Displaying reports 55961-55980 of 82985.Go to page Start 2795 2796 2797 2798 2799 2800 2801 2802 2803 End
Reports until 15:26, Thursday 16 June 2016
H1 FMP
bubba.gateley@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:26, Thursday 16 June 2016 - last comment - 21:24, Thursday 16 June 2016(27785)
E X Wind Fence
All of the posts are set in concrete.
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
brian.lantz@LIGO.ORG - 21:24, Thursday 16 June 2016 (27793)PEM, SEI
adding SEI and PEM tags to wind fence entry to help me find it later.
(and thanks Bubba!)
H1 CDS (PSL)
james.batch@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:21, Thursday 16 June 2016 (27786)
Restarted MEDM web capture for PSL screens
Updated the de-macro'd PSL screens for FSS and ISS, restarted the MEDM web capture program.  Noticed that the status, PMC, FSS, and ISS screens didn't display properly because they had been edited and saved while far from the upper left of the display (the web capture program doesn't have a large screen area).  I edited the PSL_STATUS.adl, PSL_PMC.adl, PSL_ISS.adl, and PSL_FSS.adl files to move them to the upper left corner of the display.

Reran the de-macro script, and restarted the MEDM web capture program again, the screens now appear properly on the web pages.

Attempted to check in the modified MEDM screens, but failed.  Note that there are several MEDM screens with local mods in the userapps/release/psl/common/medm directory, these should be checked in by the responsible parties.
H1 ISC
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:12, Thursday 16 June 2016 - last comment - 22:50, Friday 17 June 2016(27784)
IMC length loop gain reduced by 4 dB

Peter, Sheila, Evan

We have been having trouble keeping the IMC locked when powering up (without the interferometer).

We found that the UGF of the loop was something like 110 kHz. During O1, we ran with a UGF that was more like 50 kHz. Recall also that the IMC loop at one point had some questionable resonance features above 100 kHz, so it is probably in our interest to keep the UGF on the low side (though we should confirm this with a high-frequency OLTF measurement).

We turned down the loop gain by 4 dB, giving a UGF that is more like 60 kHz. We were able to power up from 2 W to 23 W without lockloss.

Attached is an OLTF measurement after turning down the gain. As usual, the last point is garbage.

Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - 00:29, Friday 17 June 2016 (27797)

To keep the IMC length crossover stable in full lock, Stefan and I increased the gain by 7 dB. This brought the crossover form 16 Hz (nearly unstable) to 40 Hz (stable).

evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - 22:50, Friday 17 June 2016 (27827)

In fact the right way to compensate for the decreased electronic IMC gain is to also decrease the AO gain (not the MCL gain). Now both are decreased by 4 dB.

H1 SEI (Lockloss, SEI)
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:36, Thursday 16 June 2016 - last comment - 21:33, Thursday 16 June 2016(27778)
Isolating BS stage 2 is causing locklosses

Jim, Sheila, Haocun,

Turning on the BS stage2 isolation loops sometimes causes locklosses.  These are the locklosses for which Hoacun found that there is a glitch in the BS side osem.  (27739)

The first attached plot shows the Z isolation loop gain coming on at t=-34 seconds, Jim tells me this comes on with a 10 second ramp, and you can see a small glitch in the Z CPS at around t=-24 seconds when the ramp should be finishing.  At just after t=-8 the gain for X, Y, and RZ isolation loops increase, which corresponds to a glitch visible in the CPS, GS13s, and top mass side osem, and optical lever.  This is the glitch that breaks the lock. 

For now I've rearranged the guardian graph so we won't be isolating the beamsplitter stage 2. 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
brian.lantz@LIGO.ORG - 21:33, Thursday 16 June 2016 (27794)
Weird. Please check that the isolation gain is going from 0 to 1 with 2 ramps.
The first goes from 0 to (intermediate gain) and the second goes from (intermediate gain) to 1.
the intermediate gain is ~ 0.01 (so that the open loop gain at DC is ~1, so that the ERROR SIGNAL of the loop goes to about 1/2 of its final value. both ramps are 5-10 seconds. It looks like the second ramp-time has dropped to 0 (immediate) which would give the system a hearty whack. 

Please check that there are 2 ramps to get the gain to 1. 


H1 CDS
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:35, Thursday 16 June 2016 (27779)
new h1asc model and daq restart

WP5938

Evan, Dave:

h1asc model was changed to add REFL A/B WFS channels to the DAQ. 22 channels were added to both science and commissioning frames.

DAQ restart was somewhat messy, requiring mx streamer restarts on various front ends.

