Displaying reports 57961-57980 of 78003.Go to page Start 2895 2896 2897 2898 2899 2900 2901 2902 2903 End
Reports until 02:08, Monday 17 August 2015
H1 ISC (ISC)
stefan.ballmer@LIGO.ORG - posted 02:08, Monday 17 August 2015 - last comment - 08:13, Monday 17 August 2015(20582)
45MHz oscillator phase noise measurement
Evan, Stefan,

Evan will make a more detailed log entry with actual measurements, but here are the highlights:
- We beat the 45Mhz signal from the installed and the spare harmonic generators.
- the first odd thing was that straight out of the harmonic generators, the 45Mhz signals were out of phase by about 170deg, even though the 9MHz inputs were nicely in phase...
- We phased the two signals to be exactly in phase an stuck them into a mixer: 0.415V
- We phased the. To be exactly 90deg apart: no DC signal, and ~ 220nV/rtHz of flat  broadband noise.
- this gives 5.3e-7 rad/rtHz between the two signals.
- Assuming equal and non-coherent contributions, the phase noise of one box is thus: 3.75e-7 rad/rtHz
- If we assume that the oscillator phase noise has the same coupling as the oscillator amplitude noise (9e-2mA/RIN), we would expect 3.4e-8mA/rtHz. Thats's pretty close to what we see on ODC_DCPD_SUM.
Comments related to this report
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - 08:13, Monday 17 August 2015 (20593)

Data attached: two amplitude noise measurements, two phase noise measurements. One set taken sending equal drive levels into the mixer, and another set taken with the rf attenuated by 5 dB.

Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 ISC
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 02:03, Monday 17 August 2015 - last comment - 04:48, Monday 17 August 2015(20581)
rephasing refl 45 WFS, refl wfs sensing matrix

We had noticed last week that the refl 45 WFS were phased incorrectly, and tonight Jenne and I rephased them by moving PR3 100 counts in pitch.  This only affects the PRC2 loop.  We've locked and engaged the ASC several times since then, and this seems fine.  

While we did improve the phasing and tuned it to within 5 degrees, I is only about 9 dB higher than Q for PR3 motion.  We will need a different phasing strategy, where we phase 45 to minimize the signal from chard in one quadrature if we want to distinguish between PR3 motion and CHARD.

 C

The first two attached screenshots are the phases before we started, except that for REFL A the phase of the first quadrant was -165 not -145.  The following 2 screenshots were the phases we rephased.  For the time being we have reverted. 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jenne.driggers@LIGO.ORG - 04:48, Monday 17 August 2015 (20586)

Earlier tonight, we rephased the REFL 45 WFS to be maximally sensitive to PR3 motion, but I think that instead, we should phase them to be minimally sensitive to CHARD motion.

H1 SYS (CDS, SYS)
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 01:37, Monday 17 August 2015 (20580)
making SDF greener

Jenne and I spent some time making SDF green before the enigneering run starts in the morning.  

The main things that are still showing diffs are HAM1 HPI, some violin mode damping settings on ITMY, and many diffs in CALCS.  

While we were doing this we noticed a potentially nasty trick that SDF does.  We chose some channels that should be not monitored from the list of DIFFs, and right as I was about to CONFIRM, the IFO lost lock.  A new diff showed up on the top of the list, and the channels I had intended to not mon were moved down the list, but the yellow squares stayed in the same place.  It would have been verry easy to miss this and apply the action to the wrong channels.  Jenne is putting this in bugzilla.  

H1 GRD (ISC)
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:58, Monday 17 August 2015 (20578)
OMC_LOCK states for adding/removing DCPD whitening

The OMC_LOCK guardian now has the states ADD_WHITENING and REMOVE_WHITENING, which do what they say on the tin. If you have one stage of whitening on, running ADD_WHITENING will turn on one more stage, etc.

They are not connected to the rest of the graph at all, so you'll have to run them manually.

They are intended to be compatible with full lock, so they can be run at any time (so long as you don't end up saturating the DCPD ADCs, of course).

H1 General
edmond.merilh@LIGO.ORG - posted 23:55, Sunday 16 August 2015 (20576)
Daily Ops Summary - Evening shift

ALL TIMES IN UTC

 

Arrived to find IFO beginning lock sequence after TJ did some PRMI alignment to help DRMI. It seems previous lock segments were on the average of about half a hour

 

LOCK LOG:

 

Evening Summary:

 


 

H1 AOS
stefan.ballmer@LIGO.ORG - posted 20:53, Sunday 16 August 2015 (20574)
The end of the last long lock
The inspiral range had trended down significantly in the last ~2h of the lock.

