The data dropouts observed in second trend data (see alog 28579) are a result of missing data caused by restarts of frame writer 1.  If the raw data is used instead of second trend data, you can see that dropouts are not present, see attached example.  Both nds0 and nds1 are reading the same second trend data, and only frame writer 1 is currently writing second trend data as we explore frame writer instability.

Attached are screenshots for the past 7 days optical ever trends for PIT, YAW, and SUM.

This completes FAMIS request 4685.

The laser tripped around 3:20 this morning.  Suspect it is the "usual" problem.  The crystal
chiller was found off but with its dummy still in place.

    The data drops out looks like an artifact of data acquisition.

    Another observation is that the head temperatures all increase when the flow rates drop.
That is not surprising but the humidity also rises.  It might be that we have a tiny water leak
whose effect on humidity is noticeable when the temperature rises.  We have seen evidence of
tiny leaks before because of some corrosion stains in the laser base plate, however when the
laser is observed over time scales of ~30 minutes, no leak is visible.  The (possible) leak is
small enough that it does not make a noticeable difference in the water level of the chiller.

Jeff B, Kiwamu,

We powered up the input power to 50 W tonight with SRM controlled by the dither alignment. We held the interferometer at 50 W for 30-ish minutes but this was ended because of a PI at 18056 Hz (28259).

During this short period, we moved the PRM pointing (or PRC1) in pitch and confirmed that moving PRM further in the negative direction (by introducing an offset in the error point of PRC1) improved the recycling gain. See the attached. The recycling gain slowly went back to 28 or so at 50 W. We did not get a chance to explore the optimum point yet. POPX started railing when we steered PRM at 40 W on the way to reach 50 W.

Title:  07/21/2016, Day Shift 23:00 – 07:00 (16:00 – 00:00) All times in UTC (PT)
State of H1: IFO locked at DC_READOUT. Wind is Calm to Moderate Breeze (0 to 18mph). Seismic is a bit elevated at the End Stations; but should pose no operational difficulties. Microseism is low.         
Commissioning: Commissioners are commissioning.
Outgoing Operator:  Travis
 
Activity Log: All Times in UTC (PT)

23:00 (16:00) Take over from Travis
23:08 (16:08) Nutsinee – Going to TCS-X Table
23:11 (16:11) Sheila & Jenne – Going to ISCT1 to add a new lens
23:45 (16:45) Sheila & Jenne – Out of LVEA
00:16 (17:16) Jenne – Going to ISCT1 
00:25 (17:25) Jenne – Out of LVEA
00:39 (17:39) Jenne – Going back to ISCT1
01:26 (18:26) Jenne – Out of the LVEA


Title: 07/21/2016, Day Shift 23:00 – 07:00 (16:00 – 00:00) All times in UTC (PT)
Support:  Sheila, Jenne, Kiwamu 
Incoming Operator: N/A

Shift Detail Summary: IFO has been mostly up while the commissioners were working. The lock losses were relativity easily recovered. Had to do some minor touch up of PRMI a couple of times, but nothing too serious. The wind has come up over the last 3 hours. Base winds are in the mid to upper teens with gusts into the mid-30s. Microseism remains low and seismic activity has rung up with the increase in the winds.     

   Added 150ml water to the Crystal chiller. Diode chiller was OK. Noted no new contamination or debris in either chiller filter. 

   Trended the pressures and flows for the Diode and Crystal chillers. The pressures are still slowly trending upward and the flows are trending downward. Both are changing by very small amounts. I have the new (higher flow and less restrictive)filters for the chiller room in-line filters. Plan to swap these at the next maintenance window.   

[Jenne, Cheryl, Sheila]

We placed a lens in front of POPAIR B tonight, so that we are no longer overfilling the BBPD.  We seem to be able to lock okie dokie, so I think everything is okay. 

