TITLE: 07/10 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 145Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Oli
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 26mph Gusts, 9mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.05 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.05 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
IFO is in NLN and OBSERVING as of 21:43 UTC
Conditions look great except for slightly high winds (same as yesterday). Have been in the control room for about an hour and there have been no SQZ locklosses!
There appears to be an instability when locking ALS. The X arm green build up and ASC signals begin to shake as the DARM gain is ramped to 40 and then 400. This caused multiple locklosses until we held at green arms for a longer convergence time before going to locking ALS. I have attached a screenshot of the successful lock but the oscillation still occurred. Maybe the extra WFS convergence time ensures the green controls are more robust against the darm gain change. We should look into this.
Jennie, Elenna, Camilla, Matt
DTT saved as camilla.compton/Documents/sqz/templates/dtt/20250710_SQZdata.xml and screenshot attached.
Starting angle at 141deg
Type | Time (UTC) | Angle | DTT Ref | Notes |
No SQZ | 17:21:30 - 17:31:30 | N/A | ref 0 | |
FIS Mean SQZ (no ADF) | 17:40:00 - 17:43:00 | N/A | ref 1 | |
FIS Mid SQZ +50deg | 17:49:00 - 17:52:00 | (-) 191 | ref 2 | |
Scatter shelf and Lockloss |
OPO Setpoint | Amplified Max | Amplified Min | UnAmp | Dark | NLG | OPO Gain | Note |
80uW | 0.0518 | 0.007026 | -1.35e-5 | 7.35 | -8 | Before changing OPO temp, to match Kevins data | |
80uW | 0.083055 | 0.0023519 | 0.007026 | -1.35e-5 | 11.8 | -8 | With changing OPO temp |
Sheila and Matt found that we get different temperature optimizations when optimizing the SEED beam or the RF6 with OPO locked. We tested this out again by checking the NLG again before and after using Sheila's new 85532 SCAN_OPOTEMP OPO GRD state, with a silightly increased range (0.015 rather than 0.01 and 180s rather than 120s), see plot in exports/SQZ/GRD/OPOTEMP_SCAN/. It adjusted temp -0.002deg, the NLG did not change, stayed at ~11.8.
I ran a script that pulls the full 524 kHz OMC DCPD A and B channels during the no squeezing time. The data that was saved was 10 minutes of no squeezing data. I saved the data into .gwf files at the full rate, and another downsampled to 64 kHz.
The data is saved in /ligo/home/elenna.capote/OMC_DCPD/251007-102149_xcorr_data as OMC_DCPD_{A,B}_{524,64}.gwf which can be easily read by gwpy. Unfortunately I can't upload them here because the alog doesn't accept this file format, but I can pass it along to you as necessary if you don't have control room access.
Looks like the ITMY R0 alignment tramp was accepted in SDF at 300seconds from its usual 30sec back in June 16. This has been accpeted at 30sec now.
Lockloss July 07, 2025 17:54 UTC during commissioning due to commissioner error after over 14 hours locked (LL website not loading)
Thu Jul 10 10:05:57 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 5min 53secs
WP 12660
Last Tuesday, two 3T Gurulp seismometers in the Biergarten were powered down. A functional/huddle test was performed last November, alog 81097. Power supply and cabling was cleaned up. Before powering down, units were locked via the breakout/controller boxes. Units were left in the LVEA in the PEM area. Units are H1 spares.
Cabling and test equipment for a HS-1 geophone was also removed. This was part of the NN Seismic Array HS-1 testing down last year, alog 81257.
TITLE: 07/10 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 145Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Corey
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 5mph Gusts, 2mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.05 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Observing at 145 Mpc and have been Locked for 11 hours.
