Similar to LLO a-log 26196 here we compare the broadband injections done using Pcal and Craig's time varying calibration model (26889). The attached plot show the comparison for the broadband injection done during January 2016 (a-log 24784). Except at known lines, such as 60 Hz harmonics, the measurement and model agree within their uncertainties. The code used to make this plot is added to calibration svn at  aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O1/H1/Scripts/PCAL/PcalGDSBroadbandComparison.m .

Last week, TJ created some guardian node to manage the configuration of the endstation ISI's, alog 27141. The intention is for these to be the primary interface for commissioners and operators in changing the Seismic configuration, depending on environment. I'm providing some guidance on when the different states should be used here.

THIS NOT EVEN A GUIDE, JUST SUGGESTIONS.

The guardian code is still being worked on, configurations still need to be tested.   Thats why there are fields with options, or without a full description of the state. The wind speeds are pretty much guesses, but the 10% and 90%  microseism are indicated on with dashed lines on the .1 - .3 hz BLRMS on the seismic foms.

Per work permit 5885, we started pulling in the field cables for the Newtonian Noise Array. This involved work over HAM4 and north side of BSC2. Cables runs are as follows:

CER TCS-C1 Rack to SUS-R6 Rack

CER TCS-C1 Rack to TCS-R1

Remaing cables that need to be pulled-in are the ITM ESD cables.

Optical Lever trends for the last 7 days for Pitch, Yaw, and Sums.

FAMIS#: 4676

P. King, J. Bartlett, J. Oberling

Due to the high number of PSL chiller trips lately, this morning we swapped the in-service PSL chiller assembly (aka Gromit) for the the backup (aka Wallace).  Both crystal and diode chillers are currently up and running so that air can bleed from the system.  the laser is not on at this time, we will bring it back up this afternoon after enough time has passed for the air to bleed out.  Hopefully this solves the chiller trips we've been having recently.  Will continue to monitor.

Huge thanks to Jeff Bartlett for coming in on the first day of his vacation to help with the swap.

TITLE: 05/19 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Aquisition
OUTGOING OPERATOR: None
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    Wind: 27mph Gusts, 19mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.08 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.17 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: Wind is starting to pick up a bit, let's see what else today has in store for us!
 

Transition Summary:

Title:  05/18/2016, Evening Shift 23:00 – 07:00 (16:00 – 00:00) All times in UTC (PT)
State of H1: IFO locked at DC_READOUT with 2.1w of power. The wind and seismic are a bit rung up but do not seem to be effecting the lock.    
Commissioning: Several commissioners working on IFO.
Outgoing Operator: Ed
 
Activity Log: All Times in UTC (PT)

23:00 (16:00) Start of shift
23:00 (16:00) Gerardo – Back from filling CP3
23:47 (16:47) Sheila & Haocun – Going to ICST1
23:50 (16:50) PSL – Down Flow Sensor error 1 – Notified Peter
00:18 (15:18) Sheila & Haocun – Out of the LVEA 
00:40 (15:42) Sheila & Jeff B. – Into LVEA to reset the NPRO Noise Eater 
01:30 (18:30) PSL – Down again due to same sensor flow error – Notified PSL team



End of Shift Summary:

Title: 05/18/2016, Evening Shift 23:00 – 07:00 (16:00 – 00:00) All times in UTC (PT)
Support: Jenne, Sheila, Haocun, Evan, Craig, Ross
Incoming Operator: N/A 

Shift Detail Summary: High winds at the site (up to 36mph), having trouble getting past LOCKING_ALS. Hugh & Jeff B. working with the BRS blends. At 23:50 (16:50) PSL down due to flow sensor error on PSL Crystal Chiller. Peter working on recovery.  PSL ran until ~01:30 (18:30) when it took another flow sensor error. Spoke to Jason and Peter. Going to leave the PSL down tonight. The backup chiller (Wallace) has been prepped for installation. The plan is to swap out the primary chiller (Gromit) with the backup chiller tomorrow morning.  

C. Cahillane

I have looked at the actuation strengths to check the covariance between the actuation stages for each of the four measurements.  
The four measurements are the three calibration week actuation measurements on August 26, 28, and 29, and the Post O1 January 7 measurement.
The covariance was calculated by taking the residuals of the fitted actuation strengths and comparing points between L1 and L2, L1 and L3, and L2 and L3 at the same frequency for each day's measurement.