Last night during one of the lock stretches there was an small earthquake. It wasn't big enough to break the lock, but it was big enough to show up in a number of channels in the IFO.  During the earthquake last night, no change was made to the seismic configuration, so it makes for a good comparison with the "earthquake" configuration from my alog on June 29, 28050. The first two plots are the minute trends of RMS 30-100mhz Z LVEA and ETMX  motion (best I could do for both days) for the 10minutes of data I'm comparing between the two earthquakes.  Keep in mind the that RMS motion in this band is higher for the June 28 earthquake, than last night.

The next plot shows a version of DARM for 3 different times, red is June 28, green is last night's earthquake and pink is 10 minutes of quiet time before last night's earthquake. You could be forgiven for looking at this plot and wondering why we don't run the earthguake configuration all the time. The current "windy" configuration should do better during high microseism, where from O1 we know we need inertial isolation in the .1-.3hz band, which the earthquake configuration won't provide. The next plot shows IMC-F, which is a measure of CARM (the units aren't really calibrated, just scaled to be similar to the other spectra), the  color scheme remains the same, red is June 28, green is last night's earthquake and pink is 10 minutes of quiet time before last night's earthquake. CARM (IMC-F)  and DARM are both lower for the bigger June earthquake (where we used the seismic earthquake configuration) than for the smaller earthquake last night. I think this shows that for low microseism, we want to use this configuration. More thought will be required for a winter configuration, but suppressing the microseism while staying locked to the ground below 100mhz will be hard.

We are working with MIT to get SEISMON/Terramon transplanted here, so we can get more reliable earthquake warnings. RIght now the earliest, and most reliable warning we get comes from watching IMC and STS time series on the wall FOMs.

Just a theory here...But I believe the H2 coil driver needs attention.

H2 Drives off as RZ and X Loops, H2 only directly affects RZ and X.  If it were the loops, of Actuator Drives would respond.  Page 11 of attached show the CD I & V INMONs going wacky impacting the RZ and X(page 4) loops 1 or more seconds before the model responds.

I know this is long winded, you should see the stuff in the text file not preinted here as I went down other rabbit holes.

ITMX ISI Tripped Wednesday July 13 AM from M6.3 EQ in New Zealand. No other platforms tripped.  The extra sensitivity of the ITMX to EQs is not new.  Based on the ground Seismometer STS2-B, it looks like the trip occurred with the arrival of the S-Wave (Shear, not surface.) See page 1 of attachment.  Based on the EPICS records, ST2 tripped first; based on the FIRSTTRIG_LATCH value, the Actuators hit their rail first.

Page 2: 80 seconds with the Actuator drives. The upper right graphs have the horizontals and verticals on the same plot. Given that there is no RX or RY loop closed, it makes sense that the three vertical drives are exactly the same. Leading up to the trip, the H1 and H3 drives appear to be getting a greater request from the loops compared to the corner2 horizontal. The H2 GS13 is parallel to the X arm and so contributes nothing to the Y DOF. The verticals are well behaved. However, a couple of seconds before the EPICS INMON registers the state change (1 to 2,) the H2 drive shoots almost straight to the rail. This delay makes sense with the 8192 saturations required before tripping on this 4k model. The upper left plot zooms out on the H2 drive as it ramps its way up to e7 before the watchdog trip takes it to zero. The H1 and H3 drives continue along until the trip when they start to ring. After the trip the three horizontals behave similarly.  You might believe there is a kink in these other drives a few seconds earlier,...ehhh.

So the behavior of Drive2 may be of interest.  Is this a coil driver problem or does it originate from up stream?

Upstream is the damping, isolation, and feedforward paths. There is no indication that the vertical loop is a problem and feedforward only goes to Z; and, there are no DQ channels for the damping loops—they will have to wait for further upstream examination. This leaves the isolation loops.

