Displaying reports 57541-57560 of 78016.Go to page Start 2874 2875 2876 2877 2878 2879 2880 2881 2882 End
Reports until 04:21, Sunday 30 August 2015
H1 CAL
kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - posted 04:21, Sunday 30 August 2015 - last comment - 09:26, Monday 31 August 2015(21023)
3rd round of calibration measurements for ETMY actuator scale factors

I have completed a set of measurements that is necessary for nailing down the ETMY actuation scale factors. This is a third round of the measurements in order to study repeatability and systematic errors. The measurement data can be found at the follwong places.

 


Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 09:26, Monday 31 August 2015 (21049)
J. Kissel, K. Izumi

I've process the results from the above aLOG using the same model I had used for LHO aLOGs 21015, just to get something out the door for review at today's calibration meeting. The results look encouragingly consistent with Wednesday's (LHO aLOG 20940) and Friday's (LHO aLOG 21005) results.

Again, the next steps are to
- functionalize the analysis scripts so we can easily process future measurements, 
- have those functions spit out their individual measurement results so they can be compared with each other (the comparison of which is another function to write), and
- make sure that all the scripts are using the output of the latest DARM model and parameter set, instead of recreating a naive model from the matlab QUAD's [m/N] and knowledge of the electronics chain.
- finish processing results from all the of the electronics chain measurements to identify if frequency-dependent systematics lie in there
- Update / refine the DARM model parameters to squash the frequency-dependendent residual to as small as possible, such that we can be confident in professing number with properly quantified 
uncertainty.

What has NOT been included in the naive actuation model:
- 16k IOP up-sampling filter
- Analog AA filter
- Any of the un- or poorly-compensated poles and zeros of the ESD drivers
- The recently found mis-match between expected and reality regarding the UIM driver's poles and zeros (LHo aLOG 20846)
I have a high degree of confidence that these are the reasons for the residual frequency dependence. In other words, these be resolved once I switch to using the full DARM model's actuation chain. That being said, suggestions are welcome as to what else the discrepancies might be.
Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 General
travis.sadecki@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:00, Sunday 30 August 2015 (21022)
OPS Eve shift summary

After the 40mph wind storm died down, I began the locking procedure.  No full initial alignment was required, just some touching up of the PRMI SUSes.  The only hurdle was detailed in aLog 21016, which took around 30 minutes to overcome.  Kiwamu has been running Calibration excitations for a good portion of the lock stretch.

0:52 Started locking procedure

2:24 Locked on Low Noise

4:12 Started PCal/DARM measurement at Kiwamu's request

4:31 Switched to Observing

4:45 Switched to Calibration

6:13 Lockloss, PRM saturation

6:48 Locked Low Noise

H1 SUS
betsy.weaver@LIGO.ORG - posted 23:37, Saturday 29 August 2015 - last comment - 00:58, Tuesday 22 September 2015(21020)
41Hz unfruitful peak hunt

I took higher resolution spectra of the supposed 41Hz HSTS roll mode tonight (see first attachment).  There are 2 peaks, however only the first peak has any coherance with anything.  The 2 peaks are at:

40.9375 Hz  (lots of DARM-PRC-SRC coherence)

41.0117 Hz  (no coherence with anything I looked at)

 

The second attachment shows the set of 41Hz peaks in 3 of the last lock stretches.  I attempted to use the ASC signals to check for coherence with DARM, but:

 

- the OSEM sensors on the HSTS suspensions are too noise, so see no coherence

- there is coherence with BOTH SRC and PRC, unfortunately, so hard to pin point where

- there is coherence with SRC1 which talks to SRM - is it cross-coupling thru ASC/LSC?

- there is no coherence with SRC2 likely because it is a noisy detector (AS DC), so can't tell if the SRM and SR2 combination that it talks to contribute to the 41Hz

- PRC1 not plotted, no ASC drive there, but witnessed that there is no coherence there

- PRC2 goes to PR3, so while there is coherence there (not plotted) it is likely because it is cross-coupling  from SRC to PRC

- IMC_TRANS_P not plotted, but witnessed no coherence, again too noisy of a detector?

