Displaying reports 57601-57620 of 78016.Go to page Start 2877 2878 2879 2880 2881 2882 2883 2884 2885 End
Reports until 15:56, Thursday 27 August 2015
LHO FMCS (DCS)
bubba.gateley@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:56, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20963)
New DCS room fire suppression system
Installation began yesterday on the fire suppression system for the new DCS room by a 2 man crew from Fire Protection Specialist. They started working on conduit runs for the warning lights, pull handles and abort switches.

This portion of the install is expected to be completed by EOB tomorrow.

Long lead items such as the tank and agent are expected to arrive next week and will be installed along with the piping and spray nozzle.

Images attached to this report
H1 ISC
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:21, Thursday 27 August 2015 - last comment - 03:46, Friday 28 August 2015(20961)
changing RF phase in HAM6 racks.

Evan, Sheila

While the IFO was down for some calibration measurements, we made another attempt at phasing AS36. 

We first redid the dark offsets, this was an important step.  Then we locked the bright michelson with 22 Watts of input power. 

We steered the beam onto each quadrant of AS_A by maximizing the DC counts, then phased 36 to minimize Q.  There were several things that made this seem much more promising than any of our previous attempts to phase these WFS:

Both of these things are firsts for these WFS as far as I'm aware, so this seemed like real progress.  

We started to do the same procedure for AS_B 36, but after we phased the first quadrant the phase jumped.  Kiwamu was in the rack working on the calibration measurements of the DC PDs at this time and reported that he had plugged a signal into the patch panel.  After this I looked at the A signals again, and they did not make sense any more. I tried repeating the procedure above for A, and found that the phases needed to minimize Q with the light maximized on each quadrant had changed by -15, -10, 0, and -20 degrees for quadrants 1,2,3,4.  

It seems like we need to make a thorough check of the HAM6 racks before we continue trying to make sense of AS WFS.  

Just for the record the momentarily sane phasings were:

segment phase (degrees)
1 -155
2 -175
3 -165
4 -158
Comments related to this report
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - 03:46, Friday 28 August 2015 (20978)

Stefan and I did a wiggling test of the cables in the HAM6 rack while the interferometer was locked.

We watched AS90I, AS45Q, and all the quadrants of the AS WFS (36 and 45 MHz). The only thing we saw was a 5% fluctuation in AS90I in response to the 90 MHz LO cable being wiggled. [Although once the beam diverter is closed and the AS90 signal is attenuated, the response to wiggling is much stronger—something like 20% to 40% fluctuation.]

H1 CAL (CDS)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:30, Thursday 27 August 2015 - last comment - 17:28, Monday 31 August 2015(20958)
IFO Taken down to take LSC and END SUS DAC DuoTone Timing Checks
J. Kissel, K. Kawabe, S. Karki

We've broken observation mode such that we can enable the DAC DuoTone timing readbacks on the front ends that are responsible for DARM control, i.e. h1lsc0, h1susex, and h1susey. We needed to take the IFO down for this because the last channel on the first DAC cards for the end station SUS are used for top-mass OSEMs for damping the suspensions. If the damping loops get a two sign waves at 960 and 961 [Hz] instead of the requested control signal for one of the OSEMs, then we get bad news.

Here are the times when the DAC DuoTone switches were ON for the following front ends:

h1susex and h1susey --- 19:04 to 20:04 UTC (12:04 to 13:04 PDT)
h1lsc0 --- 19:16 to 20:06 UTC (12:16 to 13:04 PDT)

Though all relevant channels (ADC_0_30,  ADC_0_31, DAC_0_15) are free on the h1lsc0 front end, we elected to turn the DAC DuoTone off, so that we aren't in danger of an oscillitory analog voltage being sent around the IO chassis that's used to measure the OMC DCPDs.

Data and analysis to come. 

The IFO will be staying down for a few hours, while we finish up some electronics chain characterization of the OMC DCPD analog electronics (along with some other parasitic commissioning measurements).
Comments related to this report
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - 16:24, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20962)

I showed Sudarshan which signal to look at and how to analyze them. He will make an awesome drawing of how things are connected up in this alog.

The first and second attachment shows the duotone timing of the signals pulled from the IOP channels (all 64kHz). The results are summarized in the following table.

Measurement time (UTC)

IOP ADC0 Ch31 (direct) (us) ADC0 Ch30 (loopback) (us) Round-trip (us)
27/08/2015 19:16:11.0 LSC0 7.34 83.78 76.44
SUS_EX 7.25 68.90 61.65
SUS_EY 7.26 68.93 61.67
27/08/2015 22.32:20.0 ISC_EX (PCALX) 7.32 68.93 61.61
ISC_EY (PCALY) 7.26 68.90 61.84

As per yesterday's alog, duotone is about 7.3usec delayed behind LSC ADC, and actually this turned out to be the case for all ADCs.

According to Zuzsa Marka, duotone was "delayed a bit above 6 microseconds compared to the GPS 1pps" (report pending), so probably this means that the ADC timing (i.e. time stamp of ADC) is decent.

Duotone round trip delay for all IOPs except IOP-LSC0 is about 61us or about 4 64k-clock cycles. For LSC0, this was about 5 64k-clock cycles.

