I have increased the heat in the LVEA in sections 1A and 5 by 1 ma each.
Been locked and observing for 5+hrs. There have been a few glitches lately, and the range has started to drop a little (from 75 -> 70Mpc). Seems to be a bit more noise in DARM around 30-90Hz. Everything else looks good aside from that though. I'll keep investigating.
TITLE: 12/05 Owl Shift: 08:00-16:00 UTC (00:00-08:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Acquisition
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ed
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
Wind: 5mph Gusts, 4mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.50 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: After a 39hr lock, Ed handed me a fully locked IFO. Nice.
06:30 Lockoss - reason unknown. There were no alerts. There were no obvious environmental causes. Going to begin re-locking. I will switch ISI config back to WINDY as per the email that Jim just sent out. after locking, if necessary after looking at a2l DTT script I may run the a2l script.
H1 is locked for 37hours 10 min. uSeism mean is resting about the 90%ile. Winds got a litle feisty but have calmed to less than 20mph. Some EQ activity caused a slight rise in BLRMS about 2 hours ago. There have been some EY glitches as noted in my activity log below. There was a CP4 alarm and a PSL dust moinor alarm. The TCSY chiller message was as it was on Patrick's shift. The plot of the glitch is also below.
At the beginning of my shift I ran the measurement that looks at the DARM coherence for a2l. The plot is below.
01:21 EY saturation.
01:51 Granted Carlos remote access to CDS
01:55 CP4 alarm
02:03 TCSY chiller flow message - Verbal Alarm
02:15 BIG EY glitch took the range to 4.1 Mpc
02:44 EY glitch
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 usedfreq < 10 Hzfor UIM,freq < 100 Hzfor 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 kernelk(x,y) = a + b * exp(-0.5*(x-y)**2/l**2), wherea, b,andlare 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.
C. Cahillane I have changed the kernel the Gaussian Process runs on in order to get more realistic errorbars. The plots for the UIM stage have a dot product kernel: k(x,y) = 1.0 + x.y + noise The plots for the PUM and TST stage have a squared dot product kernel: k(x,y) = 1.0 + x.y + (x.y)**2 + noise The results show a much more simplistic and physically realistic correlation between measurement points. (No more overfitting wiggles, slightly expanded uncertainty bars, no instabilities in the GP results) Our minimum uncertainty in the TST stage in the bucket is on the order of ~0.6% and 0.3 degrees. So still very good uncertainty. Still to do: (1) Remove time-dependence from the measurements by modifying the .conf files with the relevant kappas. (2) MCMC to find physical parameters on only the reference measurement. (3) LLO Actuation, LHO and LLO Sensing.
From /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sys/h1/scripts/VerbalAlarms/Lock_Summary.py. End of Day Summary Current Status: Observing, Locked since Dec 3 14:49:59 UTC (1164811816.0) Total Day Locked: 33hr 10min 4sec [138.2%] (119404/86400) Total Day Science: error [error%] (error/86400)
TITLE: 12/04 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC STATE of H1: Observing at 73.3703Mpc INCOMING OPERATOR: Ed SHIFT SUMMARY: IFO locked and in observing during entire shift. Lock stretch now past 33 hours. CP4 pump level is still glitching in and out of alarm. Evan G. is here as fellow. LOG: 16:22 UTC Kyle left. He was working in the vacuum prep lab at the end of the hallway when I arrived. 17:44 UTC Multiple EY saturations. A comb appeared in DARM from 500 Hz to 1 kHz. Lasted ~ 1 minute. Looks similar to what Nutsinee posted in her owl shift summary. 23:10 UTC TCSY chiller flow is low verbal alarm. Trend showed it recovered. 23:44 UTC Single EY saturation. Everything in DARM below ~300 Hz jumped. 00:00 UTC Thought I briefly saw red squares on the CDS overview under end Y, but they disappeared.
Verbal alarms announced 'TCSY chiller flow is low' at 23:10:09 UTC. Plot attached (1 hour of full data). Seems to have recovered.
Lock is now over 29 hours. Evan G. is here. ~17:44 UTC Saw a reappearance of the glitches that Nutsinee reported in her Owl Summary alog (EY saturations and a comb in DARM from 500 Hz to 1 kHz). Also lasted about a minute.
The problem is reported in alog: 32148
The LHO DCS cluster seems fine, but the load on the DCS DetChar box is very high. I've sent an email to the DetChar group, Duncan Macleod, and LDAS about this, seeing if Duncan can get the summary page jobs working again, or if the box needs to be rebooted.
The detchar box has been rebooted, the detchar jobs are running again, and detchar has been informed. It may take a while for the summary pages to catch up.
TITLE: 12/04 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 75.9413Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Nutsinee
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
Wind: 6mph Gusts, 3mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.58 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: Locked for over 25 hours. Kyle is working in the vacuum prep lab down the hall.
Kyle just left.
TITLE: 12/04 Owl Shift: 08:00-16:00 UTC (00:00-08:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 72.7098Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Patrick
SHIFT SUMMARY: Been locked since last night. 25 hours and counting! LLO is still down.
LOG:
10:46 Got a TCSY low flow alarm. Time series showed a quick drop of flow rate and then back to normal. I went to check the chiller on the mezzanine anyway. The flow rate read 4 pgm (normal).
14:12 Suddenly there were nasty group of lines appeared in DARM between 500-1000 Hz. Verbal alarm complained EY saturation multiple times (well, that doesn't tell us much). Lasted less than a minute (14:11:47-14:12:29).
TITLE: 12/04 Owl Shift: 08:00-16:00 UTC (00:00-08:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 67.6212Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ed
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT: Wind: 36mph Gusts, 31mph 5min avg Primary useism: 0.15 μm/s Secondary useism: 0.62 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: Still locked since last night. 17 hours and counting. I went through Ops sticky note and was thinking about running a2l since I didn't run it the first two hours into the lock last night. The coherence plot (from Keita's template) looks fine. Then I saw Ed's comment about the plan changed. So no a2l.
End X is slow to respond so I have raised the heater to 11.5 ma and increased fan flow SF01 to 12 ma and ~11500 cfm.
I assume these temperature increases were well motivated, but I hope the affects of such increases were considered before hand, especially considering we're in the middle of a run. Small temperature variations can have noticable impact on the IFO, such as changing test mass suspension positions and/or acoustic mode frequencies.
It looks like "temperature" difference units are given in amps? What is the temperature as a functon heater current?