TITLE: 07/10 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 144Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Corey
SHIFT SUMMARY:
IFO is in NLN and OBSERVING as of 03:37 UTC
H1 has been mostly well behaved this shift though the same cannot be said for the wind. Wind gusts reached 42mph and anything over 30mph was difficult to lock in. After the wind calmed down, no initial alignment was needed anmd we got to NLN quite quickly. In such a windcy environment (it's still around 28mph now), we still reached NLN 1.5 hrs after LL.
The 42mph wind gust period did cause a lockloss (Lockloss alog 85662). Instabilities and saturations that followed the gust live were seen and heard pre-LL.
Meanwhile, the SQZ FC2 SUS is complaining that it's too noisy, so the FC has been losing lock once every 5 minutes and then coming back, prompting observing sporadically. I think this is coupled to the wind because when we had a lull that went below 30mph, SQZ stayed locked. Hopefully it stays that way.
LOG:
None
Closes FAMIS 27819. Last checked in alog 85440
CO2Y:
Before: 10.3ml
After: 10.3ml
Water Added: 0ml
CO2X:
Before: 30.4ml
After: 30.4ml
Water Added: 0ml
No water leaking in our leak detection system (aka dixie cup)
The wind has been at and around 40mph for about an hour. The Squeezer has been sturggling to stay locked, with 3 SQZ locklosses bumping us into comissioning. While we were int he last one, we got a particularly strong gust which was the probably cause of the lockloss.
Relocking again now though this will have low success if winds stay above 30mph.
Randy moved the 3IFO ISS PD array (S1202968) crate from MY storage to the OSB yesterday (WP). I opened the crate, moved the transport/storage container to the vacuum lab and optics lab to inspect. It was in a good shape except that some upgrade parts weren't there. Since I'm already forgetting what happened to other units, here's the summary.
First about parts.
Next, the summary per unit.
Here's the thing about the PD array plate D1300322 (see attached). The updated version has a wider 100deg conical bore for larger beam clearance because it was found at some point (ECR E1400231) that the clearance was too small for the original bore and the reflection of some PDs will hit the bore wall at an glazing angle instead of hitting the beam dump. It's also easy to imagine that if you fiddle with the alignment for the production unit in chamber, INPUT light on some PDs will hit the bore wall first before hitting the PD surface.
We have the blue glass beam dumps for the S1202966 unit, they just need cleaned - location is sitting on top of the unit in the Optics lab.
TITLE: 07/10 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Acquisition
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
SHIFT SUMMARY: Currently relocking and in ACQUIRE_DRMI_1F. We've been struggling the last hour+ due to the wind picking up. Earlier in relocking, we were seeing some ALSX crystal frequency issues, but they thankfully went away pretty fast.
THE LVEA IS LASER HAZARD
Three lock acquisitions during my shift today:
1st) went well after running an initial alignment, but we did have a couple issues at higher level states:
- In INJECT_SQUEEZING, we noticed the 1 Hz ringup happening again. We did what Elenna mentioned in 85643 and upped the CSOFT P gain from 20 to 25. This worked to slowly fix the ringup (85649)
- The filter cavity wouldn't lock. It was unlocking when it got to TRANSITION_IR or FC_ASC_ON. I checked H1:SQZ-FC_TRANS_C_LF_OUTPUT, and it was already pretty good at around 116, but I was able to adjust FC2 to get it up to over 125. We were still losing the filter cavity after this, so I checked what was done when we had this issue a couple weeks ago (85390). I was able to confirm from checking those same channels that we were in a good spot for all of them. Sheila mentioned adjusting the OPO temp, and that worked
2nd) went quickly and I just needed to help ALSY
3rd) current relocking, struggling with DRMI/PRMI, ALSX crystal frequency, and the wind