Page 3 shows 80 seconds of the Isolation loop inputs. The ITMX and ITMY IN1s are overlain on the same plots. Also shown are the horizontal ground motions; the vertical is uninteresting. The ground motion signals overlain on the isolation plots are scaled and shifted so as to be seen. This shows that both ITMX and ITMY X & Y DOFs are doing about the same and are fairly well correlated with the input ground motion hence the control loops are pretty much the same. I've also verified this looking at the Matlab Controller figures. Around xx8505 gps, the Y ground motion quickly increases, this may be the arrival of the s-wave. The Y loop responds but within several seconds, the response doesn't seem as reasonable and looks to be ringing up and getting behind the curve. The X gets hit with this some 30 seconds later. I don't know if the mostly flatish nature of the RZ loops is or is not remarkable. As well, is the scale of noise/buzz difference between ITMX and Y worth noting? Conversely, the Z DOFs seem to be responding to the same input but certainly drive harder on the ITMX.

So the H2 Drive goes wacky before the others. The X and RZ loops feed the H2 Drive and both those ISOs head off to the outer reaches. The Y loop sees a blip and then gets buzzy/noisy; the Z sees nothing. The H2 Drive is pushing the platform and the X and RZ motion is seen back at the ISO_IN1. It makes sense that the Y DOF would also see something if the H2 actuator is the only one pushing. The push on H2 Drive could produce canceling affects on the H1 and H3 sensors and not push that DOF iso off the page. If the RZ loop was driving it, the response would be the same on all Horz GS13s but they are not responding the same.

On page 4 the Drives and ISO Ins are plotted together for 4 seconds. Clearly the H2 Drive leads the other drives as already established. On the top plot of the ISOs, the X and RZ loops respond dramatically compared to the blip on Y. Further, the ISOs are scaled by 5 to emphasize their behavior before the Drive goes off. The Y loop looks to be trundling along but X and RZ and maybe more clearly RZ changes what it had been doing.

This might suggest the loops are causing this but the fact that only the H2 Drive reacts implies that circuit is more sensitive.

On page 5, only ISOs X and RZ are shown with the H2 Drive. On the top plot, the drive is scaled down to be visible with the zoomed in ISO loops. The RZ loop really seems to be headed somewhere bad before the drive freaks out. Again however, if the loop was the source, the other drives would be reacting similarly and they are not.

On Page 6, one sees the ITMY loops don't respond like the ITMX X and RZ loops--not caused by the common ground motion.

On pages 7 & 8, an interesting beat is seen on the HEPI L4C RZ loops. Otherwise nothing else on the HEPI IPS or L4Cs of either ITM.

Page 9, the GS13s of ITMY are overlain on the ITMX GS13s for 20 seconds showing the motion on the platform is nearly identical on the two ITMs.

On page 10, the horizontal GS13s of ITMX are plotted together (left middle graph) showing the relative magnitudes. This implies only corner 2 is being driven and the others are just seeing the rotation caused by the one corner.

Page 11 plots the H2 CD INMONs, 80 seconds to show the normal before some badness at the trip time.

Page 12 zooms into 10 seconds showing the Coil Driver current and voltage making some really ugly step and excursion one or more seconds before the RZ loop starts to head off.  The model did not tell the coils to do this or it would be seen on the DRIVE.  The RZ loop and the X loop (page 4) are responding to what the coil driver is doing to the platform.  I'm pretty sure this tells us the coil driver is the source of this problem.

Maybe the coil driver is marginal in some way and when the extra demand of dealing with the work of the earthquake motion occurs, something lets go.

TITLE: 07/21 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Commissioning
INCOMING OPERATOR: Jeff
SHIFT SUMMARY:  It was one of those days for locking where everything seems to go wrong.  I struggled with initial alignment most of the day, which was interrupted by various issues such as PSL crashing and FSS oscillating.  ISIs were reset this morning, so the alignment of the arms was very bad and required a lot of work to recover.
LOG:
 

18:07 PSL trips off, called Peter

18:14 Peter toggling noise eater

22:12 Finally made it to DC_Readout

22:37 Nutsinee to LVEA racks

22:43 Nutsinee out

Dave restarting a bunch of models related to PI upgrades.  Several other inconsequential (to locking) tasks which I didn't record due to being busy trying to lock.

We closed some alignement loops for SRM using a dither and demodulating POP90 this morning.  These loops seem to have a ugf below 100 mHz, so we may want to increase their gain, but they seem to be working well for now.  They come on in the guardian durring the DRMI ASC and leave them on.  They maintain POP 90 (and the ratio of AS90/POP90) at a reasonable level as we go through the CARM offset reduction, engaging the soft loops, and increasing the power. 