I don't know where the difference comes from. This is totally dependent on how the 64kHz ADC input is taken, routed to 64kHz DAC when "DT DAC" bypass switch is in "ON" position (third attachment), and finally output by DAC, but I don't think there should be difference between LSC and everybody else. At least LSC DAC timing doesn't come into the DARM timing.

The next table is for 16kHz pcal channels on the frame. The measurement results as well as the channel names are shown in the last attachment.

UTC user model ADC0 Ch31 (direct in)
(raw, raw-decimation)
loop back Round trip
27/08/2015 22.07.23.0 CAL-PCALX (63.30, 7.37)

ADC0 Ch30 (direct in without AI and AA)
(raw, raw-decimation)
(124.92, 68.99)

61.62
ADC0 Ch28 (with AI and AA)
377.72
 
CAL_PCALY (63.24, 7.31) ADC0 CH30 (direct in without AI and AA)
(raw, raw-decimation)
(124.89, 68.96)
61.65
ADC Ch28 (with AI and AA)
377.07
 

For Ch31 and Ch30, the routing is done bypassing the user model, the signals are merely imported into the user model and decimated.

Sudarshan found the 4x decimation filter delay to be 19.34deg or 55.93us at 960.5Hz, and "raw-decimation" number is obtained by just subtracting this from the raw number. This is consistent with the 64kHz result, so from now on we can look at 16kHz signals as far as pcal is concerned.

I don't know anything about AA and AI, so I'll leave the analysis to Sudarshan.

Relevant scripts and dtt templates are in /ligo/home/keita.kawabe/Cal/Duotone.

Images attached to this comment
sudarshan.karki@LIGO.ORG - 17:28, Monday 31 August 2015 (21043)

Keita's alog explained the timing on Duotone to ADC and DAC to ADC loop as well. Additionally in pcal, channel 28 is routed through the analog AI and AA chasis. The details about how the channels are connected can be found in the attached schematics.

 

From the schematics we can see there are three (3) 4X decimation filters (two downsampling and one upsampling) in this particular chain (Channel 28). This amounts 3*55.93 us = 167.79 us of delay (each of these filter produce phase delay of 19.34deg or 55.93us at 960.5Hz). The analog AA and AI chassis produce phase delay of 13.76  degrees which amounts to about  39.82 us at 960.5 Hz from each chassis totaling in 79.64 us of time delay.

Total Delay = 3*55.93+2*39.82 =247.73 us.

Column 3  contains the measured (raw) time delay and "raw- total delay".

Column 4 contains the roundtrip time (raw-timedelay-7 us) = ~ 122 us (8-64 KHz cycle).

UTC Channel ADC CH 28 LOOP BACK (FILT DUOTONE) Round trip
27/08/2015 22.07.23.0
CAL_PCALX

ADC0 Ch28 (with AI and AA)

(raw, raw-(3*decimation+2*analog AA/AI))

(377.72, 130.29)

 122.92
CAL_PCALY

ADC Ch28 (with AI and AA)

(raw, raw-(3*decimation+2*analog AA/AI))

(377.07, 129.64)

 122.33
 

 

UTC user model ADC0 Ch31 (direct in)
(raw, raw-decimation)
loop back Round trip
27/08/2015 22.07.23.0 CAL-PCALX (63.30, 7.37)

ADC0 Ch30 (direct in without AI and AA)
(raw, raw-decimation)
(124.92, 68.99)

61.62
ADC0 Ch28 (with AI and AA)
377.72
 
CAL_PCALY (63.24, 7.31) ADC0 CH30 (direct in without AI and AA)
(raw, raw-decimation)
(124.89, 68.96)
61.65
ADC Ch28 (with AI and AA)
377.07
 
 
Images attached to this comment
H1 PSL
jeffrey.bartlett@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:17, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20957)
PSL Chiller 60 Day Trends
Posted below are the plots for the PSL chiller for the past 60 days. The regeneration of the crystal chiller DI-Filter is good news. We went from used 70% of capacity to 50% capacity. Jason is looking into calibration questions with flow sensors on both chiller units.    
Images attached to this report
H1 DetChar
nairwita.mazumder@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:02, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20956)
LHO DQ shift 24th-26th August
Detailed report: https://wiki.ligo.org/DetChar/DataQuality/DQShiftLHO20150824