LOG:
14:30UTC Relocking and in ACQUIRE_PRMI
- In INJECT_SQUEEZING, we noticed the 1 Hz ringup happening again. We did what Elenna mentioned in 85643
16:11 NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE
- FC wouldn't lock. I ended up adjusting the OPO temperature to fix this
16:56 Observing
17:39 Lockloss
19:04 NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE
19:07 Observing
21:55 Lockloss
- Check crystal frequency issues, but not for very long
- Couldn't lock DRMI, cycled through PRMI, MICH, etc, so decided to run initial alignment
- Wind started going up, making it hard to keep ALS locked
Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
14:53 | FAC | Randy | EY | n | Pump alignment (in at 14:30) | 15:40 |
15:40 | FAC | Randy | MX | n | Inventory | 17:09 |
15:51 | Jason | OpticsLab | n | Scoping out PMC locations for JAC | 15:56 | |
16:05 | EPO | Robert, Matt + parents | Roof | n | Looking out over the desert | 16:37 |
17:09 | FAC | Randy | MY | n | Inventory, craning | 18:09 |
17:13 | Jason, Betsy | VacPrep | n | Moving JAC PMC for inspection (Betsy out at some point in time) | 20:02 | |
18:30 | ISC | Keita | VacPrep Lab | n | Inventory | 19:44 |
19:04 | ISC | Jennie | VacPrep Lab | n | Joining Keita | 19:44 |
20:55 | VAC | Gerardo | FCES | n | Taking photo of gauge | 21:13 |
22:02 | PEM | Robert | LVEA | n | Getting stuff ready for commissioning tomorrow | 22:46 |
22:13 | EE | Betsy, Fil | CER | n | Checking something | 22:26 |
22:37 | Ibrahim | LVEA | YES | Transitioning us to laser hazard | 22:46 | |
23:06 | PEM | Robert | LVEA | YES | Taking viewport off | 23:14 |
Camilla, TJ, Dave:
Last Thursday 26th June 2025 alog85373 I restarted the HWS camera control code. We hoped this would improve the 2Hz noise comb in DARM. Initial results for F-Scan (observing) suggest it has not made much, if any difference.
Attached F-Scans show the spectra on sun22jun2025 and mon30jun2025. The 2Hz comb (blue squares) look unchanged.
More investigation is needed to verfiy we are indeed disabling the frame aquisition on all HWS cameras when H1 is in observation.
Looking at the HWS camera data, Dave's code was successfully stopping the HWS camera dueing NLN from 27th June, as expected 85373.
However, looking at the f-scans from the last week, the 2Hz comb was there until 3rd July but was gone on 4th July and hasn't returned since.
Nothing HWS related should have changed on the 3rd July (ops shift log 85519).
Excellent, thank you Camilla and Dave! This is very helpful.
Jennie W, Sheila, Elenna
In order to get data for mode-matching and for Elenna to get data to calibrate sideband heights we ran some mode scans after the SR3 heater was turned on last night.
16:55:24 UTC Carried out single bounce OMC scan at 10W PSL input with sensor correction on HAM6 on, high voltage on for PZT driver in HAM6, sidebands off , SRM mis-aligned, ITMY mis-aligned, DC 3 and 4 on, OMC ASC on.
Excitation freq changed to 0.005 Hz as the top peak of the TM00 mode looked squint so could have been saturating. Lowering this frequency prevented this.
Ref 15-17 corresponds to dcpd data, pzt exc signal, pzt2 dc monitor.
Then mis-aligned ITMX and aligned ITMY (Sheila had to re-align SR2 to centre on ASC-AS_C).
Measurement starts at 17:08:18 UTC.
Ref 18-20 corresponds to dcpd data, pzt exc signal, pzt2 dc monitor.
Traces saved in 20250516_OMC_scan.xml. The top left plot is the first scan bouncing beam off ITMX, the second scan is the bottom right bouncing off ITMY.
The top right is the two plots of the PZT2 DC voltage monitor. That is, the current voltage applied to the PZT. The bottom left is the plot of the voltage ramp applied to the PZT2 on the OMC for this measurement.
The ndscope attached shows the power in mA transmitted through the OMC on the top, then the PZT used for the scan DC voltage underneath, then the input PZT voltage underneath that, then the reflected power from the OMC in mW, then at the bottom the SR3 heater element temperature in degrees.