- Looking back at the data the spectrum showed a 1/f^2 noise floor between 15 and 150Hz. (plot 1)
- This floor was clearly generated by frequent glitches. Plot 2 shows a filtered time series for the bad time (blue, 2015/08/16 15:05 UTC) and a good time (red, 2015/08/16 13:35 UTC)
  Filter: zpk([0;0;],[1000;1000],1,"n")ellip("BandPass",6,1,80,30,200)

- Sheila noticed that both the M2 and M3 coils of the SRM were hovering around the ominous 65536cts mark, so there is the suspicion that these are SRM glitches. However I couldn't line them up convincingly... Either way, Sheila did the top stage bleed-off today, so we will see...
Images attached to this report
H1 PEM
robert.schofield@LIGO.ORG - posted 20:21, Sunday 16 August 2015 (20573)
A third vibration-sensitive site: HAM2
A third vibration-sensitive site: HAM2
 
Katie and I have shaken most chambers with shakers on cross beams (focusing on coupling through the isolation rather than scattering from the chamber walls). The figure shows that, in addition to the PSL and HAM6, HAM2 is also close to limiting DARM. Shaking by a factor of about 30 over background, measured by the GS13s in the 800-860 portion of the ISI suspension band, produces features over an order of magnitude tall in DARM.
 
Thus it may be useful to damp higher modes of the blade springs and flexures in HAM2 as well as HAM6.

Katie and I have shaken most chambers with shakers on cross beams (focusing on coupling through the isolation rather than scattering from the chamber walls). The figure shows that, in addition to the vibration senstitive PSL and HAM6, vibration at HAM2 is also close to limiting DARM. Shaking by a factor of about 30 over background, measured by the GS13s in the 800-860 portion of the ISI suspension band, produces features over an order of magnitude tall in DARM.

Thus it may be useful to damp higher modes of the blade springs and flexures in HAM2 as well as HAM6.

Katie Banowetz, Robert Schofield

Non-image files attached to this report
H1 ISC
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:18, Sunday 16 August 2015 (20572)
SRM offloading to M1

Evan, Sheila, Jenne, Stefan

we have been intending to offload the SRM length control to M1 (instead of M2) for some time now.  This is now done in the guardian, and is basically a copy of what was done in alog 19850.  The only difference is a 50Hz Cheby low pass, which is used as a cut off instead of a 70 Hz elliptic.  This is in the ISC_DRMI guardian now. 

I have turned off the L2P and L2Y decoupling, as I could only use very low gain with them on.  

Update:

Neither the PRM nor SRM had a true integrator in the top stage, now they both have one which we have engaged by hand, and the guardian has been edited to turn these on, which we will test after our next lockloss. 

Last update: We've tested the integrator switching on now, its fine.

H1 ISC
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:18, Sunday 16 August 2015 - last comment - 10:46, Monday 17 August 2015(20571)
SR3 cage servo

Sheila, Evan

Running the dc-coupled oplev servo on SR3 for long periods of time seems to be causing us grief (LHO#20519).

As an alternative, we are trying out a cage servo which feeds the witness sensor in pitch back to M2:

ezcaservo -r H1:SUS-SR3_M3_WIT_PMON -g -300 -s <SR3 M3 P witness setpoint> H1:SUS-SR3_M2_TEST_P_OFFSET

The step response of this loop has a time constant of 30 s or so.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 01:01, Monday 17 August 2015 (20579)

Jenne and I put this cage servo into a new guardian, called SR3_CAGE_SERVO.  One hick up in this process was the fact that the gain setting that works for ezcaservo is opposite to the one that works for cdsutils.servo 

This guardian is managed by the ISC_DRMI guardian, which doesn't turn it off but does make sure that it is turned on after DRMI locks.  There are states to run the servo, turn it off, and to clear the history (clear offset). We've added this guardian to the list of guardians in IFO guardian. (That is the guardian who checks that the state of other guardians), and set the nominal state to CAGE_SERVO_RUNNING.

We've also added it to the ISC guardian overview screen.   

If misaligning SR3, this servo needs to be off.  The guardian will go to CAGE_SERVO_OFF if SR3 is misaligned. 

jameson.rollins@LIGO.ORG - 10:46, Monday 17 August 2015 (20596)

Did you guys add this new node to the overview screen?  Please let me know when you add new nodes.  All nodes have to be tracked in the infrastructure, so we need to know all nodes that are running and are being depended upon by other nodes.

LHO General
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:01, Sunday 16 August 2015 (20567)
Ops Day Shift

Arrived with the IFO in Nominal Low Noise for 12+ hours.

