I added 150 mL of H2O to the Crystal Chiller.
C. Cahillane I have attached remade systematic error and uncertainty spectrograms for all of O1, as well as some a specific calibration at GPSTime = 1135136350. These plots include uncertainty from detrended time-dependent kappas. I have also included the uncertainty components plots for ease of viewing what contributes to uncertainty. For LLO, see LLO aLOG 25914
C. Cahillane I have also included the .txt files so anyone may make the LHO C02/C03 response function plus uncertainty plots at GPSTime = 1135136350.
Here are trends of the BRS raw balance position: a 12 day (right) and 30 days, left. The driftmon has a range of +-16000 so at -13000 and still trending we don't have much room. At the current rate, we'll reach the limit in about three days.
A test version of MEDM is currently installed in the control room to address CDS Bugzilla 789. Although this wasn't really intended, the simple act of compiling the MEDM software installs it. If it causes no harm, I'll leave it in place, if there's problems the original can be reinstalled in a few minutes. This is to support testing of the historical MEDM screen software.
I restarted the HWSX sensor with a new template file that excludes the very high variance centroids from the measurement. This should result in a much less noisy measurement of the wavefront error.
The new Python version of the HWS code does this automatically by weighting each data point in the HWS image by the inverse of its variance when calculating beam properties.
Restarted web screen capture for h0 to pick up revised FMCS overview and fan sensor detail screens. These now show all values since the new vacuum controls were installed.
One of the lockloss classes from tonight has been some kind of angular instability that we see very strongly on the AS camera right when we start to power up. Not sure what it is, but it's the kind of thing that could be a BS angular instability, since the Michelson fringe separates, and the 2 bright spots orbit around each other for a second or so before we lose lock. It looks primarily like pitch according to the oplevs, but there are certainly some yaw components in there.
Attached is a plot showing the lockloss, including the power at the AS port and the oplev (or wit) signals from each of the IFO optics. If we call the frequency of the AS DC power fluctuations 2f, then it looks like perhaps BS and the ITMs are moving in pitch at 1f.
We tried once turning off the CHARD, MICH and SRC1 loops just before powering up. We were able to make it to 3W and sit for a few moments, but then lost lock on the way to 5W, although this was a fast lockloss, probably just because we didn't have enough loops on. We'd like to try powering up with all the loops on to 3W, to confirm that we can't even do that (we had always been going straight for 5W when we saw the instability). We'd also like to try with only 1 loop off at a time - MICH seems the most suspicious loop, but CHARD does seem to get noisy when the rotation stage is moving.
As a side note, I've added tried to add a convergence checker to the Engage_SRC_ASC state, so that you no longer have to wait by hand before going to Part1. You should be able to safely select Part1, and the guardian log will tell you what loop(s) aren't converged yet. The wait seems to not be working consistently yet, so maybe we can't depend on it yet, unfortunately.
I seemed to have better luck by slowing down the rotation stage velocity. At 1/10 the nominal velocity, I went to 3 W no problem with all the loops on, and then onward in several stages up to 25 W.
Today we have seen at least three examples that might make us want to return to trying 90 MHz centering. The first two screenshots attached show locklosses where we lost sideband buildups, which is usually a sign of misalignment of the BS or SRC. (We are currently using a combination of AS36I A+B for SRM control 26785 and AS36BQ for BS control). You can see that the BS yaw control signal drifts along with the sideband powers, and that there is clearly also a signal in the 90MHz Yaw signals, which might indicate we could use these sensors to prevent this kind of run away and lockloss.
The third one shows the lock that CHris and TJ left overnight last night, and you can also see sideband powers drifting a bit over the first couple hours of the lock, which is also tracked by some signal in 90 MHz yaw.
Here's the cavity pole fluctuation during the 4/26 overnight lock, monitored using Kiwamu's line tracking technique. After the initial transient it was stable within a few Hz. Looks like a favorable verdict on the new SRC1 WFS combinations.
Jenne, Sheila, Chris, TJ, Evan
It seems that tonight we have been sabotaged by some code that we have been using for a long time (this haas only happened once that we caught it, although we have a lot of unexplained locklosses tonight).