  • There were 4 science locks between 24-26th August with ~20% total duty cycle.
  • Calibration has started since Monday, 24th August.
  • Tuesday was a heavy maintenance day at LHO. Two small locks on 24th and 25th had less than 5 minutes span. But mostly focussed on the long locks.
  • The locks had EY 60Hz magnetic glitches which might have caused the big dips in the inspiral range. (PEM-EY_MAG_EBAY_SUSRACK)
1st day Lock:
  • Steady lock with inspiral range around 62 MPC.
  • Interferometer lock was broken to start Calibration at 16:05 UTC. (alog)
  • Other than few loud glitches (which caused some dip in the inspiral range) lock looks pretty clean.
  • High SNR glitch rate was very low throughout the lock.
  • 60Hz magnetic glitches can be seen at End Y
  • Hveto was not that much effective for the triggers above ~100Hz. A few angular channels came up as the most significant in hveto.
  • The first dip in the inspiral range seems to be related to some magnetometer in seismic (as well as in suspension) rack at End Y.
  • There was no major seismic activity during this ~2.5 long lock.
2nd day Lock:
  • Steady lock with a inspiral range of 65 MPC. Possible lock loss reason : delivery truck was passing by (alog) and ASC-POP glitch - " ~16s before and ASC-PRC2 starts to oscillating at about the same time ( and the oscillation became really huge about ~ 6s before lockloss). They were both high frequency (>128 Hz)". (Lock loss plot)
  • Some non-stationarity at the low freqquency (below 20Hz) between 12:00 to 13:00 UTC and nearly end of the lock
  • Small variation in the spectrum below 40Hz
  • Loud Glitch rate was low except the time between 12:00 to 13:00 UTC, where we had a loud glitch causing a dip in inspiral range (came down to ~10MPC)
  • Most of the loud glitches visible in glitchgram were vetoed out by hveto, might be related to PEM accelerometer or seismic channel.
  • There was an earth quake at Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge with magnitude 4.9 at 13:23 UTC which might be the reason of the last huge dip in the inspiral range.
  • Few loud events (New SNR >7.5) were seen in BBH search and low-mass CBC search.
3rd day lock:
  • The pattern is same as previous two days with inspiral range ~60MPC which eventually ends up at ~68MPC
  • After Tuesday's maintenance few new features can be seen in the spectrum (alog)
  • ETMY saturation occurred several times during this lock.
  • 1 Hz comb (offset by 0.5 Hz) was found at below 70Hz which was believed to be related to PEM channels, also some excess noise in PRCL. This issue has been fixed (alog).
  • This lock also had some very loud glitches few of them are EY magnetic glitches.
  • ASC-X_TR_A_PIT_OUT_DQ and ASC-REFL_B_RF9_Q_YAW_OUT_DQ had significant contribution on Hveto. PEM-EY_MAG_EBAY_SUSRACK_X_DQ came up as the most significant channel in iDQ as well as the winner of 3rd round Hveto.
Note: UPV and STAMP PEM were not up for any of these days. The loud glitches need be followed up more thoroughly.
H1 CDS (DAQ)
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:41, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20955)
CDS model and DAQ restart report, Wednesday 26th August 2015

ER8 Day 10. No restarts reported.

H1 SYS
jameson.rollins@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:25, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20954)
new OBSERVATION_OVERVIEW screen

New OBSERVATION_OVERVIEW overview screen

I have added a new screen that sumarizes the overall OBSERVATION status of the detector:

$USERAPPS/sys/common/medm/OBSERVATION_OVERVIEW.adl

It is meant to be informative and (hopefully) self explanatory for the operators.  It includes all things going into determining OBSERVATION status:

When the system is not ready the screen looks like this:

The EXCITATION monitor will turn red if there are any excitations present.  Once GRD-IFO_OK is ready, and there are no excitations, the READY box will turn green.  Once the operator then sets the INTENT bit to "UNDISTURBED", the whole box will turn green to indicate that we are in OBSERVATION MODE:

Hopefully it is self explanatory, but please let me know if there are any questions.

I have embeded this screen into to the GUARDIAN_OVERVIEW screen as well.

Images attached to this report
H1 General
edmond.merilh@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:23, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20953)
Shift Summary - Owl

ALL TIMES IN UTC

Arrival: IFO is unlocked. Sheila and Evan in and out of the LVEA taking ASC measurements. Wind calm. Seismic calm. Patrick on Evening duty.

On Site: Kissel, Balmer, Driggers, Hall, Dwyer, Hoak, Cahillane and Darkhan

ACTIVITY LOG:

LOCK LOG:

Summary:

H1 PEM (ISC, PEM, SUS)
richard.mccarthy@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:23, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20952)
Testing of Comb Frequency induced when connecting RF to PEM
IN a follow up to the work done Tuesday and Wednesday that introduced the 1Hz comb in the PRCL, SRCL path and removed it the following morning by disconnecting the 9 and 45MHz LO signals to the PEM interface chassis for the room antenna.   

With the IFO locked I reconnected the 9MHz cable and the 1Hz comb was present.  I then disconnected it and tried to work with the 45MHz.  The IFO is far more sensitive to work with the RF distribution chassis and we ended up losing lock.
Once Ed M. re aligned and  got the system locked again we did not see the 1Hz with the 45MHz connected to the PEM.  I then installed a Baluns on both the 9MHz and 45MHz lines and the signal did not show up in the spectrum.  
We will leave it connected as is until Tuesday when we can move the baluns to a less intrusive location probably at the PEM rack.   They are now on the distribution chassis somewhat blocking the connections next to them. Hopefully this has not introduced any other problems.
H1 General (DetChar)
edmond.merilh@LIGO.ORG - posted 03:26, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20951)
Observation Intent Bit/ Observing Mode
H1 CAL (CAL)
craig.cahillane@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:26, Thursday 27 August 2015 - last comment - 18:45, Thursday 27 August 2015(20946)
Preliminary Strain Uncertainty Carpet Plots
C. Cahillane

I have managed to use ER7 data produce preliminary carpet plots of frequency vs. strain magnitude and phase based on the Uncertainty Estimation paper T1400586.
The code that generates these plots may be found here: /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/S7/Common/MatlabTools/strainUncertainty.m

Darkhan recently did a similar study to this looking at error in magnitude and phase of Delta_L_ext when kappa_C, kappa_A, and f_c changed.  
My study currently looks at the error in magnitude and phase of strain when the magnitude and phase of kappa_tst and kappa_pu vary, as well as kappa_C and f_c.  (Recall that in general kappa_tst and kappa_pu can be complex.)