H1 DAQ
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:31, Thursday 16 June 2016 (27777)
DAQ frame writer, remove controls account priority privileges

To make h1fw0 consistent with h1fw1 and LLO, the /etc/security/limits.conf file was edited to comment out the lines:

controls - rtprio 99
controls - nice -20

Note that the daqd processes on both frame writers are running with priority/nice values of 20/0
 

H1 CDS
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:11, Thursday 16 June 2016 - last comment - 13:26, Thursday 16 June 2016(27775)
Updated Conlog channel list
Added 184 channels. Removed 8 channels. (see attached)
Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - 13:26, Thursday 16 June 2016 (27776)

I remembered that generating the Guardian autoBurt.req file is very hands-on at the moment and was very much out of date (from early O1)

I re-created the autoBurt.req, which allowed conlog to stop attempting to connect to the removed node and now connects to the new nodes. For the record, we now have 97 Guardian nodes running.

Procedure to update /opt/rtcds/lho/h1/target/h1guardian0/h1guardian0epics/autoBurt.req file:

edit the create_guardian_autoburt.py script to get the node listing correct (I use 'guardctrl list')

save the current autoBurt.req into the archive directory

./create_guardian_autoburt.py > autoBurt.req

Then test with

burtrb -f autoBurt.req

H1 IOO (IOO, SUS)
cheryl.vorvick@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:05, Thursday 16 June 2016 (27773)
noise on IM2 OSEM LR vs noise (or lack of) on IM1 OSEM LR

IM2 shows more motion in pitch and yaw than IM1, IM3, or IM4. Below is a chart showing the p-p amplitude of the oscillations in the damping signals, in urad, for pitch and yaw.

  DAMP_P_IN (urad) DAMP_Y_IN (urad)
IM1 0.5 0.5
IM2 3.0 2.5
IM3 0.7 0.6
IM4 1.0 0.5

Attached is a power spectrum taken today showing OSEM LR, DAMP L, and COIL OUT LR for IM1 and IM2.

See also: alog #26502, alog #25955, alog #25811

Images attached to this report
H1 General (PSL)
edmond.merilh@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:35, Thursday 16 June 2016 - last comment - 16:05, Thursday 16 June 2016(27772)
PSL Weekly 10 Day Trends FAMIS #6100
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jason.oberling@LIGO.ORG - 16:05, Thursday 16 June 2016 (27781)

Everything looks alright except for one slightly worrying trend.  On the Weekly Chiller attachment, the diode and crystal chillers (H1:PSL-OSC_XCHILFLOW and H1:PSL-OSC_DCHILFLOW) both see a slow loss in flow, as does the FE water circuit (H1:PSL-OSC_AMPFLOW) and the HPO power meter water circuit (H1:PSL-OSC_PWRMETERFLOW).  In addition, the flow meter for the laser head 1 water circuit (H1:PSL-OSC_HEAD1FLOW) is also showing a slow drop in flow rate.  As there is no coinciding increase in humidity (found on the Weekly Env attachment) I don't think we have a water leak.  Also, it looks like the Diode chiller flow has leveled off, while the crystal chiller flow does not appear to be doing so.  Combine this with the slow increase seen in the pressure of the crystal chiller water circuit (H1:PSL-OSC_PRESS1 and H1:PSL-OSC_PRESS2, sensors located respectively at the entrance and exit of the HPO water manifold underneath the PSL table), this may be an early indication of a flow issue (for example a small obstruction restricting but not blocking the flow) in the crystal chiller water circuit.  There's no way to know for sure right now, but this is something we are going to keep a very close eye on.

H1 General
edmond.merilh@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:03, Thursday 16 June 2016 (27771)
Shift Summary - Day Transition
TITLE: 06/16 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Commissioning
OUTGOING OPERATOR: None
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    Wind: 7mph Gusts, 3mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.05 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.12 μm/s 
QUICK SUMMARY:
Curious, there's a spike in the EQ band up to .1um/sec less than 1 hour before I arrived. Now some more time has passed and there's no sign of anything having happened on USGS.
H1 ISC
stefan.ballmer@LIGO.ORG - posted 03:37, Thursday 16 June 2016 - last comment - 03:37, Thursday 16 June 2016(27769)
SRC ASC work

Evan, Sheila, Stefan

For now we decided that we need to go back to a SRC alignment scheme similar to the O1 one - while not great it kept the machine running with the existing hardware. And we know that was at least reliable enough to do other work.

We started with SRC1_Y. The combination
        ezca['ASC-INMATRIX_Y_6_3']=-1.5   # AS_A36I to SRC1_Y
        ezca['ASC-INMATRIX_Y_6_7']=1      # AS_B36I to SRC1_Y
gave a reasonable error signal with about zero offset, and we could close the loop - with a gain of -30 for now.

