nds1 died and needed a hard reset.

I have increased the heater control at HC1B from 9 to 11ma.

Summary

I updated the quad matlab model parameter file with SolidWorks estimates of the test mass and PUM rotational inertias. Previously these values were output from a fitting algorithm using the measured resonance frequencies, see log 10089.

The updated parameter files are quadopt_fiber.m (the generic quad file) and h1etmy.m. quadopt_fiber.m is the general quad file, h1etmy.m is specific to H1ETMY. They are currently identical since we have the most measurements from H1ETMY. Both live in this directory

.../SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/Common/MatlabTools/QuadModel_Production

Discussion

This update was done because there has been some discussion on the accuracy of the test mass inertias in the model. The solidworks mass values for the test mass and PUM agree with the measured weights to 0.2% and 0.07% respectively. This doesn't tell us the error for the inertias, but since they are small, it is a good sign. Previosuly, the inertias were chosen by the aforementioned fitting algorithm. These had differed from solidworks by 2% in roll (I3x) and yaw (I3z), and 7% in pitch (I3y). Further, Shivaraj pointed out that the pitch inertia from the fit was smaller than the yaw, which can't be true due to the flats on the optic. The assumption is that the solidworks estimates are more accurate.

With the updated inertias on the PUM and test mass, I made a new fit of the model, floating all the d's of each stage, the inertias of the top mass and UIM, the spring stiffnesses, and the vertical stiffness of the fibers. I wouldn’t put too much faith into the accuracy of these values. The best we can do is try to make a model that matches the information we have. If we ever get new or better information (such as good L-P coupling data) we can update the model with that then.

The plots in the first pdf show a comparison of the measured H1ETMY transfer functions to the previous model fit and the new one. They all match pretty well. The new fit appears to match the top mass L to P measurement better.

The plots in the second attached pdf show the ratios of the new fit to the old fit for the damped L to L TFs from all stages to the test mass. The damping loops were imported from those currently running at LHO. These ratios all appear to be within 10% of unity.

For reference, this is a summary of the history of model revisions on the svn:

* generate_QUAD_Model_Production.m

rev 7359: now reads foton files for main chain and reaction damping

rev 7436: Changed hard coded DAMP gains to get the correct values for LHO ETMX specifically.

rev 7508: Restored damping filter choice for P to level 2.1 filters as opposed to Keita's modification. Cleaned up error checking code on foton filter files, and allowed handling of filter archive files and files with the full path.

rev 7639: renaming lho etmy parameter file

rev 7642: Adding custom parameter file for each quad. Each one is a copy of h1etmy at this point, since that one has the most available data.

rev 7646: added ability to read live filters from sites, and ability to load custom parameter files for each suspension

rev 7652: updated to allow damping filters from sites from a specific gps time (in addition to the live reading option)

planned future revision - seismic noise will progate through the damping filters as in real life. i.e the OSEMs are relative sensors and measure the displacement between the cage and the suspension.

* ssmake4pv2eMB5f_fiber.m

no recent (at least 4 years) functional changes have been made to this file.

* quadopt_fiber.m

- rev 2731: name of file changed to quadopt_fiber.m, removing the date to avoid confusion with Mark Barton's Mathametica files.

- rev 6374: updated based on H1ETM fit in 10089.

- rev 7392: updated pend.ln to provide as-built CM heights according to T1500046

- rev 7912: the update described in this log, where the solidworks values for the inertias of the test mass and pum were put into the model, and the model was then refit.  Same as h1etmy.m.

* h1etmy.m

- rev 7640: created the H1ETMY parameter file based on the fit discussed in 10089.

- rev 7911: the update described in this log, where the solidworks values for the inertias of the test mass and pum were put into the model, and the model was then refit. Same as quadopt_fiber.m.

Observing at 78Mpc for 5 hours.

Wind minimal, useism 0.5um/s, CW inj running, LLO on their way up.

• TITLE: 12/24 Eve Shift: 00:00-08:00UTC (16:00-00:00 PDT), all times posted in UTC"

• STATE Of H1: Observing at 80Mpc for 1 hrs

• OUTGOING OPERATOR: Travis

• QUICK SUMMARY: Wind <8mph, useism 0.6um/s, CW inj running, PSL 21.9W, LLO is observing as well.

•  

Title: 12/24 Day Shift 16:00-24:00 UTC (8:00-16:00 PST).  All times in UTC.

State of H1: Observing

Shift Summary: After a slow start from being down overnight, and a short-lived lock stretch ended by EQs, we are back to Observing.

Incoming operator: TJ

Activity log:

16:04 Hugh to CER to recenter ground STS

16:20 Hugh done

22:40 Gerardo to CP3 for refill

23:00 Gerardo back

I added 125 mL of water to the PSL crystal chiller.  The diode chiller level is good.