Two things were a bit odd though: The ISS second loop was not engaged, and I didnt see an alog about that being done on purpose. Second, the the Inspiral range has been dropping from 70Mpc for about an hour since I arrived. We are down to about 40Mpc at 15:19 UTC. I'm trying to find a cause and I will log if I find anything.

Log in UTC:

1539 Robert making noise injections.

1547 Lockloss

1608 Robert to LVEA

1624 Robert out

1657 Started Initial Alignment

H1 General
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:15, Sunday 16 August 2015 (20569)
Locking Progess

Lost lock at 1547 UTC after 12+ hours. The alignment looked pretty bad afterward and I couldn't even get PRMI to lock. So, at 1657 I went to do an initial alignment. This seemed to make things much worse. I ended up moving PR2, PRM, and SRM quite a bit before I started seeing some activity on POP90 and POP18. This finally got PRMI and then DRMI.

Now it keeps losing lock at ENGAGE_ASC_PART1 when the CHARD Y gain is set to -2. I've tried -1, that didn't work. I will keep fiddling and see what I can get to work.

H1 General
nutsinee.kijbunchoo@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:11, Sunday 16 August 2015 (20566)
Owl Shift Summary

The interferometer has been locked for 10+ hours! With 6+ hours coincidence with L1. Things are looking good for O1 eh?

9:46UTC The 5.0M earthquake in Pacific-Antarctic Ridge shook the interferometer just a tiny bit. The range dropped slightly but slowly came back up.

14:00 I'm starting to see glitches in DARM spectrum at low frequency. BNS range has been droping in the past hour and hasn't come back up.

The violin modes hunting: Today I identified more ITM first harmonics. They have been added to the table. Including damping filters (which are subject to change). The ITMs are pretty much controlled.

 

Happy Sunday!

Images attached to this report
H1 ISC
nutsinee.kijbunchoo@LIGO.ORG - posted 05:12, Sunday 16 August 2015 - last comment - 08:37, Sunday 16 August 2015(20565)
Turned off ETMY_L2_DAMP_MODE3 + changed gain in Guardian

I noticed that it has been sending several thousands of counts to the actuators. The modes are well damped so I changed the gain to 0 for now. I have reduced the gain of this filter in Guardian to be 100 but I have not reload the code becase I don't want to risk causing a lock loss tonight (I'm not sure if reloading the code will cause any glitches in the control signal).

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
nutsinee.kijbunchoo@LIGO.ORG - 08:37, Sunday 16 August 2015 (20568)

TJ hit the reload button. All is well.

H1 ISC (CAL, ISC)
stefan.ballmer@LIGO.ORG - posted 23:50, Saturday 15 August 2015 - last comment - 21:46, Sunday 16 August 2015(20560)
Calibration: Suggestion for ESD drive strangth monitoring
I made the suggestion before, but today I actually tried it:

By driving both L2 and L3 at a fixed frequency, but with a gain and phase such that their contribution cancelers in DARM, we can easily monitor (and servo, if we want) the ESD drive strength, which is expected to vary with charging.

This method has the big advantage that there are NO LARGE cal line resulting in DARM.

Here are the settings I tried:
- H1:SUS-ETMY_L2_TEST_L_EXC: drive with 300 cts at 20Hz, phase   0  deg
- H1:SUS-ETMY_L3_TEST_L_EXC: drive with 51.7cts at 20Hz, phase 134.2deg

The resulting line in DARM is only ~0.016 times the size of the line with only 1 drive. I also used the H1:SUS-ETMY_L2_DAMP_MODE7_BL filter bank to monitor the line strength. This suggests we should get on the order of 1% monitoring precision on a few second time scale - all while only producing the tiniest peak in DARM - with no up-conversion feet.

Also - since the biggest variation we see is on the microseism time scale - we should try the ESD linearization..
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
stefan.ballmer@LIGO.ORG - 21:46, Sunday 16 August 2015 (20575)
Attached is a time series plot of the logarithmic line strength at 20Hz. The line stayed below 10^(-1.7) for the whole 9h30min of the lock, suggesting the ESD drive never changed more than 2%.

- The surge in arm power early on was due to a test Evan did.
- The odd drop at the end corresponds to when the data got glitchy - not sure what happened there...
Images attached to this comment
H1 ISC
gabriele.vajente@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:01, Saturday 15 August 2015 - last comment - 09:08, Monday 17 August 2015(20555)
Noise at the PSL periscope peaks due to OMC misalignment

I alrady noticed yesterday that the DARM noise at the periscope peaks (200-400 Hz) was high at the beginning of the lock and then reduced over time.