We saw a instability that seemed to be a cross  coupling between SRM and SOFT yaw loops, Jenne increased the gain in the soft yaw loops by a factor of 10 which seems to have taken care of the problem and is now in the guardian. 

As long as this keeps working, operators should no longer have to adjust SRM. 

We have been studying the list of blip glitches that Miriam Cabero Müller generated for O1. We noticed that the rate of blip glitches increased dramatically during two time periods, see figure 1. We first checked if the glitch rate might be correlated with outside temperature, in case the blip glitches were produced by beam tube particulate events. The correlation with outside temperature was strong, but, for beam tube particulate, we expected it to be stronger with rate of temperature change than with temperature, and it was not. So we checked relative humidity and found that inside relative humidity was well correlated with outside temperature (and glitch rate), most likely because of the extra heating needed in cold spells.  A plot of the blip glitch rate and RH inside the CS mass storage room is attached.  

While the correlation with inside relative humidity is not better than with outside temperature, we plot inside relative humidity because we can better speculate on reasons for the correlation. Dry conditions may lead to the build up and discharge of static electricity on electronics cooling fans. Alternatively, there may be current leakage paths that are more likely to discharge in bursts when the pathways dry out. While this is, at best, speculation, we set up a magnetometer near the HV line for the EY ESD to monitor for possible small short fluctuations in current that are correlated with blip glitches. At the same time, we suggest that, as risk mitigation, we consider humidifying the experimental areas during cold snaps.

The low-humidity correlated blip glitches may represent a different population of glitches because they have statistically significantly smaller SNRs than the background blip glitches.  We analyzed the distribution of SNR (as reported by pycbc) of the blip glitches during three time periods – segments 1, 2, and a relatively quiet period from October 5 – October 20 (segment 3).  This gave approximately 600 blip glitches for each segment.  Figure 2 is a histogram of these

To determine if these distributions are statistically different, we used the Mann-Whitney U test.   Segments 2 and 3 matched, reporting a one-sided p-value of 0.18.  The distribution in SNR for segment 3 - the low glitch rate times -  did not match either segment 1 or 2, with p-values of 0.0015 and 2.0e-5, respectively.  Thus we can conclude that the distributions of 1 and 2 are statistically significantly different from 3.

We are currently examining the diurnal variations in the rate of these blip glitches, and will post an alog about that soon.

Paul Schale, Robert Schofield, Jordan Palamos

David McManus, Jenne Driggers

Today I set up 16 of the sensors for the corner station Newtonian noise L4C array. These were the 16 that were most out of the way and least likely to be tripping hazards, mostly focused in the 'Beer Garden' area and around the arms. The channels I connected were: 4,8,13,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30. The sensors corresponding to these channels are included in the table attached to this report. The sensors are stuck to the ground using a 5 minute epoxy, and a foam cooler is placed on top of each one and taped to the ground. These foam coolers have a small hole cut near the base so that the cable can get out without touching the cooler (shown in one of the pictures). The cut surfaces are sealed with tape to prevent foam from flaking off onto the LVEA floor. The cables have basic strain relief by taping them to the ground on either side of the foam cooler, which also helps to ensure that the cable is not touching the cooler. I've attached two pictures showing what the sensors look like with and without the cooler. 

As a side note sensor 26 is quite difficult to access as it is placed almost directly beneath a vacuum tank. When it eventually needs to be removed a small person may be required to fetch it. The final attached photo shows how it is positioned (BSC7). I placed it by carefully stepping into the gap between the pipes that run along that section of the arm and then crawling under the vacuum tank support.

Upgrade of Timing Firmware

Daniel, Ansel, Jim, Dave

Most of today was spent upgrading the entire timing system to the new V3 firmware. This did not go as smootly as planned, and took from 9am to 6pm to complete. By the end of the day we had reverted the timing master and the two CER fanouts to the orginal code (the end station fanouts were not upgraded). We did upgrade all the IRIG-B fanouts, all the IOChassis timing slaves, all the comparators and all the RF Amplifiers.