Right now I believe there is a serious error in the code, because the plot of the optical gain (plot 5) and the plot of the cavity pole (plot 6) show there is absolutely no error in strain even if these values differ greatly from the expected value.  The cavity pole varies by up to +- 100 Hz and does not vary by more than 1%.  The result is robust: I have calculated the strain using two independent methods and still I get these odd results.  These are my results right now, and this is why I call these plots preliminary.

I do believe the magnitude kappa_tst (plot 1), phase kappa_tst (plot 2), magnitude kappa_pu (plot 3), and phase kappa_pu (plot 4) plots look sensible.  Any phase in kappa_tst is generally intolerable for high frequency phase information, while phase in kappa_pu yields high error in low frequency phase information.  Since we do not expect any phase component at all in kappa_tst and kappa_pu, this makes sense.
Also, the magnitude of kappa_tst and kappa_pu must be tracked carefully at high and low frequency respectively.  10% errors in these magnitudes are enough to give more than 9% errors in strain magnitude.

Note that these results use ER7 data (GPS_start = 1116990382).  I'll soon be able to get ER8 data when it is all available (go calibration week!)


Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
craig.cahillane@LIGO.ORG - 00:41, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20949)CAL
I believe my "no uncertainty" issue with the optical gain and cavity pole may be related to this graph.
The 1/C*d_err term in blue is completely overwhelmed by the A*d_ctrl term.  My reconstruction of hMag may be improperly weighting these two factors.
That is why the Actuation terms (kappa_tst and kappa_pu) have sensible errors, but the Sensing terms (kappa_C and f_c) don't have any effect whatsoever.
Non-image files attached to this comment
craig.cahillane@LIGO.ORG - 18:45, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20969)
I have posted some less preliminary plots of the ER7 data.  I have now dewhitened the data, which has properly scaled the gain such that the inverse sensing term is no longer overwhelmed by the actuation term.  
The spikes everywhere are due to a single-pass fft I have taken.  I am working on a proper fft algorithm now.
Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 ISC
stefan.ballmer@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:08, Thursday 27 August 2015 - last comment - 15:02, Thursday 27 August 2015(20947)
trying to phase the AS_B 90MHz signals - but !?!
While trying to phase AS_B 90MHz signals (hooked up to AS_B_FR45), we noticed that the phase to the signal changes dramatically with the amopunt of power on the quadrant.

Attached is a time series of the DC power (Blue. 0 is on top, more power goes negative), as well as I and Q phase.

On this plot we first maximized the light on Seg1, then phased all signal into I, then noticed that the phasing changes with power on the segment, then reduced the power into the DRMI in 4 steps. As you can see the phasing dramatically changes with the power on the diode...
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 00:18, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20948)

Here are the 36 signals at the same time.  As the power drops by roughly a factor of 2, the signals also drop by roughly a factor of 2, without any apparent change in the phase.

Images attached to this comment
stefan.ballmer@LIGO.ORG - 15:02, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20960)
This confusion was due to dark offsets - the for some reasone changed significantly.
H1 CAL (ISC, SUS)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:07, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20940)
Measurements Necessary for ETMY Actuation Scale Factor Complete for All Three Methods
J. Kissel, K. Izumi

Kiwamu and I have spent the day tuning measurements, and finally gathering all transfer functions that use the IFO to determine the overall scale factor of all stages of the ETMY actuator. To refresh your memory, that's using PCAL, ALS DIFF VCO / PLL, and Free Swining Michelson techniques. We tried following the prescription that Joe, Kiwamu and I had agreed upon (see T1500383), but we ran into a few flaws in our plan, and diverted accordingingly. However, I think we have everything we need to make estimates of the actuation strength of ETMY with these three methods, as has been done prior to ER7 (see LHO aLOG 18767). As with other measurements this week, analysis and results are to come, but we want to at least aLOG where the measurements live, and the details / gotchas of today's exercise so that we remember them in the future.

Details
------------
The list of measurements (and how they differ from T1500383):

PCAL: 
       optic [m]        RXPD [ct]        PCALY [m]           IFO DARM [ct]             ETMY L3 LV LPON EXC [ct]      IFO DARM [ct]  
   ---------------  =  ----------  x  -------------  x  -------------------------  x  ------------------------  x  ---------------
   iStage EXC [ct]      PCALY [m]      IFO DARM [ct]     ETMY L3 LV LP ON EXC [ct]          IFO DARM [ct]           iStage EXC [ct]
                           (1)            (2)                  (X)                             (X)                      (Y)


Measurement (1) we obtain, a priori, from the PCAL team. This is determined by their estimation of the power on the test mass (see, e.g. LHO aLOG 20459, and more completely in T1500252).
Measurement (2) is a PCAL to DARM transfer function (DARM_IN1 / RX_PD) using the pre-calibrationed (from (1)) RX_PD channel as the reference.
Measurements (X) and (Y) are lettered not numbered, because these same transfer functions are used for all three measurement techniques. However, these (Y) (and (X)) transfer functions are drives from the L3 / L2 / L1 TEST L filter banks at each stage, such that the exciations downstream of all LOCK and DRIVEALIGN heirarchy filter banks. Therefore we're only measuring the actuation strength of each stage (without the confusion of the hierarchical control filters). The response channel is DARM_IN1. Note that (X) is repeated twice in the PCAL method because we get an absolute [m / ct] calibration for the ETMY L3 EXC, which is then propogated to the PUM/L2 and UIM/L1 stages as well, which we do by using the ratio of (X) and (Y).