The first attached plot shows a BLRMS of DARM around those peaks, starting right after reaching the low noise state. There is a clear reduction of the noise over time. The second plot shows that on a similar time scale, the OMC alignment output signal changed, mostly ANG_Y.

This seems to confirm the idea that input beam jitter at the periscope peaks is converted into intensity noise by an OMC misalignment, which changes over time.

To confirm this, I move the OMC angular loops during full lock, adding offsets of few tens of counts to the POS and ANG loops. The third plot shows the steps in the control signals. I was able to reduce the BLRMS by adding an offset of -40 to the ANG_Y loop. The fourth plot compares the DARM spectrum with (red) and without (blue) the ANG_Y offset. I should have increased the offset more. Unfortunately, I noticed that the output was hitting the limit of 300 and I stupidly increased it to 1000: but since the loop was integrating, I broke the lock since I suddenly increased the output from -300 to -1000.

However, the experiment confirms that the noise at the periscope peaks changes in amplitude with the OMC alignment, which is not optimal.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jenne.driggers@LIGO.ORG - 00:34, Monday 17 August 2015 (20577)

I am not 100% sure what value Gabriele meant to leave, but I have accepted in SDF (Sheila and I are in process of clearing a bunch of diffs in SDF) the value of -30 for ANG_Y for the OMC.  I'll check with Gabriele about what value he meant to leave (his alog seems to indicate -40, but we found it at -30).

daniel.hoak@LIGO.ORG - 03:28, Monday 17 August 2015 (20583)ISC

Since we're using the QPD loops to align the OMC, it's probably better to record any change in the alignment in the QPD offsets.  I forget the channel names at the moment, but these are the offsets in the OMC QPD channels (not the same channels in the ASC models).  If the offsets are stored in the ANG and POS loops, they will have to be turned off if/when we switch to the dither alignment.  If they are recorded in the QPD filter banks it is one less thing to think about.

To summarize the OMC alignment: the QPD offsets have been tuned so the OMC is well-aligned in the low power state.  In this state, the dither error signals should be zero.  We know that as the power is increased, the QPD offsets are no longer a good alignment, especially in pitch -- this is according to the dither error signals.  We suspect the misalignment is due to some junk light that shifts the nominal alignment position on the QPDs.  Unfortunately, the misalignment is large enough that engaging the dither loops in the high power state saturates the drive to the OMC SUS.  This is why we have stuck with the QPD alignment for now...we should find a solution before O1 that allows us to use the dither loops.  The last time the alignment scheme had any attention was in late May.

Needless to say, do remember to check the drives to the OMC SUS OSEMs when changing the alignment settings, they may saturate!

gabriele.vajente@LIGO.ORG - 09:08, Monday 17 August 2015 (20595)

The offsets I left (-30) is better than 0, but not the optimal one yet. It's better to check the OMC alignment again

H1 CAL (CAL, ISC)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 19:48, Friday 14 August 2015 - last comment - 16:20, Sunday 16 August 2015(20542)
ALS DIFF VCO / PLL Open Loop Gain Modeled to better than 1% and 1 [deg]
J. Kissel, J. Driggers, C. Cahillane, K. Izumi

I've taken the data that we took last Sunday of the ALS DIFF PLL Open Loop Gain TF and Boosts (from LHO aLOG 20363), built a model of the loop. Given the precision of the measurement, I can make a model the reporoduces the boost filters and the PLL OLGTF to within 1% and 1 [deg]. The most important outcome of this is the ability to characterize the frequency dependence of the low-pass filter just before the VCO. The nominally z:p = 40:1.6 VCO Filter is actually a z:p = 1.05:40 Hz filter. This means that, in using the ALS DILL PLL CTRL signal, prior estimates of overall actuation strength of the QUADs (i.e. LHO aLOH 18711) was over estimated by (1.6-1.05)/1.6 = 34%. This potentially explains some of the discrepancy we saw when comparing the three methos, PCAL, Free Swinging Michelson, and ALS DIFF VCO in LHO aLOG 18767.

Of course, as you know, we plan remeasure all methods and make the comparison again.