Manually filled CP3 at 22:42 utc, opened the fill valve by one full turn, time to see LN2 out of the exhaust 3:40 minutes.

Hopefully Santa has some GWs in his bag.

I've learned the process for remotely re centering the STS2 masses.  I played with this on STS2-C.  The attached plot shows my mucking about.

When I first did this you can see CH21 going from -3000 to -10000.  Something less than 5000 counts is centered well enough.  It took a few iterations to get CH21 signal back down and I did a few more so to get CH22 under 3000 counts.  So this works but it can take several attempts.  I'll still be pessimistic about STS2-B which has the mass that swings back and a forth +-14000 counts on each centering.  This one may not center well until something else is done

I'm doing the usual tricks of freeing up some disk space on /ligo (compressing old autoburt snap files, removing core files). Don't be alarmed if the free space drops while I am doing this.

Both L1 and H1 lost lock at times that coincide with the predicted arrival times for a 5.4 EQ on the Southern East Pacific Rise.

After a lengthy initial alignment period, we are back in Observing mode.  Some issues I ran into that I had not dealt with before include MICH_DARK not locking and SRC alignment issues.  Kiwamu advised to skip the MICH_DARK locking and align MICH by hand to the best of my ability.  Kiwamu also advised with PRC locking which basically involved gross adjustment of PRM.  After a couple of rounds of PRMI tweaking, we proceeded to NLN with little issue.  A few SDF diffs were accepted:

• violin mode filters for all TMs
• LSC-MICH_LIMIT setpoint 400000 epics 10000
• LSC-ASAIR_A_RF45_I_OFFSET setpoint -80.619 epics -75
• LSC-ASAIR_A_RF45_I_OFFSET setpoint 18.833 epics 18.55

Observing @ 19:47 UTC.

Changed the diskless node mount points for /opt and /opt/rtcds to the x1fs0 computer, rebooted x1psl0.  All models restarted and are running as well as before.  I'm moving other test stand computers to use x1fs0 for /opt/rtcds.

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the lab
The wind it was howling and tilting the slab;

Seismic was ringing and microseism was too high
To lock the thing up was just not going to fly;
   
The staff were all tucked safe in their beds
While visions of more data danced in their heads; 

The wind it was blowing at just a mere gale
When the side of the building sounded like it was pelted with hail;

I sprang from my chair to see what was the matter
Away to the door to discover what was the clatter;

 As I opened the door, it was ripped from my hand with such speed, 
There was just enough time to duck flying tumbleweed;

So back to the control room I quickly retreated
And sunk into the chair, forced to admit I was totally defeated;
 
This Owl shift was done before it was over
With little to do but hope tomorrow would find LHO again in Observing clover; 

The doors are all locked, and the Guardian’s state is in Down
All that is left is to head back into town;

But the operator was heard to exclaim as he drove out off the site
HAPPY CHRISTMAS TO ALL, AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT!

We've continued to investigate activity around 74 Hz in order to explain the coherence line between H1 and L1 generated by stochmon. 

Attached is a comprehensive set of results from the coherence tool (the full set of results can be found here). The coherence tool plots coherence with the local (H1 or L1) h(t) channel, averaged over a week with 1mHz resolution. The slides attached show the channels showing coherence structure around 74 Hz over the course of O1. You can find relevant plots via a download link in the attached slides.

C. Cahillane

I have updated the LHO uncertainty budget, fixed some bugs, and generated fewer, more relevant plots.

All calibration versions are included in every budget.  I will review the details each version below:
C00: No kappas, no static systematics applied
C01: No kappas, static systematics applied
C02: kappa_tst and kappa_C applied, kappa_pu and cavity pole not applied, static systematics applied
C03: "Perfect", so all kappas and cavity pole applied, static systematics applied
Whenever I do ratio comparisons between model response functions, the "perfect" C03 model is in the denominator.

***** PDFs 1, 2, and 3 *****
These contain the C01, C02, and C03 uncertainty budgets at GPS Time = 1126259461.  (Kappas provided by Darkhan in aLOG 11499.  Thanks Darkhan!)
Plot 1 is the calibration version response function over C03's response function. 
Plot 2 is four plots.  The mag and phase squared uncertainty components plots and the total mag and phase strain uncertainty by itself.
Plots 3-6 are just enlarged versions of Plot 2.

***** PDF 4 and 5 *****
PDF 4 is the Sensing fits and statistics
PDF 5 are the Actuation stages fits and statistics

***** PDF 6 *****
This 4 way subplot of all the calibration versions together on one plot.  I plot the mag and phase response functions and their ratios.

For the C01 calibration version, we have under 7% and 4 degrees of uncertainty (See PDF 1, Plot 2)
For the C02 calibration version, we have under 6% and 3.5 degrees of uncertainty (See PDF 2, Plot 2)