DARM model function, but the trend indicated that it didn't change during the lock. For completeness we also added the acutation strength variation during this time. The values are close to what we expect. Since 35.9 Hz ESD line we used during O1 wasn't available, for actuation strength comparison we used 35.3 Hz ESD line.

EDIT: We corrected the earlier estimate of high frequency h(t) level change.

Images attached to this comment
H1 ISC
stefan.ballmer@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:21, Thursday 14 July 2016 - last comment - 14:03, Friday 15 July 2016(28411)
Commissioning goals

*track AAA: PSL
- fix FSS re-locking problem

*track A: missing RG gain:
- PR2 spot position during alignment
- Add digital camera of BS
- arm optics camera defocus & power monitor
- *** fix the 2x omega diodes for SB recycling gain readout
   - check broadband mod of 2w PDs (POB and AS)
   - new lens in front of POB_B

*track B: noise commissioning?
 - shot noise scaling?
  - check calibration
  - try for 50W stable. Serious trouble with PI?
  - pick operating point, then now-noise commissioning
  - reduce RF45
  - Aux length show exess noise - fix it!

Comments related to this report
peter.fritschel@LIGO.ORG - 14:03, Friday 15 July 2016 (28437)

Relevant to noise hunting: all test mass PUM coil drivers should be put in a lower noise state than state 2 (which is the noisiest state). State 4 is the lowest noise, but state 1 should be adequate as well. See 28264.

Displaying reports 55421-55440 of 83097.Go to page Start 2768 2769 2770 2771 2772 2773 2774 2775 2776 End