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
carl.blair@LIGO.ORG - 18:11, Monday 21 September 2015 (21760)

This is also close to the third harmonic of the Roll modes as seen at 41.25Hz at LLO 20737 though this is probably only relevant to highly excited roll modes.

brett.shapiro@LIGO.ORG - 18:54, Monday 21 September 2015 (21761)

The 40.9375 Hz mode is consistent with the PR2 M2 to M2 TFs, where a 40.93 +- 0.01 Hz mode was seen.  See log 21741.

norna.robertson@LIGO.ORG - 00:58, Tuesday 22 September 2015 (21773)
And just to clarify. This is not a third harmonic. It is the third (and highest) of the three roll modes of the HAM small triple suspension (HSTS).
H1 General
betsy.weaver@LIGO.ORG - posted 21:40, Saturday 29 August 2015 - last comment - 23:58, Saturday 29 August 2015(21018)
PCAL EXC

A few minutes ago Travis started a CAL EY EXC as per Kiwamu's instruction.  I suggested that we see if the starting this EXC would kick the IFO out of OBSERVATION mode.  Of course it didn't (so he had to hit the UNDISTURBED button anyways) because according to Jamie's new screen, it shouldn't. 

My question is, why would we not monitor excitations on all machines?  (Ones that aren't being monitored are the ones with unlit grey boxes in the ODC column.  Screen snapshot below.)

I wish I could some how follow the grey bit back through ODC screens and find what it is or isn't looking at but the channel names are very unfamiliar and the nested screens are very difficult to understand...  For example, why is the "ISC_EX" bit grey?  There is no channel name when I try to middle click over it, so I can't trace it anyways.

 

Recall, you can only open the screen directly from medm via the macro comand:

medm -x -macro "IFO=H1" EXCITATION_OVERVIEW.adl

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
betsy.weaver@LIGO.ORG - 21:47, Saturday 29 August 2015 (21019)

Note, when Kiwamu started a SUSETMY EXC, it DID flip out of OBSERVATION mode.  So that's good.

stefan.ballmer@LIGO.ORG - 23:58, Saturday 29 August 2015 (21021)
Betsy,

There is no PCAL ODC.

The "grey ODC bits" on Jamie's new screen do not exist. 
LHO FMCS
bubba.gateley@LIGO.ORG - posted 19:57, Saturday 29 August 2015 (21017)
Tumbleweed removal
I have contacted the landscaping crew to remove the tumbleweeds that have accumulated on the X and Y arm access roads. They will begin tomorrow at 7 A.M. on the X-Arm.
H1 General
travis.sadecki@LIGO.ORG - posted 19:50, Saturday 29 August 2015 (21016)
Guardian stuck at ENGAGE_ISS_2ND_LOOP

While bringing the IFO to Low Noise lock for the first time today, the ISC_LOCK Guardian got stuck at ENGAGE_ISS_2ND_LOOP.  After unsuccessfully trying to re-request NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE in hopes that it would unstick itself, I asked JeffK if he had any ideas.  We dug into the ISC_LOCK code, which led us to the IMC_LOCK Guardian where the ISS requests live.  Not seeing anything obvious, we ran out of ideas and called Sheila (the on-call commissioner).  She suggested that we request a lower state in the IMC_LOCK Guarding (PREPARE_ISS).  I did so, and with ISC_LOCK still requesting ISS_ON in the IMC_LOCK Guardian, it ran through without issue.  Take-away message: if ISC_LOCK gets stuck in ENGAGE_ISS_2ND_LOOP again, open IMC_LOCK (still in Managed) and request PREPARE_ISS.

H1 CAL (ISC)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 19:02, Saturday 29 August 2015 (21015)
Preliminary Analysis of Last Week's Actuation Coefficients Complete, All Three Methods Consistent, and Point (Solvable) Systematics in the Model
J. Kissel, K. Izumi

I've finished preliminary analysis on the data from Wednesday and Friday's suites of actuation function measurements (see LHO aLOGs 20940 and 21005). I've found that all methods, PCAL (using a very-well-calibrated power meter to measure the power of light pushing the test mass for reference), ALS DIFF (using the DIFF VCO oscillator as a frequency reference), and Free-swinging Michelson (using the red laser's wavelength for reference) are consistent with each other. Further, they identify that there are systematics in a simple model of the QUAD actuation strength that we've been using. However, without quoting any precisely quantified uncertainty (because the residuals are frequency dependent), I imagine all methods will agree to better than 10%. One good result: it appears that after releaving the charge post-ER7 (LHO aLOGs 19234 and 19211), and continued efforts to measure and keep that charge small (e.g. LHO aLOG 20968), have cleaned up the electrostatic drive strength, which are now far more consitstent between ETMX and ETMY (at roughly 2e-10 [N/V^2]).