Measurements (2), (X), and (Y) are gathered with the IFO fully locked using all of ETMY in its lowest noise state.
 
ALS DIFF: 
What we had planned to do, as shown in T1500383, was the following:

    optic [m]                f_green [Hz]       L_arm [m]        DIFF PLL [ct]                          ETMY HV L3 EXC       IFO DARM [ct]
   ----------  =  A_VCO  x  -------------  x  ------------  x  -------------------  x  (1 + G_DIFF)  x  --------------  x  ---------------
   iStage EXC               DIFF_PLL [ct]     f_green [Hz]     ETMY L3 HV EXC [ct]                       IFO DARM [ct]     iStage EXC [ct]
                   (3)          (4)                                 (5)                    (6)               (7)               (Y)
However, we ended up doing a few of the measurements differently today, for two reasons:
(a) For (5), we had previously used ETMX L2 (see LHO aLOG 18711). We had used ETMX L2 because it was an out-of-loop excitation; ALS DIFF uses EX L3 and EX L1 to lock green, but it does not use the EX L2 stage. However, we were sad about the 1/f^4 roll-off of the L2 actuator -- it provided little coherence above the relatively noise ALS DIFF noise. Instead of using ETMX L2 EXC, one immediately suggest using ETMX L3 with the high-voltage driver, but we were worried about confusion with the loop hierarchy, so we though to go with ETMY L3 in its high voltage configuration -- that way we could similarly treat it as an out-of-loop excitation, we wouldn't have to worry about being confused by the hierarchy of the ETMX control, and we'd get the extra f^2 of actuation strength. HOWEVER we didn't think of this ahead of then, but it was implicitly assumed that we could lock the full IFO on ETMY with the driver in its HV stage in order to transfer the ALS DIFF absolute calibration of the ETMY L3 HV configuration to the ETMY L3 LVLN, LP ON configuration. We've *not* developed developed a stable configuration with the Full IFO locked with ETMY L3 HV, and even if we had it, we've not demonstrated that we can switch between HV and LV LP ON while the interferometer is locked. We figure commissioning such a thing was a huge adventure that we did not want to undertake.
(b) It turns out, with a little bit of ingenuity (a.k.a. Izumi-sensei wisdom), we can use the entire ETMX drive as a whole (i.e. the super-actuator of L3 and L1) in concert with the DIFF PLL CTRL signal that we've already calibrated to obtain the equivalent of (3) and (4). Take the ALS DIFF loop as follows, where excite just down stream of the DARM bank, such that you're still using the SUS in whatever hierarchy is predefined (we used the L3 LOCK bank): 

              +------+    +------+
         -----| ETMX |----| DIFF |-------> DIFF_PLL_CTRL
         |    +------+    +------+    |
         |                            |
   IN2 <-|                            |
         |              +------+      |
         + ----< -1 |---| DARM |-------
         ^              +------+
         |
      L3 LOCK
        EXC

It so follows that  
   L3 LOCK IN2       1
   ----------- = ----------
   L3 LOCK EXC   1 + G_DIFF
which is true with any excitation at any point around the loop, just like is done "normally" done with a DARM IN2 / DARM EXC TF. Further, 
DIFF_PLL_CTRL       1
------------- = ----------  x  ETMX  x  DIFF
L3 LOCK EXC     1 + G_DIFF
one can immediately see that the absolute calibration of the super-actuator ETMX falls out of ratio of these two transfer functions, assuming you have the absolute calibration of DIFF such that you can divide it out (i.e. the [Hz/ct] and z:p = 40:1.6 Hz pair of the VCO, i.e. measurements (3) and (4), which we do, a priori). What's great, is that since you're using the same excitation, as long as you store both of these channels in the template, you can directly measure and export the transfer function ratio that you really want,
   DIFF_PLL_CTRL
   ------------- = ETMX x DIFF
    L3 LOCK IN2
and thus you've reduced two measurments, formerly (5) and (6) into one. So today's version of the ALS DIFF Equation is

    optic [m]                f_green [Hz]       L_arm [m]         DIFF PLL [ct]        ETMX L3 LOCK EXC [ct]      IFO DARM [ct]
   ----------  =  A_VCO  x  -------------  x  ------------  x  -------------------  x  ---------------------  x  ---------------
   iStage EXC               DIFF_PLL [ct]     f_green [Hz]     EX L3 LOCK IN2 [ct]         IFO DARM [ct]         iStage EXC [ct]
                   (3)           (4)                                 (5)                        (Z)                    (Y)

Measurement (3) is obtained by measuring the open loop gain of the ALS DIFF PLL independently, while locked to an independent frequency reference, instead of the beat-note from the DIFF PD, i.e. LHO aLOG 20850, LHO aLOG 20542, etc.
Measurement (4) is obtained by using the ALS DIFF PLL in the same way as (3), but sweeping the lock frequency of the frequency reference, i.e. LHO aLOG 20603.
Measurement (5) is as described above, driving EX L3 LOCK EXC while the IFO is only ALS DIFF locked, but measuring the transfer function EX L3 LOCK IN2 and DIFF_PLL_CTRL 
Measurement (Z) is performed with the IFO in full low noise lock (locked on ETMY in its low-noise state). Note that the nominal lowest noise state is to have the ETMX driver turned OFF. With the driver ON (so you can take this measurement) the ESD DAC noise destroys the low frequency performance, so you have to drive pretty dang hard to get good coherence.
Measurement (Y) are as described above.