The general order was: stop all front end models and power down all front end computers, upgrade the MSR units, upgrade the CER fanouts, upgrade PSL IO Chassis (h1psl0 was restarted, followed by a DAQ restart), upgrade all CER slaves (at this point the master was reverted to V2), at EY we upgraded IRIG-B and slaves (skipping fanout), at MY we upgraded the PEM IO Chassis, at EX we did the same as EY and at MX the same as MY. 

All remaining front ends were now powered up. The DAQ was running correctly but the NDS were slow to complete their startup. Addiional master work in the MSR required a second round to restarts, at this point comparators which had been skipped were upgraded and the CER fanouts were downgraded. Finally after h1iopsush56 cleared a long negative irig-b error all systems were operational.

During these rounds of upgrades FEC and DAQ were restarted several times.

Addition of Beam Splitter Digital Camera

Richard, Carlos, Jim

An analog camera was replaced with a digital video GIGE-POE camera at the Beam Splitter.

New ASC code

Sheila:

new h1asc code was installed and the DAQ was restarted.

Reconfigured RAID for ldas-h1-frames file system

Dan:

The ldas-h1-frames QFS file system was reconfigured for faster disk access. This is the file system exported by h1ldasgw0 for h1fw0's use. After the system was upgraded, we reconfigured h1fw0 to write all four frame types (science, commissioning, second and minute). As expected, h1fw0 was still unstable at the 10 minute mark, similar to the test when h1fw0 wrote to its own file system. h1fw0 was returned to its science-frames-only configuration.

Chandra, Gerardo, Travis

Today we attempted to install both the X and Y arm ITM camera housings.  We successfully installed both of the viewports adapters with the new 1/4" dowel pins.  The installation of the X arm camera housing went smoothly (see pics 1 and 2).  However, when attempting to install the Y arm housing, I noticed that the gap between the expansion bellows of the vacuum system and the camera housing side plates was non-existent (see pics 3 and 4), whereas the X arm has ~1/8' of clearance.  Gerardo measured the length of the bellows in both cases and noted that the Y arm bellows were ~1/4" shorter in length than the X arm, meaning that the height of the peaks of the bellows would be greater.  We'll have to modify the Y arm camera housing to accomodate this difference.  I hope LLO does not have the same issue.

The shot noise level from last night seems higher (worse) than the O1 level by 6%. Here is the spectrum:

You can see that the red trace (which is the one from the last night) is slightly higher than the (post-) O1 spectrum. The 6% increment was estimated by dividing the two spectra for frequencies above 1200 Hz and taking a median of it.

Stefan, Matt, Kiwamu,

The online calibration, aka CAL-CS, is more accurate now; the sign of the simulated ETMY L3 stage (CAL-CSDARM_ANALOG_ETMY) was found to be wrong and we fixed it. Fixing the error resulted in an improved noise level at around 100 Hz in CAL CS. This should not affect the GDS pipe line calibration. The attached shows a comparison of CAL-CS before the fix and an offline calibration using DARM IN1 and the full DARM model (28179). It is clear something wrong was going on in 40 - 200 Hz.

What we changed:

• FM4 (N_per_cnts) in CAL-CS_DARM_ANALOG_ETMY_L3
  • zpk([],[],-0.000000000004239369201660156,"n")  ->  zpk([],[],0.000000000004239369201660156,"n")

This fix gave us an actuator model which is consistent with the measurement (28179) in the sense that the relative phase between the PUM and TST have a relative phase of 180 deg at high frequencies. Also, traditionally, when ETMY had a positive bias, the gain of the L3 stage used to be set to -1 in the O1 era (see for example 25575). Therefore today's fix is consistent with the O1 era too. One thing I still don't understand is the relative calibration difference between GDS and CAL-CS (summary page). The relative magnitude should show of a factor of 2 difference or so around 100 Hz assuming the sign error was only in CAL-CS, but it does not show such a big difference. Not sure why.