As a tease (which hopefully won't cause too much alarm or confusion -- be prepared for these to change a lottle), I attach plots of the current residuals between model and measurement. 

Bear with me while I take the next steps, which are to
- functionalize the analysis scripts so we can easily process future measurements, 
- have those functions spit out their individual measurement results so they can be compared with each other (the comparison of which is another function to write), and
- make sure that all the scripts are using the output of the latest DARM model and parameter set, instead of recreating a naive model from the matlab QUAD's [m/N] and knowledge of the electronics chain.
- finish processing results from all the of the electronics chain measurements to identify if frequency-dependent systematics lie in there
- Update / refine the DARM model parameters to squash the frequency-dependendent residual to as small as possible, such that we can be confident in professing number with properly quantified 
uncertainty.

What has NOT been included in the naive actuation model:
- 16k IOP up-sampling filter
- Analog AA filter
- Any of the un- or poorly-compensated poles and zeros of the ESD drivers
- The recently found mis-match between expected and reality regarding the UIM driver's poles and zeros (LHo aLOG 20846)
I have a high degree of confidence that these are the reasons for the residual frequency dependence. In other words, these be resolved once I switch to using the full DARM model's actuation chain. That being said, suggestions are welcome as to what else the discrepancies might be.

-----------
We tried to get another round of measurements today, but we got totally blasted by a 40+ [mph] wind storm.
Kiwamu will be coming back tonight to make the measurements once the wind has died down (which it has already begun to do).

-----------
The latest versions of the analysis scripts have been committed to
/ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Scripts/
ALSDiff/analyze_alsdiff_data_20150826.m
ALSDiff/analyze_alsdiff_data_20150828.m
FreeSwingMich/analyze_mich_freeswinging_data_20150826.m
FreeSwingMich/analyze_mich_freeswinging_data_20150828.m
PCAL/analyze_pcal_data_20150826.m
PCAL/analyze_pcal_data_20150828.m
Images attached to this report
Non-image files attached to this report
H1 General
betsy.weaver@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:44, Saturday 29 August 2015 - last comment - 18:53, Sunday 30 August 2015(21014)
Cleanup on aisle SDF

Over the last ~5 days, nearly 100 SDF channels have gone into alarm.  We should probably link these to the INTENT bit, since many of these are actually real configuration control changes of the IFO, yet currently do not dictate any GO/NO GO of observation mode.  When connected to the intent bit, it will force commissioners and operators to address these changes in realtime, rather than let them stack up for me to reinvent every 5 days.

Since super-winds (and calibrations) have the IFO down, I've taken the opportunity to work on these - so far I've cleaned up:

- ETMX and ETMY L1 and L2 damping loop outputs enabled last Tuesday around the maintenance period - maybe the BURT pushed these buttons.  I  verified that the SAFE file sets the gain of the loop to be zero and the IN and OUTPUTS are ON.  Guardian then controls the gain.

 

- Accepted a few pages of offset changes, and the extra AS_B_RF45_AWHITEN_SET2 due to Evan/Stefan running the dark offsets script/commissioning last Thur night (alog 20976).  I'll wait for them to comment that the 1st attached SDF diffs are 1) their intended gain changes as it's vague in their alog, and 2) if they are ready to keep/accept them.

 

- Since SDF couldn't write the very small ~ 10e-19 CALCS epics values to the SAFE.snap file (commissioned AUG 11 alog 20452), I wrote them in by hand and then hit LOAD TABLE on the CALCS SDF.  All of the values cleared, since now they match the very small values loaded in their respective medms.  I've committed the CALCS safe.snap to svn.

 

- ALS X and Y - I need someone to point me to an alog regarding why the ALS_WFS_DOF_3 gains changed on both X and Y in the middle of the night on Thur night (2am Fri - see second SDF diff attachment.)

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
betsy.weaver@LIGO.ORG - 17:23, Sunday 30 August 2015 (21033)

Today, Evan pointed out that the DARK OFFSETs script sets these gains of the ASC loops to 1.0, but then does not reset the gains back to their nominal settings.  This was surprising to Evan, so he is reworking the script.  We have reverted the first 16 gain changes in the attached ASC SDF screen because of this.