Free Swinging Michelson
Similarly to the ALS DIFF method, we planned (in T1500383) to propogate the Michelson absolute calibration down the Y-arm, instead of the X-arm like we had done previously (see LHO aLOG 18718), by driving ETMY using the high-voltage driver. For the same reasons as DIFF, propogating that absolute calibration to the LVLN LP ON configuration in full-lock would have been hard-to-impossible. As such, we performed measurements in exactly the same way we had done before, propogating down the X ARM, and relying on (Z) from the ALS DIFF technique,
   optic [m]        MICH [m]                            AS_Q [ct]        ITMX L2 EXC [ct]           SARM [ct]           ETMX L3 LOCK EXC [ct]      IFO DARM [ct]
   -----------  =  -----------  x  (1 + G_MICH)  x  ----------------  x  ----------------  x  ---------------------  x  ---------------------  x  --------------
   iStage EXC       AS_Q [ct]                       ITMX L2 EXC [ct]        SARM [ct]         ETMX L3 LOCK EXC [ct]         IFO DARM [ct]         iStage EXC [ct]
                       (6)             (7)               (8)                   (9)                    (10)                      (Z)                    (Y)
Measurement (6) is the "free-swinging" part of the free-swinging Michelson, where we fit the AS_Q and AS_DC signals to an ellipse to obtain the optical gain of the Michelson.
Measurement (7) is the open loop gain of the Michelson, taken with MICH locked using the BS, such that we can back out the loop suppression from the ITM excitation.
Measurement (8) is the ITM excitation, taken in the same MICH lock stretch as (2). Note that we made sure to put the ITM L2 stage in its highest range state (state 2) to get the best SNR.
Measurement (9) and (10) are taken with the XARM locked on red. The only difference this time is that we drove from the LOCK bank, again treating ETMX as a super-actuator, not caring about the individual strength of the test mass stage.

One last thing regarding all of these measurements. We had set a goal to get coherence out to 200 [Hz], but Kiwamu found on Monday that ALS DIFF measurement (5) was difficult to get 

---------------------
The data / templates for the IFO measurements we took / tuned today have been committed to the CalSVN in the following locations:
(2) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/FullIFOActuatorTFs/2015-08-26/
     2015-08-26_H1SUSETMY_PCALYtoDARM_FullLock.xml

(5) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/ALSDIFF/2015-08-26
     2015-08-26_ALSDiff_ETMX_L3_HVHN.xml

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

(7) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/FreeSwingMich/2015-08-26/
     2015-08-26_MICH_OLGTF.xml

(8) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/FreeSwingMich/2015-08-26/
     2015-08-26_H1SUSITMY_L2_State2_MICH.xml

(9) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/FreeSwingMich/2015-08-26/
     2015-08-26_H1SUSITMX_L2_State2_XARM.xml

(10) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/FreeSwingMich/2015-08-26/
     2015-08-26_H1SUSETMX_L3_HVHN_XARM.xml

(X) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/FullIFOActuatorTFs/2015-08-26/
     2015-08-26_H1SUSETMY_L3toDARM_LVLN_LPON_FullLock.xml

(Y) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/FullIFOActuatorTFs/2015-08-26/
     2015-08-26_H1SUSETMY_L1toDARM_FullLock.xml
     2015-08-26_H1SUSETMY_L2toDARM_FullLock.xml

(Z) /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Measurements/FullIFOActuatorTFs/2015-08-26/
     2015-08-26_H1SUSETMX_toDARM_FullLock.xml

For the record, even though T1500383 defines an order to take these measurements to minimize time to take these 11 measurements, we deviated from the plan so that we could spend time tuning up the TFs that we needed. As such, we took the ALS DIFF measurement (5) first, then brought the full IFO up, then took (2), (X), and (Y). Sadly, we lost lock from what likely was the consequences of two successive small earthquakes (5.2 and 4.9 in the mid-atlantic ridge). As such, we didn't get (Z) until we re-locked the IFO about an hour later. Once we got (Z), we intentionally broke the lock again to get (6) through (10). Because the IFO *may* have had a different optical gain between the first lock stretch where we got all of the Y arm measurements, and the other lock stretch when we got (Z) which is used to propogate the absolute calibrations from the FSM and ALS DIFF methods, there *may* be a systematic discrepancy between those two methods and the PCAL method, but we'll just have to wait for the analysis to find out. And we'll compare against another measurement suite that will be taken on this coming Friday.
LHO General
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:03, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20943)
Ops Evening Summary
Quiet shift. Calibration and commissioning all evening.