As in the past pitch is a bit more tricky. AS_B36I has a nice signal but also quite the offset. We lost lock before finding a good value for this, and had an episode of lock losses most likely due to bad initial alignment. (below).
On the next round the following gains seemed to work for now:

       #set input matrix
        ezca['ASC-INMATRIX_P_6_3']=0 # off for now
        ezca['ASC-INMATRIX_P_6_7']=1 # good enough for now
        ezca['ASC-INMATRIX_Y_6_3']=-1.5
        ezca['ASC-INMATRIX_Y_6_7']=1
        ezca['ASC-INMATRIX_P_6_1']=0
        ezca['ASC-INMATRIX_P_6_5']=0
        ezca['ASC-INMATRIX_Y_6_1']=0
        ezca['ASC-INMATRIX_Y_6_5']=0

 

 

As mentioned, in the meantime we had a number of most likely initial alignment related locklosses. They first occured in the CARM ASC engagement, and later even DRMI phase..

I did a full  initial alignment, and also noticed that the QPD offsets on the red X TR photodiode offset was unreasonably high. I re-zeroed this offset.

 

With that the IFO saw a two Watts, DC readout for 2+h.

Next on the menu was more violin damping. I focused on EX, which currently has 3 moned intermingling; 505.587Hz, 505.707Hz and 505.710Hz.

505.587Hz: Damps with H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_DAMP_MODE1, FM1, FM4, gain=100.

The other two are simply too close to each other (beat signal of 5min!) - we need to damp with the same filter.. I focused on 505.710Hz., which is the big peak.
 I deleted the narrow bandstop filters, and significantly widened the band-pass filter FM1, and tried with

505.710Hz    H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_DAMP_MODE6, FM1, FM4, gain=200.

which seems to work.

The next mode (which actually grew while I paid attention to the other 3) is 507.194Hz, together with 507.159Hz.

507.159Hz seems to damp with H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_DAMP_MODE6 FM1 FM3 FM4, gain=50 (later gain=10). But currently 507.194Hz still bleeds through this filter, which makes it hard to damp.

I left 507.194Hz in H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_DAMP_MODE7 FM1, FM4 gain=50, which seems to provide a wee bit of damping.

After that, ITMY also needs more attention.

 

I leave the interferometer running at 2Watts - I would recommend focusing on getting the violins under control - they prevent other work.

 

 

Comments related to this report
stefan.ballmer@LIGO.ORG - 03:37, Thursday 16 June 2016 (27770)



Also, we noted that the large DC offsets in the AS_B_RF36_I singals can be removed by adding DC pointing offsets - another hint that all this SRC mess is related a centeriong problem.
The offsets were
H1:ASC-DC4_P_OFFSET -0.13
H1:ASC-DC4_Y_OFFSET  0.33

H1 ISC (SUS)
carl.blair@LIGO.ORG - posted 03:09, Thursday 16 June 2016 (27768)
Violin Modes and test mass Bulk modes

The violin mode harmonics overlap with the ~15070Hz test mass bulk modes.  This may explain the mystery modes that have been rung up in the vicinity at Hanford alog27659 15063Hz and Livingston LLO alog20100 15085Hz.
This spectrum was taken from these measurements alog27743.  Two violin mode harmonics are visible between 15kHz to 15.1kHz and 15.5kHz and 15.6kHz.  Several test mass modes are also visible.  The violin modes were elevated and we were actuating on 15077Hz ITMX mode and 15072 ITMY mode (which are very large and far off the top of the plot).
 

Images attached to this report
H1 ISC
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:20, Thursday 16 June 2016 (27767)
attempt at gain matching for AS45

Jenne, Sheila, Peter, Evan, Stefan

We had been using AS45I for SRM signal in the last two days, and they seemed to not work well for yaw today.  Peter and Jenne noticed that the violin modes showed up more strongly in some quadratns of the AS45 WFS than others, so we drove a line in DARM to check the balancing of the AS45 WFS. We drove DARM at 21 Hz, and  looked at the transfer functions to the individual quadrants before the phasing.  We set the gains so that the signal amplitudes would all match quadrant 1.  For AS A, we ended up with gains as different from 0 as 0.69

We then attempted to phase these signals in the same way that the LSC AS45 detector is phased, by turning on and off the DARM offset and making sure that all the DARM signal was in the Q phase.  To do this we changed some phases by up to 20 degrees.  We had to use a step size of 0.5degrees on AS A which is in loop for DHARD to avoid loosing lock.  