Details:
------------------------------------
Here're the final answer numbers of the model:
                                                   Traditionally Quoted "Nominal" Values            This Model's Fit Values
Phase Frequency Discriminator (PFD)                        z:p = (none):(0Hz)                   z:p = (none):(0Hz, 450kHz)
Voltage Contolled Oscillator (VCO)                         z:p = 40Hz:1.6Hz                     z:p = 40Hz:1.05Hz
Phase Locking Loop (PLL) Control Common Gain               26 [dB]                                                     25.5 [dB]
Phase Locking Loop (PLL) Control Boost Filter 1            z:p:k = 20kHz:2kHz:0dB               z:p:k = 1.9kHz:1.89kHz:0dB
Phase Locking Loop (PLL) Control Boost Filter 2            z:p:k = 2kHz:40Hz:0dB                z:p:k = 1.95kHz:38.55Hz:-0.2dB

------
Attached are figures demonstrating the progression and precision of the model.
pg1 : The final answer, showing the model of the ALS DIFF PLL Open Loop Gain TF from 0.1 Hz to 1e6 Hz.
pg2 : PLL Control Boost Filter 1; a comparison between measurement, model with fit parameters, and nominal parameters
pg3 : PLL Control Boost Filter 2; a comparison between measurement, model with fit parameters, and nominal parameters
pg4 : PLL OLGTF, with out the boosts engaged
pg5 : PLL OLGTF, with boosts engaged
pg6 : A comparison between fit residuals and nominal residuals with measurement.
pg7 : A confirmation that the closed loop gain, G / 1+G, of the ALS DIFF PLL is indeed 1.0 to better than 0.1% out to 1 kHz.

------
Perhaps it is of interest for the scrutinous to focus on pg 6, where I compare the residuals, and it'll illustrate my motivations for the fit paramaters, and my quoting that we trust their values to such high precision.
Question 1: Why d'you think the magnitude uncertainty is less that 1%, when clearly the boost OLG measurement residual falls by 15% with frequency below 1 kHz, and the unboosted measurement residual falls by 10% with frequency below 100 Hz?
     Recall that at these frequencies, below 1 kHz and 100 Hz for the boosted and unboosted measurements, respectively there is a rediculous amount of loop suppression. As such, given that the phase residual holds up well to fitted poles, and has little affect on the magnitude residual, I suspect that the measurement magnitude drops with frequency as the suppression increases due to very-small, non-linear, in-loop voltage affects.

Question 2: Why do you think there's an 450 kHz pole in the PFD when you've only measured up to 100 kHz?
     I played around with the very-high-frequency response for a while. Of course, a pole is the only high-frequency tool one has to affect the magnitude residual, and 450 kHz was a good balance between the fitted time delay, and the frequency of the pole. Both the 800 [ns] and 450 kHz pole are "plausible." Inside the PFD, there is a fast chip, that the data sheet claims is good up to 100 kHz, but that doesn't mean much, because you don't know what rolloff filter was chosen. 800 [ns] would correspond to a few hundred meters of cable length difference, so it's not that. But if I see a consistent ~230 [ns] delay in the indepednent measurements of the boost filters, it's not crazy to think that the whole phase-locking-loop accrues 800 [ns].

------
The analysis script that built this model is commited to the CAL SVN here:
/ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/PreER8/H1/Scripts/ALSDIFF/ALSDIFFModel_PreER8.m
and the plots live here:
/ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/PreER8/H1/Results/ALSDIFF/2015-08-09_H1ALSDIFF_PLL*.pdf
Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 16:20, Sunday 16 August 2015 (20570)
Sheesh -- you'd figure I'd get the most important sentence in the aLOG right.

Of course, I mean to say:
The nominally z:p = 40:1.6 VCO Filter is actually a z:p = 40:1.05 Hz filter.
The pole is at 1.05 Hz.

Thanks for the catch, Matt.

Further, in the table, I make another typo:
                                                   Traditionally Quoted "Nominal" Values            This Model's Fit Values
Phase Frequency Discriminator (PFD)                        z:p = (none):(0Hz)                   z:p = (none):(0Hz, 450kHz)
Voltage Contolled Oscillator (VCO)                         z:p = 40Hz:1.6Hz                     z:p = 40Hz:1.05Hz
Phase Locking Loop (PLL) Control Common Gain               26 [dB]                                                     25.5 [dB]
Phase Locking Loop (PLL) Control Boost Filter 1            z:p:k = 20kHz:2kHz:0dB               z:p:k = 19kHz:1.89kHz:0dB
Phase Locking Loop (PLL) Control Boost Filter 2            z:p:k = 2kHz:40Hz:0dB                z:p:k = 1.95kHz:38.55Hz:-0.2dB


Thanks for that catch, Bram.

This is what I get for writing such an entry at 8p on a Friday, and then immediately leaving for an off-the-grid public outreach event for the weekend!

Are we any where closer to being able to edit aLOGs past 24 hours?
Displaying reports 57961-57980 of 78003.Go to page Start 2895 2896 2897 2898 2899 2900 2901 2902 2903 End