Then, the next 4 gain setting diffs (ASC-AS_B_RF45) were from commissioning by Sheila/etal (20961), so we've ACCEPTED those in SDF.

evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - 18:53, Sunday 30 August 2015 (21036)

The existing script was, to put it mildly, not suitable for use as a control room tool. As Betsy says, it simply wrote a gain of 1 to every segment of every AS WFS. In fact, it did this twice: once inside a for loop, and then again immedately afterward (using a string of 32 caput commands). Moreover, there is no reason for such a script to touch the segment gains at all.

This script (along with the analogous REFL script) was summarily overwritten with a new python script: userapps/asc/common/scripts/dark_offsets/WFS_offset_AS. Usage is given in the first few lines as a comment.

H1 General
nutsinee.kijbunchoo@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:01, Saturday 29 August 2015 (21008)
Ops Day Shift Summary

(All time in UTC)

15:42 Wind picking up speed reaching 40 mph. BNS range is dropping slightly.

16:00 Lockloss. Wind reaching 50mph.

16:05 ODC observatory mode didn't bring itself out of OBSERVING. Stayed there for 5 mins before I realized it.

16:06 Took the interferometer to down after several locklosses before DRMI. 

17:00 Rich to LVEA

17:11 Attempted locking failed

18:04 Rich back

19:57 Nutsinee driving down X and Y arms to check on tumbleweed.

20:25 Nutsinee back

20:28 Wind reading 60 mph. Locking won't be possible for a while.

21:08 Kiwamu and Rich to CER

21:30 Rich back

22:30 Kiwamu doing some electronic works. IMC will be on and off.

 

Other notes:

- EY dust alarm went off. >0.3u reads 16028.6 PCF, >0.5y reads 1285.7 PCF at the time.

- As Daniel requested, I added graphics indicate operating mode on the Ops Overview. The graphics visibility is calculated using H1:ODC-OBSERVATORY_MODE. I haven't had a chance to test if it works properly but so far the "environment" badge shows up as it's supposed to.

- Tumbleweeds are flying! Slowly accumulating along the X arm but still far from blocking the road.

- We haven't had a stable lock since the wind reached 40mph.

Images attached to this report
H1 ISC (ISC)
rich.abbott@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:45, Saturday 29 August 2015 (21010)
Ambient RF Field Measurements
Conclusion:
For those liking a quick summary, there isn't a significant difference between the RF field levels at LHO and LLO

Overview:
A series of measurements were taken with the goal of comparing the ambient RF fields at LHO to those recently measured at LLO by Patrick Meyers and Rai Weiss.  The LLO measurements focused on the RF fields in the vicinity of ISC Rack C4 in the control equipment room (CER).  Nearly 200 separate readings were taken.

Method:
A predominantly magnetic field probe was sent from LLO to LHO such that the measurements be a fair comparison.  The probe consists of copper wire wound around a small RF ferrite core similar to those used in the iLIGO WFS.  A probe such as this has a directionality depending on the relative angle of the sensing coil to the driving magnetic field.  At each point of measurement, the maximum RF level was recorded by choosing the optimum angle to hold the sense coil.  There is a large (up to 10dB or more) error bar in this type of near-field measurement as movements of an inch or so can greatly influence the measured value of RF.  Only in the far-field, in the absence of sources of reflections, does it become more textbook in its response.

In addition to the magnetic field probe Rai made, I made two matched probes (one was sent to LLO prior to my trip as a basis for future comparisons).  My probes are simple electric field antennae consisting of a 10cm monopole mounted on a square aluminum ground plate measuring 20cm on each side.  The ground plate serves to lessen the proximity effect of nearby objects (hands included).  I used this rudimentary probe to establish an approximate maximum RF field level at chest height about 3 feet from the front of a rack (CER and LVEA) for various frequencies of interest.

The LLO study found that the largest RF fields in the CER are associated with the three VCOs used in the LVEA (ALS-DIFF, ALS-COM, and PSL).  This result holds true for LHO.  The readings make no attempt to catalog the magnitude of each individual peak, instead the largest one was recorded for a given physical location.

Results:
The full results including the 200 or so power readings are being written into a separate document.  Summary results only are presented here.

1.  CER first and second harmonics of the VCOs - RF fields measured with Rai's magnetic field probe range from -60 to -40 dBm in and around the spigots of the RF patch panels and chassis mounted RF units for both the first and second harmonics of the drive frequency (nominally 79.4MHz fundamental).  Maximum RF readings tend to congregate around the baluns that are used to break low frequency ground loops.

