Displaying reports 56361-56380 of 83394.Go to page Start 2815 2816 2817 2818 2819 2820 2821 2822 2823 End
Reports until 00:13, Friday 17 June 2016
H1 SUS (ISC)
nutsinee.kijbunchoo@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:13, Friday 17 June 2016 (27796)
Violin mode monitor updated

The violin mode monitor is now monitoring each fundamental mode indivudually, using the same band pass filters (and notch filters if there's any) from the SUS damaping filters. The RMS value of each mode should equal to the order of magnitude from the nominal observing noise floor. I haven't had a chance to check if that's true for every mode so there probably will be some changes to the gains in the future. At least it's usable and trust worthy enough for damp job.

Images attached to this report
H1 General
nutsinee.kijbunchoo@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:05, Friday 17 June 2016 (27788)
Ops EVE shift summary
TITLE: 06/16 EVE Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-08:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Commissioning
INCOMING OPERATOR: -
SHIFT SUMMARY: Many lock losses. We have been stopping at DARM_OFFSET. Commissioners are still on it.
 
 
 
Activity:
 
0:18 Robert to EX (electronics bay)
3:50 ETMY IOP stopped working. Had to restart the model.
H1 CDS
nutsinee.kijbunchoo@LIGO.ORG - posted 21:56, Thursday 16 June 2016 (27795)
ETMYIOP suddenly gave up. Restarted the model 04:10 UTC

Dave (on phone), Nutsinee

 

H1 IOO
cheryl.vorvick@LIGO.ORG - posted 20:51, Thursday 16 June 2016 - last comment - 10:56, Friday 17 June 2016(27792)
looking into alignment as it might relate to locking issues

Concerned about locking issues, I looked into alignment changes and compared before the power outage to after the power outage and there's a few things that stand out.

IMC MC1-3 alignment changes:

mc1 p 1.3 urad
mc1 y -24 urad
mc2 p 3.5 urad
mc2 y -8 urad
mc3 p 18 urad
mc3 y -22 urad

changes of 8-24urad

Total angular change of each chamber:

HAM2 71.4 nrad
HAM3 6.8 nrad

Linear change at 16.4m (IMC length)

HAM2 1.2 um
HAM3 0.1 um

change due to ISI is in um range

change in IM4 Trans

im4 t p 0.02 normalized QPD
im4 t y 0.079 normalized QPD

change in IM1 alignment required to account for change in IM4 Trans

 

  IM1 / IM4 Trans conversion IM4 t diff calculated IM1 change
pitch 287.5 urad/ normalized QPD 0.02 5.75 urad
yaw 147.3988439 urad/ normalized QPD 0.079 11.64 urad

IM1 would have to move 11.64urad in yaw to account for the change on IM4 Trans.

IM1 hasn't move 11.64urad, so changes on IM4 Trans are coming from somewhere else

change in WFSA and WFSB yaw (before values are approximate)

 

  before after diff
  approx    
WFSA yaw -0.83 -0.88 -0.05
WFSB yaw -0.83 -0.88 -0.05

diff value is not so much the problem

both WFSA and WFSB are close to or already railed in yaw, at -0.9 on a +/-1.0 scale

Comments related to this report
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - 10:56, Friday 17 June 2016 (27807)

Seems like these things have been drifting over a long long time, see attached. Note that IMC WFS PIT and YAW signals are physically YAW and PIT on IOT2L, but PIT and YAW in chamber.

In the attached trend for 180 days, you can see that the WFS DC pointing was pretty well centered in YAW (PIT on table) and about 0.25 in PIT (YAW on table) until about 10-days after O1 concluded. There have been 5 distinct jumps since then and each step made the YAW (PIT on the table) centering worse.

It could be the loose periscope mirror on MC REFL periscope in HAM2 (alog 15650) but it's hard to say for sure.

Anyway, this means that the beam could be off on the MC length diode. If that's the case this should be fixed on the table, not by MC WFS picomotors.

Images attached to this comment
LHO VE
chandra.romel@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:22, Thursday 16 June 2016 (27789)
CP5
Gerardo, John, Chandra

Spent a good part of the day troubleshooting CP5 and surveying/fixing the other cryopumps after the electronic actuator install. CP5's LLCV needle coupling was not fully threaded. We tightened and may be seeing an improvement in the % open to % full (% open was approaching upper limit of 100% to maintain 92% full). 

We measured the pressure in the vacuum jacket of the LN2 supply line. The two ports measured 5 & 6 microns (good vacuum).

The top-end regen line connection at CP5 has an ice ball.
H1 General
edmond.merilh@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:07, Thursday 16 June 2016 (27787)
Shift Summary - Day
TITLE: 06/16 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Aquisition
INCOMING OPERATOR: Nutsinee
SHIFT SUMMARY:
Locking to DC Readout in the morning was repeatable until just about the mdle of the day. The gain of the IMC was having trouble staying locked with a transition in LASER power. This was corrected by Sheila, Evan and Peter F. The second half of the day didn't see much past CARM-ON_TR.
LOG:

13:45 Chris/Bubba/Joe et al out at EX working on wind break wall. All day work. Using tractor outside a well.

15:54 Hanford Emergency EXERCISE take cover message for the 200 area.

16:04 Gerardo,Chandra and John out to MY to check on CP5

16:11 Christina to open exterior high-bay rollup door and move items woith forklift. Currently locked at DC Readout. No one seems to mind.

16:30 Lock Loss OMC M1 WD tripped

16:33 Hanford Emergency Exercise ended.

17:32 Gerardo back

17:33 John and Chandra headed out to Y arm to check on cryo pumps. No incursion into VEA as sensor correction is turned ON.

18:18 John and Chandra back

18:24 Initial alignment. IMC was having some trouble due to some LSC value gone awry; EX was lacking in robust alignment; Too much pitch in DRMI and PRMI

15:00 DAQ training

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 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

Displaying reports 56361-56380 of 83394.Go to page Start 2815 2816 2817 2818 2819 2820 2821 2822 2823 End