In the attached screenshot you can see that the DRMI guardian was sitting at DRMI_3F_LOCKED (130) when it decided to go to LOCK_DRMI_1F (30). There is a decorator in DRMI_3F_LOCKED that apparently returned LOCK_DRMI_1F, because it though DRMI was unlocked (it was fine as you can see from the power build ups in the top row).
The code that checks for DRMI lock is:
It happened again at 6:53:07
Sheila, Jenne, Jamie, Chris, Evan, Dave
We still don't understand why this would have happened, although we should be able to debug it a little bit better if it happens again.
Jenne and Jamie edited the DRMI_Locked function so that there will be more information in the guardian log in the future:
def DRMI_locked():
All rotating vacuum pumps in the LVEA are now off. HAM11 and HAM12 annulus ion pump currents displayed on MEDM shown in red are, in fact, on-scale on local controllers @ 10mA
C. Cahillane, J. Driggers, S. Dwyer There was an issue where during lock acquisition at the stage ENGAGE_SOFT_LOOPS, there was a filter (FM2) that was occasionally not being switched 'OFF' automatically by guardian for the filter modules ASC-DSOFT_P and ASC-CSOFT_P. In the Guardian code ISC_library.py, there is a function called FM_limit_checker_decorator(FM, sign, action, onstate, offstate) which takes in a filter module FM and changes the state to onstate under certain conditions and to offstate otherwise. (action specifies the filter 'FM2', sign affects the conditions) The issue was that FM_limit_checker_decorator always read in FM+'_OFFSET' value, even when the offset filter was flipped off. I adjusted the FM_limit_checker_decorator code to check if the offset filter was flipped off before populating the FM+'_OFFSET' value. This is why the code worked when the offset was 0, but could fail if the offset had value but was flipped off.
C. Cahillane, J. Driggers, S. Dwyer I also altered the function FM_limit_checker_decorator such that it checks if it's already in a state before changing to a state. If the filter is already 'ON', and we want to turn it 'ON', it will do nothing. Similarly for 'OFF' states. This removed four annoying Guardian log messages.
Made measurements of the oscillator power noise with a few photodiodes. PowerNoise.png shows the free-running oscillator relative power noise measured before the acousto-optic modulator. This is more than 10 times noisier than when the laser was installed in the H1 enclosure. The other trace in the plot is the out of loop of the relative power noise. It is also about a factor of 10 higher than it should be. Whilst the power stabilisation was locked, I looked at the AC coupled output of the photodiode and did not observe any oscillations. The maximum peak-to-peak variations were ~40 mVpp.
If I am reading this plot correctly, the ~37kHz rep-rate seen in last week is probably represented in this spectrum by the peak which the ISS is adding at that frequency. (The 500kHz oscillation is too high to see here.) It might be very informative to see what is going on above 100kHz since the ISS seems to be adding a lot of noise at 100kHz (about a factor of 10 above its input).
Is this plot really calibrated into RIN?
The digital RIN readback for the OOL inner-loop sensor appears to be 20 dB lower than the trace shown here (26773). Same for the digital readback for the HPO transmission.
Look at alog 26893.
Peter's "relative power noise" agrees well with the raw voltage spectrum of Rick and mine. In other words, Peter's plot seems to overestimate RIN by 15 dB or so for the HPL monitor (DC level is about -6V), and about 20dB for 1st loop sensor (DC level -9 to -10 Volt).
The X1 PT140 Pirani gauge is reading above the software interlock threshold to turn on the Cold Cathode gauge. Per Chandra's request I have bypassed the software interlock by forcing the variables in Beckhoff on h0velx (see attached screenshot).
We may use the intermittent "bad" behavior of the pirani/cable/connection or whatever as an excuse to install the aLIGO wide range gauge sooner rather than later.
Chris, Keita, Evan
Today we were able to lock the outer ISS loop with the modecleaner at 20 W (and no interferometer). We looked at several PSL/IOO PD signals (the FSS transmission PD, the ISS inner-loop PDs, the IM4 transmission PD, and the ISS outer-loop PDs) and tried to understand their behavior in different ISS configurations.