2.  A survey using the 10cm electric field probe at chest height, 3 feet from the front of the ISC-C4 rack shows the following typical levels:
VCO fundamental frequency - -68dBm
9.1MHz - < instrument noise floor (-105dBm)
18.2MHz - -99dBm
27.3MHz - -90dBm
36.4MHz - -84dBm
45.5MHz - -78dBm
80MHz (exact, not VCO frequency) -80dBm

3.  A survey using the 10cm electric field probe at chest height, 3 feet from the front of the field racks, ISC R1 and PSL R1 show:
PSL VCO 1st and 2nd harmonic - -60dBm/-57dBm measured in front of PSL-R1, -69dBm fundamental in front of ISC-R1 (the other two VCOs are 10 to 20dB down).  Noted -50dBm 2nd harmonic of ALS DIFF VCO in front of ISC-R1.  The only other signals of any size are the PSL 21.5MHz and 35.5MHz (for FSS and PMC locking).  These PSL frequencies are ~-80dBm everywhere in front of the whole row of racks (ISC to PSL).

4.  Using Rai's magnetic field probe, a signal level of up to -28dBm can be seen emanating from a leaky cable (see attached photo) coupling the PSL VCO to the PSL VCO Amplifier (D1201423) on the front of the PSL-R1 rack.  The radiation is partly due to a low quality braided cable (Pasternak Inc.)and partly due to a balun that is probably not needed anyway as the cable run it serves is only ~10feet.

An isolated test was performed on the RF baluns (see attached photo) commonly encountered in the distribution system.  The electric field antenna was positioned (see attached photo) about 1 foot away from the balun under test.  Adding the balun to the end of the cable increases the received RF power by a factor of ~1000.  There is a provision in each balun to include some capacitors (not included in our deployment).  Among other functions, these capacitors provide an RF ground for the metal body of the balun.  Without this ground, the internal wires (not very RF-ish, but probably OK) are free to radiate.  Adding the capacitors to a balun caused the observed radiation to drop to the background of the measurement equal to the no-balun case.  It is not a pill to be taken lightly, as this will no doubt change the phase of signals receiving this "fix".  Remember, as of now, there's no smoking gun at LHO pointing to a problem with radiated RF.  However, devices that can couple out also tend to couple in, so it offers a path for environmentally modulated RF to reenter and sum with the RF on a cable.

A test device consisting of a small handheld PLL with internal FM (100Hz or so) could be built such that it would be locked to a particular LIGO RF distribution system frequency and provide a small transmitting antenna.  The FM modulated signal could then be probed around to see if any part of the demodulation components are particularly vulnerable (broken shields, loose connectors, etc.) by observing the demodulated signal perhaps while the IFOs are locked.






Images attached to this report
H1 ISC (SEI, SUS)
nutsinee.kijbunchoo@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:53, Saturday 29 August 2015 - last comment - 00:50, Wednesday 02 September 2015(21009)
Windy lockloss coherence

Kiwamu, Nutsinee

As we were trying to relock the ifo after several locklosses due to high wind (50mph), we noticed the sideband signals wiggled a lot before another lockloss at DC_READOUT (wind speed ~35-40 mph). We found a coherence between POP18, POP19, POP_A_LF, AS90 and PRM, SRM, BS which indicates that the DRMI was unstable. The BS ISI Windy blends weren't turned on. 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - 16:47, Saturday 29 August 2015 (21011)

One of the two lock losses seemed to be associated with PRM saturation. We heard of the saturation alarm voice pointing PRM DAC in full lock mutiple times before the lockloss in NOMINAL_LOWNOISE. I am not sure if this is the direct cause, but as shown in the attached, PRM had been experiencing ~20 sec oscillation in longitudinal which used to be a big issue in the past (alog 19850). At that point wind was around ~40 mph on average. Also, I attach spectrum of each coil on the M3 stage. It is clear that the components below 0.1 Hz are using up the DAC range when wind is high.

Images attached to this comment
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - 13:24, Monday 31 August 2015 (21055)

Just as a check, I remade Kiwamu's plot for PRM, SRM, and MC2, with all the stages that are used for actuation.

At this point, the wind ine corner station varied between 3 and 13 m/s. The 30 mHz 100 mHz BLRMSs were about 0.02 µm/s in the CS Z (consistent with sensor noise), 250 µm/s for EX X, and 250 µm/s for EY Y.