The different dots in the covariance plots correspond to frequency.  The dark blue is low frequency, and the light orange is high frequency.

The covariance is on the same order as the overall variance for each actuation stage.  Worse still, it is positively correlated, meaning we may have underestimated uncertainty by ignoring these terms. 

My results also indicate the measurements may be inconsistent between days.  The August 28 measurement inexplicably displays no covariance between actuation stages, while all of the other measurements do.  Jeff has tried looking at the optical gain fluctuations during each day's measurements, but this doesn't appear to be the cause.

   After Peter recovered the PSL, it ran until ~01:30 (18:30) when it took another flow sensor error. Spoke to Jason and Peter. I am going to prep Wallace tonight and will swap out the chillers tomorrow.  

Sheila, Haocun

We tried with the POP X path with 36MHz to control PR3, and phased each quadrant it to minimize the Q signal, as shown below. We used -1 in the matrix for Pitch. This is fine for Pitch, but in Yaw, there is an offset between the new signal and the REFL signal. So in the afternoon, we changed to use 45MHz demodulation and changed the dark offsets. Then the laser broke down. 

In trying to determine whether or not there was a water leak with the laser, the humidity sensor in the high
power oscillator was looked at.  In doing so, a interesting coincidence was noticed - the reason for which
is not obvious to me (anyway).

    WaterTrip1.png shows the humidity sensor output from last night when Jeff reported that the laser tripped.
WaterTrip2.png shows the same signal from when the laser tripped a few moments ago.  Both plots show a small
oscillation-like variation in the humidity.  The same behaviour shows up in the temperature sensors mounted
to the laser base plate.

    Cave flow sensors for heads 3 and 4.

Because PSL power fluctuation impacts the maximum IMC input power (the amplitude variable for the angle-power calculator), one thing we could do is to keep an eye on H1:IMC-PWR_EOM_OUT16 chanel. The difference between the EOM channel and the actual max power output from the RS is roughly 1W (as of yesterday with PWR_EOM gain of 0.916. I assume this can change).  So replacing "Power in (W)" variable in the calculator with (PWR_EOM_OUT_16) - 1 should do the trick (I did the calculation and it seems to work out. Again, watch out for the PWR_EOM gain). First attachment is the maximum IMC input power compared to the EOM power when I ran the RS script yesterday. Second attachment shows increase in EOM _OUT16 today and corrected IMC input power towards the end of the plot (2W instead of 2.15W). Third attachment is the PWR_EOM filter as of today. It would be nice if EOM power agrees with the maximum IMC input power unless we really lose 1 W somewhere on the table (I see that there's another beam dump after the RS in the PSL layout).

  23:50 (16:50) PSL down due to flow sensor error on PSL Crystal Chiller. Peter is working on recovery.  

1/2 open LLCV bypass valve, and the exhaust bypass valve fully open.
Flow was noted after 82 seconds, closed LLCV valve, and 3 minutes later the exhaust bypass valve was closed.

[Sheila, Jenne]

These are numbers pulled from our dP/dTheta measurements from last night (mentioned in alog 27235).  I have gotten the numbers into RIN/theta, since we want to know how much the power fluctuates for a given angular motion of an optic.  The short summary is that the Yarm optics affect the power fluctuation much more significantly than the Xarm optics do, and that the ETMs affect the power more than the ITMs. 

Sum up of 2W results:

We'd like to remeasure these values at different powers - hopefully they're constant.  Of course, these are relative power fluctuations versus angle, so the overall force on the optics will be increasing as we increase the power.

The following table with more detailed results has a crazy-town amount of information, some of which I'm not totally sure what to do with yet.  The difficulty is that since we have ASC loops running, when we dither one test mass, all 4 test masses move.  So.  Here's the gory detail.  All dithers were at 0.51 Hz in pitch to the L2 stage of the test masses. Start times are UTC of 17 May 2016. The values in the table below are at our 0.51 Hz dither freq.  The numbers in the summary table above are the RIN of POP_A_LF versus the angular motion of the optic we were driving at the time.