After doing this we tried moving the SRM alingment to see if the AS45 signals were better for SRM.  We saw that pit and yaw were cross coupled, and we didn't have much pitch signal at all.  We reverted these changes since we don't really think that the gains in the electronics can be this badly matched.  

Non-image files attached to this report
H1 CAL (CAL)
craig.cahillane@LIGO.ORG - posted 21:20, Wednesday 15 June 2016 - last comment - 23:59, Friday 17 June 2016(27765)
LHO Calibration Uncertainty - Now With Covariance
C. Cahillane

I have revamped the uncertainty budget to include covariances between all stages of actuation and all time-dependent parameters.
I computed each parameter's covariances in real and imaginary coordinates to provide a consistent basis.  I then compiled an 6 x 6 Actuation Covariance Matrix C_A, a 2 x 2 Sensing Covariance Matrix C_S, and an 8 x 8 Kappa Covariance Matrix C_K.  Then I compile them into a giant covariance matrix C:

     _             _
    |  C_A  0   0   |
C = |   0  C_S  0   |
    |_  0   0  C_K _|     

Then, I multiply by some conspicuous Jacobian vectors J(f) to get the final 2 x 2 uncertainty matrix σ_R^2(f):

σ_R^2 = J * C * J'

where J looks like:

        _                            _
       |  d Re(R)    d Im(R)          |
       | ---------  ---------   ....  |
       | d Re(p_i)  d Re(p_i)         |
J(f) = |                              |
       |  d Re(R)    d Im(R)          |
       | ---------  ---------   ....  |
       |_d Im(p_i)  d Im(p_i)        _|

(I was able to use complex differentiation and Cauchy-Riemann here to make the derivatives easier.  Recall that R = 1/C + D*A.  Now I can compute dR/dA = D and dR/dC = -1/C^2 to form J(f), thanks to 200 year old mathematics)

Finally, to make the uncertainties readable by humans, I divide σ_R^2(f) by |R(f)|^2, rotate σ_R^2(f) by angle(R(f)) via a rotation matrix, and read off the square roots of the diagonal of the rotated σ_R^2(f) to get the magnitude and phase uncertainties plotted below.

I have plotted the uncertainty at GPSTime = 1135136350, the time of the Boxing Day Event.

The plot shows an overall increase in magnitude uncertainty of about 1% at low frequency.
Phase uncertainty increased by about 0.5 degrees at low frequency.

The effects are more dramatic at Livingston.  Check out LLO aLOG 26542.  
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
craig.cahillane@LIGO.ORG - 12:33, Thursday 16 June 2016 (27774)CAL
C. Cahillane

I have reproduced the uncertainties including covariance for GW150914 for the calibration companion paper.  We will have to update the associated uncertainty calculation sections of the paper.  
I have also attached two .txt files for the R_C01/R_C03 response comparison and the associated uncertainty.

Something I failed to emphasize above: Our uncertainties in the response function are now fully covariant... the plots I show of the magnitude and phase are only approximations to the true uncertainty.  
I have looked at the 3D plots of the covariant ellipses, and it's a fairly good approximation in this case. 
Images attached to this comment
Non-image files attached to this comment
craig.cahillane@LIGO.ORG - 23:59, Friday 17 June 2016 (27829)CAL
C. Cahillane

I have attached and printed my relative covariance matrix.  Please see DCC T1600227 for an explanation of the relative covariance matrix.  
Basically, the below is percentage covariances.
 

             Re(A_U)   Im(A_U)   Re(A_P)   Im(A_P)   Re(A_T)   Im(A_U)   Re(C_R)   Im(C_R)   Re(K_T)   Im(K_T)   Re(K_P)   Im(K_P)   Re(K_C)   Im(K_C)   Re(f_C)   Im(f_C)
Re(A_U)       0.0166    0.0083    0.0139    0.0079    0.0146    0.0067         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0
Im(A_U)       0.0083    0.0209    0.0091    0.0169    0.0071    0.0178         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0
Re(A_P)       0.0139    0.0091    0.0163    0.0052    0.0157    0.0066         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0
Im(A_P)       0.0079    0.0169    0.0052    0.0181    0.0057    0.0156         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0
Re(A_T)       0.0146    0.0071    0.0157    0.0057    0.0251    0.0047         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0
Im(A_T)       0.0067    0.0178    0.0066    0.0156    0.0047    0.0187         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0
Re(C_R)            0         0         0         0         0         0    0.0207    0.0079         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0
Im(C_R)            0         0         0         0         0         0    0.0079    0.0208         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0
Re(K_T)            0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0    0.0025   -0.0002    0.0019   -0.0018   -0.0004         0    0.0004         0
Im(K_T)            0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0   -0.0002    0.0025    0.0017    0.0019    0.0001         0    0.0001         0
Re(K_P)            0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0    0.0019    0.0017    0.0035   -0.0003    0.0002         0   -0.0003         0
Im(K_P)            0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0   -0.0018    0.0019   -0.0003    0.0035    0.0006         0   -0.0005         0
Re(K_C)            0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0   -0.0004    0.0001    0.0002    0.0006    0.0037         0   -0.0036         0
Im(K_C)            0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0
Re(f_C)            0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0    0.0004    0.0001   -0.0003   -0.0005   -0.0036         0    0.0054         0
Im(f_C)            0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0