Since this time, we have increased the offloading of PRM and SRM to M1 by a factor of 2, but we probably need an even higher crossover in order avoid saturation during these times. It may have the added benefit of allowing us to stay locked during even windier times. Additionally, MC2 does not look like it needs any work on its crossovers in order to avoid saturation.

Images attached to this comment
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - 00:50, Wednesday 02 September 2015 (21130)

The above comment should say 0.25 µm/s for EX X and EY Y.

H1 General
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:00, Saturday 29 August 2015 (21007)
Ops Owl Shift Summery

Stayed locked my entire shift. A fair amount of glitches though, especially toward the second half of my shift.

H1 General
travis.sadecki@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:00, Saturday 29 August 2015 (21006)
OPS Eve shift summary

Pretty smooth shift. IFO was unlocked when I arrived by request of the Calibration Team.  When they were ready for the IFO to be locked, it came up easily with the only hiccup being a switch Kiwamu forgot about.  In an attempt to speed up the procedure, I hastily went to the PRMI->DRMI step.  However, I missed a step in the procedure, which caused the SRM to saturate, and lock was lost.  It started over, and without my intervention, the IFO locked right up. 

Activity log:

23:06 Rich Abbott out of CER

0:28 started locking procedure

1:24 locked on Low Noise, ~70 MPC

6:25 Intent bit set to Undisturbed after Calibration Team leaves for the night

H1 CAL (ISC)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 23:25, Friday 28 August 2015 - last comment - 14:53, Thursday 03 September 2015(21005)
Measurements Necessary for ETMY Actuation Scale Factors, Round 2
J. Kissel, K. Izumi

We've completed another round of the suite of actuation coefficient coefficient measurements today, very similar to what was done on Wednesday (see LHO aLOG 20940) with the same templates. There were some differences between the two days worth of measurements -- we don't expect these to have made a difference, but we've been living 1% accuracy and precision land for a week with no sleep, so we write them down anyways. They are: 
- We managed to get all of the full IFO transfer function measurements within the same lock stretch, unlike Wednesday. 
- We did Full IFO config measurements, ALS DIFF measurements, then Free-Swinging MICH (FSM) measurements, as opposed to Wednesday when we did DIFF, then Full, then FSM.
- Because we got distracted with full-frequency range DARM OLG and PCAL to DARM TFs, and there were some problems with DIFF saturating, there were about ~4 hours between when the ETMX TF was taken in full lock and when it was taken in ALS DIFF.
- On Wednesday, we ran ALS DIFF with ALS COMM OFF. Today we ran ALS DIFF with ALS COMM ON.
- We missed a MICH OLG TF for the FSM. We may try to get away with checking if the power and PD normalization levels are the same -- if they are we may just use Wednesday's data. Otherwise it means we have to scrap all of today's FSM data.

A "When will you have a number?" update: we are heavy into analyzing both of the data sets (ALS DIFF is done with the help of LHO aLOG 21001, tomorrow will be PCAL and FSM). A goal is to have a comparison between methods by Sunday.
For a sneak peak on the analysis scripts for ALS DIFF (in case LLO wants to use them), check out
/ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Scripts/ALSDiff
analyze_alsdiff_data_20150826.m
analyze_alsdiff_data_20150828.m


#NoSleepTilO1

The DTT files live here:
(2) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/FullIFOActuatorTFs/2015-08-28/
     2015-08-28_H1SUSETMY_PCALYtoDARM_FullLock.xml

(5) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/ALSDIFF/2015-08-28/
     2015-08-28_ALSDiff_ETMX_L3_HVHN.xml

(6) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/FreeSwingMich/2015-08-28/
     2015-08-26_H1MICH_freeswingingdata.xml

(7) Does not Exist

(8) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/FreeSwingMich/2015-08-28/
     2015-08-28_H1SUSITMX_L2_State2_MICH.xml

(9) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/FreeSwingMich/2015-08-28/
     2015-08-28_H1SUSITMX_L2_State2_XARM.xml

(10) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/FreeSwingMich/2015-08-28/
     2015-08-28_H1SUSETMX_L3_HVHN_XARM.xml

(X) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/FullIFOActuatorTFs/2015-08-28/
     2015-08-28_H1SUSETMY_L3toDARM_LVLN_LPON_FullLock.xml

(Y) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/FullIFOActuatorTFs/2015-08-28/
     2015-08-28_H1SUSETMY_L1toDARM_FullLock.xml
     2015-08-28_H1SUSETMY_L2toDARM_FullLock.xml

(Z) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/FullIFOActuatorTFs/2015-08-28/
     2015-08-28_H1SUSETMX_toDARM_FullLock.xml

Wish us luck on tomorrow's measurement suite; hopefully it'll be the last time for while!
Comments related to this report
kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - 14:53, Thursday 03 September 2015 (21190)

Just for booking purpose.