Naively one would expect all these signals (except the in-loop ISS PDs) to agree with each other, since they should all be out-of-loop sensors for the RIN leaving the PMC. Together, these signals monitor three of the four PMC ports: the FSS transmission sees the RIN of one port, the out-of-loop inner-loop ISS PD sees the RIN of another port, and IM4 trans and the out-of-loop outer-loop ISS PD sees the RIN of yet another port.
These are the behaviors we observed (see attached pdf):
We think that a possible explanation for these effects is that both ISS PDs are seeing some correlated noise that is not seen by either the FSS PD or the post-IMC PDs. In this scenario, the inner-loop ISS would suppress the HPO noise but impress this correlated noise on the light entering the PMC.
Briefly we entertained the idea that the light circulating in the PMC could be multimoded (either from the NPRO or the HPO), but judging from the RIN before and after the IMC, this seems to not be the case (png attachment).
One other idea is that some of the 808 nm light is getting through the PMC and onto the ISS.
Is this really incompatible with jitter? There are a lot of variations visible on the PMC reflected camera. The finesse of the PMC isn't that great (~100), and neither is jitter supression. If there is a static misalignment into the PMC, there would also be a linear term for the jitter to intensity conversion. The two inner loop detectors see rather different signals at 10Hz, if the inner loop is engaged but not the outer one.
Certainly the jitter seen on the IMC WFS is worse than before the HPO turn-on.
Before the turn-on, the jitter below 100 Hz was 1 nrad/Hz1/2 or so (LHO#21212). Now it is 10 nrad/Hz1/2 at 10 Hz, with a 1/f slope.
The attachment shows IMC signals with the inner ISS loop off (dashed) and on (solid).
Update: BS alert. Read the next entry.
Jitter is much larger than before, but the jitter alone doesn't seem to explain all of our observations at the same time when the 1st loop is closed but the 2nd loop open.
PDA=P+a*J+Sa, PDB=P+b*J+Sb, IM4=P+x*c*J+Sim4
P is the intensity noise leaving the AOM. When the loop is open it's just the free running noise P0.
J is the beam jitter (01 amplitude relative to 00) coming out of PMC.
a, b and c are the jitter to intensity coupling at PDA, PDB and IM4 trans due to clipping or diode inhomogeneity or whatever.
x is the attenuation of 01 mode amplitude by IMC, which is about 0.3%.
Sa, Sb and Sim4 are the sensing noise.
When 1st loop is closed, J is imprinted on P:
P=P0/(1+G) - G/(1+G) *(b*J + Sb) ~ P0/G - b*J - Sb,
PDA ~ P0/G + (a-b)*J +Sa-Sb,
IM4 ~ P0/G + (x*c-b)*J + Sim4-Sb ~ P0/G -b*J +Sim4-Sb. (note x=3E-3.)
where G is the OLTF.
Allowing some conspiracies but not extreme ones, lack of coherence between PDA and IM4 is explained in either of the following:
The first case is false because swapping PDA and PDB makes no difference in IM4.
In the second case, PDA spectrum should look like all sensing noise, but this "sensing" noise in reality is big at 10Hz.
So, even if the clipping effect is common in PDA and PDB so the PDA and IM4 becomes incoherent, we need another noise that is not unlike big sensing noise, i.e. of about the same amplitude on PDA and PDB, is incoherent between PDA and PDB, and does not appear on downstream sensors.
I take my words back about PDA-downstream coherence.
I was looking at the coherences from this morning, and it seems like when only the first loop is on, 1st loop out of loop sensor is coherent with downstream sensor before and after the IMC (attached, bottom red and blue). The plot is calibrated in RIN.
Note that we switched the control photodiode from PDB to PDA last night, so in this plot the out of loop sensor is PDB. I switched them back again at 17:49:10 UTC.
Anyway, out of loop sensor is more coherent with downstream sensors than HPL monitor is at f<10Hz (bottom red|blue VS brown|pink), but HPL is more coherent from 10 to 200 Hz. Difference between bottom brown and bottom pink probably doesn't mean much, just the noise floor difference between IMC-PWR and MC2_TRANS.
Some thinking necessary, but at the moment I cannot say that jitter cannot explain everything.