H1 ISC
terra.hardwick@LIGO.ORG - posted 20:55, Wednesday 15 June 2016 - last comment - 22:13, Friday 17 June 2016(27752)
ITM charge measurements, alpha calculation

Jenne, Peter, Jeff, Terra

We took charge measurements on the ITMs by driving 20.1 Hz into H1:SUS-ITMX/Y_L3_DRIVEALIGN_L2L_EXC with 100k cts and looked at the coupling to DARM. We stepped up and down the ESD bias voltage from zero and found the bias that gave zero coupling to get charge measurements, where Vcharge= (20/218) * bias * 40. ITMX zeroed with bias = 3k, ITMY zeroed with bias = 2.5k. See bias stepping ITMX and ITMY spectra attached. 

ITMX charge: 9.15 V,   ITMY charge: 7.6 V

ITMX: 

BIAS offset  RMS AMPL (m) PEAK AMPL (m)  PHASE (deg)
0 4.9x10-15 6.9x10-15 37
50K 7.6x10-14 1.1x10-13 -142
100K 1.6x10-13 2.6x10-13 -142
-50K 8.5x10-14 1.2x10-13 38
-100K 1.7x10-13 2.4x10-13 38

ITMY:

BIAS offset RMS AMPL (m) PEAK AMPL (m) PHASE (deg)
0 5.4x 10-15 7.6x10-15 -142
50K 9.3x 10-14 1.3x10-13 38
100K 1.9 x 10-13 2.7x10-13 38
-50K 1.0 x 10-13 1.4x10-13 -142
-100K 2.0x 10-13 2.8x10-13 -142

 

Approximating alpha: The first term in the expression for the force produced by the ESDs is the attractive force between the ESD fringe fields and the test mass: F = alpha(Vbias - Vsignal)2, where alpha is a constant of proportionality. With the known bias voltage Vb, signal drive voltage Vs, drive frequency f, and now the peak amplitude xpp , we used the largest bias offset (100k) to approximate alpha for both ITMs. Work is attached

ITMX: alpha = 1.78 x 10-11 N/V2,   ITMY: alpha = 1.85 x 10-11 N/V2

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
terra.hardwick@LIGO.ORG - 22:13, Friday 17 June 2016 (27825)

These LHO ITM force coefficients agree with LLO's. Using Valera and Den's 2015 measurements (and assuming an 80 Hz ESD drive), I calculated alpha for LLO ITMX: alpha = 1.46 x 10-11 N/V2

H1 SUS (ISC)
nutsinee.kijbunchoo@LIGO.ORG - posted 19:52, Wednesday 15 June 2016 - last comment - 23:41, Wednesday 15 June 2016(27763)
Violin mode damping work update

Stefan, Nutsinee

So we found out that the ITMY vstop filter has been turned off. That's likely the cause of mysterious ring up of ITMY violin modes last night and tonight. I was able to damp the three highest modes (ITMY MODE2, MODE3, MODE5) with the settings on the table I confirmed on June 13. I haven't had a chance to re-comfirm all the settings. So until then I would either comment out IY violin mode damping guardian lines or just skip it for now.

 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
nutsinee.kijbunchoo@LIGO.ORG - 20:04, Wednesday 15 June 2016 (27764)

Nevermind. I commented out every IY line except for MODE2, 3, and 5.

sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 23:41, Wednesday 15 June 2016 (27766)

Evan, Sheila

We tried the settings in the guardian (and in the new wiki) for ITMY mode 1 and mode 6, they worked so they are back in the guardian now.  ETMX mode7 (507.195Hz) is the largest violin mode now, and I don't see settings for this mode on the wiki, so I tried FM1, FM4, and a +30 gain (BP, 100dB, 0 degrees of phase).  This seemed to ring it up very slowly, so if we hadn't lost lock for unrelated reasons I would have tried a 60 degrees phase shift.  

Displaying reports 55961-55980 of 82985.Go to page Start 2795 2796 2797 2798 2799 2800 2801 2802 2803 End