In addition to the measurements that Jeff posted, I have done a Pcal Y sweep and DARM open loop measurements in a frequency band of [7 800] Hz using Darkhan's template. The data can be found at:


aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/PCAL/2015-08-28_PCALY2DARMTF_7to800Hz.xml

aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/DARMOLGTFs/2015-08-28_H1_DARM_OLGTF_7to800Hz.xml

H1 CAL
kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - posted 23:15, Friday 28 August 2015 - last comment - 16:37, Saturday 29 August 2015(21004)
DARM open loop template updated

The dtt template for DARM open loop measurement has been updated to take the new elliptic filter (alog 20612) into account. This covers a frequency band of 7-1200 Hz. Additionally, a few frequency points are slightly shifted to avoid notchy places.

The dtt file is saved in SVN at

aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/DARMOLGTFs/2015-08-28_H1DARM_OLGTF_7to1200Hz.xml

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - 16:37, Saturday 29 August 2015 (21012)

Also, the frequency vector for Pcal Y sweep is adjusted to the one for the new DARM template. I could not fully test it out because of a lockloss in the middle of the measurement. However, since I interpolated the amplitude from 2015-08-17_PCALY2DARMTF_logscale.xml, the signal-to-noise ratio should be as good as it in principle. The new Pcal Y template is saved in SVN at

aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/PCAL/2015-08-29_PCALY2DARMTF_7to1200Hz.xml

H1 SEI (CDS, PEM)
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:06, Friday 28 August 2015 - last comment - 21:08, Sunday 30 August 2015(20997)
DMT viewer template for STS BLRMS

Jeff, Evan

There is now a new DMT viewer template for viewing the BLRMS of the corner and end-station STSs. It is userapps/isc/h1/scripts/Seismic_FOM_STS.xml.

This is meant to replace the Guralp DMT viewer template.

Right now it only displays the lowest two BLRMS (0.03 to 0.1 Hz and 0.1 to 0.3 Hz).

[As an aside, the frequency bands implied by the channel names in DMT viewer don't seem to match up with the front-end channels. For example, the front-end EX-X channels are named as follows:

H1:ISI-GND_STS_ETMX_X_BLRMS_100M_300M
H1:ISI-GND_STS_ETMX_X_BLRMS_10_30
H1:ISI-GND_STS_ETMX_X_BLRMS_1_3
H1:ISI-GND_STS_ETMX_X_BLRMS_300M_1
H1:ISI-GND_STS_ETMX_X_BLRMS_30_100
H1:ISI-GND_STS_ETMX_X_BLRMS_30M_100M
H1:ISI-GND_STS_ETMX_X_BLRMS_3_10

while the DMT channels are named as follows:

H1:ISI-GND_STS_ETMX_X_DQ_0p03-0p1Hz_48h
H1:ISI-GND_STS_ETMX_X_DQ_0p1-0p2Hz_48h
H1:ISI-GND_STS_ETMX_X_DQ_0p2-0p35Hz_48h
H1:ISI-GND_STS_ETMX_X_DQ_0p35-1Hz_48h
H1:ISI-GND_STS_ETMX_X_DQ_1-3Hz_48h

Are these BLRMS distinct from what's being computed in the frontend?]

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
daniel.sigg@LIGO.ORG - 21:29, Friday 28 August 2015 (21002)

What was wrong with the old plot?

evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - 22:09, Friday 28 August 2015 (21003)

The STS is more sensitive than the Güralp in the frequency band where we typically watch for earthquakes (30 mHz to 100 mHz).

daniel.sigg@LIGO.ORG - 21:08, Sunday 30 August 2015 (21040)

Looks like we should keep the old plot then, since everyoe already knows it.

Displaying reports 57541-57560 of 78016.Go to page Start 2874 2875 2876 2877 2878 2879 2880 2881 2882 End