UTC (Pacific)
23:05 (16:05) Daniel S. to CER
23:15 (16:15) Daniel S. back
23:44 (16:44) Sheila clearing CDS diagnostic overflow counters, adding code to guardian to do so at each lock loss
00:50 (17:50) Kiwamu taking the IFO down
03:27 (20:27) Kiwamu asked me to lock the IFO, it did so by itself
03:50 (20:50) Jenne and I add a stage of whitening to the OMC DCPD
05:03 (22:03) Sheila taking the IFO down and then to LOCK_DRMI_1F
H1 ISC
daniel.sigg@LIGO.ORG - posted 19:02, Wednesday 26 August 2015 - last comment - 03:30, Friday 28 August 2015(20930)
RF AM at 45.5MHz

Evan Stefan Daniel

The second EOM driver was installed in the CER using the 9MHz control and readback channels. The first attached plot shows the DAQ readback signals. Both drivers show the similar noise levels for the in-loop and out-of-loop sensors. They are also coherent with each other as well as ASC-AS_C! The in-loop noise is clearly below which would indicate that the signal is suppressed to the sensor noise. The measured out-of-loop noise level is also a factor of 4 higher than the setup in the shop.

The second plot shows the same traces but this time the ifr is feeding the EOM driver in the CER. As expected its out-of-loop noise level is now consistent with measurements in the shop and no longer coherent with the unit in the PSL.

We were starting to suspect that we are looking at down-converted out-of-band noise...

Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - 03:24, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20950)

Using a network analyzer, we took the following measurements:

  • rf spectrum of 45.5 MHz from harmonic generator + distribution amplifier in CER,
  • rf spectrum of 45.5 MHz from IFR in CER,
  • rf spectrum of 45.5 MHz from spare harmonic generator in the EE shop,
  • rf spectrum of 9.1 MHz from OCXO + distribution amplifier in CER,
  • audio-band spectrum of out-of-loop RAM readback of EOM driver, using harmonic generator as 45.5 MHz source, and
  • audio-band spectrum of out-of-loop RAM readback of EOM driver, using IFR as 45.5 MHz source.

The first four of these are shown in the attached plot [the OCXO has been multiplied by 5 in frequency for the sake of comparison]. The message is that the 45.5 MHz in the IFO distribution system has huge, broad wings out to 2 MHz away from the carrier. These are not seen on the IFR, the harmonic generator on the bench, or the 9.1 MHz in the distribution system.

Although the EOM driver still works to suppress some of the RFAM below 50 kHz, the broad wings still contribute significantly to the rms; most of it is accumulated above 200 kHz offset from the carrier. This is shown in the second attachment.

Non-image files attached to this comment
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - 03:30, Friday 28 August 2015 (20977)

I looked again at some rf spectra in the CER.

These peaks appear on every output of the harmonic generator, even when it is not driving any distribution amplifiers (just a network analyzer).

These peaks also appear even when the harmonic generator is driven by +12 dBm of 9.1 MHz from an IFR (not from the OCXO + distribution amplifier).

This suggests we should focus on the harmonic generator or its power supply.

H1 CDS
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:34, Wednesday 26 August 2015 - last comment - 23:50, Wednesday 26 August 2015(20927)
Invalid values for Conlog
Although the error reporting is not detailed enough yet on the production server to provide the channel name and value that caused an error upon attempting to insert it into the MySQL database, it is on the test system. The following channels and values caused errors on the test system:

Jul 11 16:59:40 H1:OMC-READOUT_ERR_GAIN: -nan
Aug  4 07:54:43 H1:SYS-MOTION_C_PICO_F_MOTOR_1_NAME: 'xF3x01'
Aug  8 12:25:47 H1:OMC-READOUT_ERR_GAIN: -nan
Comments related to this report
daniel.hoak@LIGO.ORG - 21:12, Wednesday 26 August 2015 (20937)

This is nice, it gives us a sense of how often the calculations for the handoff to DC readout fail.  Answer: about once a month.

We should have the OMC guardian check that the calculated value for OMC_READOUT_ERR gain is sensible before writing it to the epics channel.

patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - 23:50, Wednesday 26 August 2015 (20945)
Maybe more than that. There have been times when the test server has not been running and so did not catch the error when the production server stopped. I think maybe twice while I was on vacation Aug. 8 - 20.
H1 INJ (INJ)
eric.thrane@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:57, Tuesday 25 August 2015 - last comment - 17:17, Thursday 27 August 2015(20893)
CBC Injection Test For Saturation + First Blind Injection Test
Patrick, Sheila, Jenne, Eric

For the first part of the test, we injected our fiducial CBC waveform (same one used in ER7) and tried raising the LIMIT value on the hardware injection block in order to address saturation problems observed in ER7. During ER7, the LIMIT was 200. We raised it to 400. The first injection did not go through:

1124601535 1 1.000000 cbctest_1117582888_		intent bit off, injection canceled

Patrick, Sheila, and Jenne tried to turn on the intent bit, but there was some sort of problem, which will be alog'ged separately. As a temporary work-around, we turned off the tinj intent-bit check and injected again:

1124602724 1 1.000000 cbctest_1117582888_		successful

Patrick determined that the injection produced a maximum |amplitude| of 15 counts coming out of the injection block, which seemed to indicate that the original LIMIT value of 200 was sufficient. However, an alarm went off to indicate that there was saturation at ETMY. Thus, the saturation problem cannot be solved by tinkering with the INJ block in MEDM. Rather, the problem is occurring downstream on the ETM actuators. We request that Jeff K, Adam M, et al. look into options for avoiding saturation at the ETMs.

Next we tried a blind injection using the new blind injection code. The blind injection code does not log injections in EPICS so they are not automatically picked up in the segment database.

1124603111 1 1.000000 cbctest_1117582888_		successful

The blind injection was clearly visible. The ETM saturation warning went off again. The injection was logged correctly in the blind injection blindinj_H1.log:

current time = 1124603049...
Attempting: awgstream H1:CAL-INJ_BLIND_EXC 16384 /ligo/home/eric.thrane/O1/Hardw
areInjection/Details/Inspiral/H1/cbctest_1117582888_H1.out 1 1124603111
Injection successful.

All of these injections were carried out with scale factor = 1; (that's the 1.000000). The injection file, described in a comment below, is a 1.4 on 1.4 BNS, optimal orientation, at D=45 Mpc. It is the same waveform used in previous ER tests.
Comments related to this report
andrew.lundgren@LIGO.ORG - 00:49, Wednesday 26 August 2015 (20894)DetChar, INJ
It looks like the injection actually does hit the 400 count limit (plot 1). It saturates right at the end when the injection chirps up to high frequency. There's some kind of ringing as well (plot 2). From the spectrogram (plot 3) and the zoom (plot 4) this looks like a feature at just above 300 Hz. I thought it might be a notch for the PCal line, but that's 331.9 Hz. So someone will have to check the inverse actuation filter and see what's happening at that frequency.

It's possible to see the overflow from the first injection in the ETMY L3 MASTER channel (plot 5). It happens at -131072 counts, and the injection is trying to push it past -200000. The blind injection caused an overflow as well, but since this channel is only recorded at 2048 Hz, it looks like it falls short of overflow (plot 6). There's a faster readback whose name escapes me at the moment.

Unless the blind injection is made a factor of about 10 smaller, or rolled off at high frequency, it will be trivial to detect it by looking at the drive to the ETM.
Images attached to this comment
eric.thrane@LIGO.ORG - 04:24, Wednesday 26 August 2015 (20901)INJ
FYI, the injected waveform was fiducial waveform from ER7:

https://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=16125

It's a 1.4-1.4 BNS at 45 Mpc, optimal orientation.
duncan.brown@LIGO.ORG - 05:06, Wednesday 26 August 2015 (20904)

There are a couple of things to watch out for when performing CBC hardware injections, based on iLIGO experience:

  • In iLIGO, the actuation function had a notch at the violin-mode frequencies. If you just invert A(f) without smoothing this out, the notch will get inverted and you'll give the the mirrors a hard kick as the inspiral sweeps through the notch frequency. (My guess is that Adam and Jeff have already dealt with this, though.)
  •  If the end of the inspiral signal is not smoothly rolled off and the signal drops from some loudish amplitude to zero then you put a step function in. This caused the iLIGO test mass to swing at its pendulum frequency, putting a huge ringdown in the data (called the "whooper" in iLIGO). In iLIGO, the CBC group generated waveforms in counts, by applying 1/A(f) ourselves using the adiabatic inverse calibration, so we smoothed 1/A(f) ourselves before applying it. In aLIGO, 1/A(f) is: (i) more complicated, and (ii) applied in the front end by IIR filters. It is possible that the sharp turnoff of the CBC injection at the end is causing the filters that apply 1/A(f) to ring and that's what's giving us garbage at the end of the signal.

For the ER7 injection we used an SEOBNRv2 waveform that has a ringdown at the end, hoping that this turn off would not trigger an impulse. However, for BNS masses, the turn off and ringdown is pretty sharp. I've asked Chris check that there are no "whooper" effects with the SEOBNRv2 waveform, but we haven't had chance to do this yet. For a SpinTaylorT4 waveform (the other waveform CBC wants to inject), there will definitely be a step, so this needs to be checked and rolled off carefully.

duncan.brown@LIGO.ORG - 05:08, Wednesday 26 August 2015 (20905)

One other comment on the test: what scaling in awgstream did you use? That waveform looks monstously loud (eyeball SNR > 20). That's much louder than would be useful for a blind injections, but good for helping us find whooper effects.

eric.thrane@LIGO.ORG - 16:44, Wednesday 26 August 2015 (20928)INJ
Duncan, the scale factor is 1.
andrew.lundgren@LIGO.ORG - 14:27, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20959)DetChar, INJ
Just for completeness, because I didn't see it posted, here's an Omega scan of the injections in h(t). The first is the non-blind injection, the second is the blind injection. I think the glitch ten seconds after the blind injection is unrelated. I thought it might be a filter turning off or being reset, but it's not on a GPS second (it's at 1124603210.28). It does cause an overflow of the ETMY ESD DAC.
Images attached to this comment
peter.shawhan@LIGO.ORG - 17:17, Thursday 27 August 2015 (20966)INJ
I verified that the blind injection was correctly recorded in the raw frame file.
Displaying reports 57601-57620 of 78016.Go to page Start 2877 2878 2879 2880 2881 2882 2883 2884 2885 End