Elenna did two more scans in single bounce with sidebands back on and different modulations depths in each.
See Elenna's comment on her previous measurement where this saturation happened.
Turn off the sidebands - instructions in this alog.
Sheila and I ran one more OMC scan with sidebands off after OM2 heated up. Attached is the screenshot with scans off both ITMX and ITMY, data is saved in [userapp]/omc/h1/templates/OMC_scan_single_bounce_sidebands_off.xml
I also ran two OMC scans, single bounce off ITMY, 10 W input, with the sidebands ON. One measurement I ran with the sidebands set to 23 dBm and 27 dBm (9 and 45 MHz) and another set to 20 dBm and 21 dBm (9 and 45 MHz). I will use these measurements to calibrate the modulation depth. Data saved in /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/omc/h1/templates/OMC_scan_single_bounce_RF_cal.xml
SR3 heater was on for this measurement but it should have little effect on my results.
Looked closer at these HWS signals during SR3 heater heat up and cool down. In all these plots, the two t-cursors are used as the reference and shown HWS live image.
Some strange things:
Finally got round to fitting the two single bounce mode scans done with SR3 hot and OM2 cold. The first we had ITMX aligned, the second we switched to ITMY aligned.
These can currently be processed using OMCscan.py in the /dev branch for the labutils/omcscan repository at /ligo/gitcommon/labutils/omc_scan, you need to have activated the labutils conda environment to do so.
The call statements for the data processing are:
python OMCscan.py 1431449762 130 "1st 1431449762 - SR3 hot, 10W PSL, ITMY mis-aligned" "single bounce" -s -v -o 2 -m
python OMCscan.py 1431450536 140 "2nd 1431450536 - SR3 hot, 10W PSL, ITMX mis-aligned" "single bounce" -s --verbose -m -o 2
For each measurement the tag -s specifices that the sidebands were not on and so in order to calibrate the PZT the code uses the two TM00 modes and then you have to tell it in what height order the 10 and 20 modes appear relative to the highest peak which will be one of the 00 modes.
def identify_C02(self):
"""If in single bounce configuration, and with sidebands off,
identify 10 and 20 modes in order to improve fit.
Assumes that
OMCscan.identify_peaks()
and
OMCscan.identify_carrier_00_peaks()
have already been run.
Output:
-------
self.peak_dict: dictionary
first set of keys are carrier, 45 upper, 45 lower
second set of keys are TEM mode, e.g. "00", "01", "20", etc.
third set of keys is the fsr number
"""
# Create temporary dictionary to combine into self.peak_dict
peak_dict = {}
peak_dict["carrier"] = {"10": {}, "20": {}}
#print(peak_dict)
nn = [2, 1]
mm = 0
#freq_diff = np.empty(np.size(self.peak_frequencies)) not sure why this line here.
#set frequency to be that of third largest peak.
first_order = np.argsort(self.peak_heights)[-4]#-4 for second meas.
second_order = np.argsort(self.peak_heights)[-3]#change index to match where 20 is in terfirst meas if measuring from start of scan.ms of peak height.
#print(third_larg)
for ii, peak_freq in enumerate(self.peak_frequencies):
if peak_freq == self.peak_frequencies[second_order]:
#print("found C02")
#print(f"List fields in IFO {self.fields_MHz}")
#print(type(self.fields_MHz))
#print(f"OMC HOM spacing {self.omc_hom} MHz")
#print(type(self.omc_hom))
field = f"carrier"
#print(f"mode {field}{nn[0]}{mm}")
peak_dict[field]["20"][-1] = {
"height": self.peak_heights[ii],
"voltage": self.peak_pzt_voltages[ii],
"frequency": self.peak_frequencies[ii],
"true_frequency": np.mod((self.fields_MHz - (nn[0] + mm) * self.omc_hom), self.omc_fsr),
"label": r"$c_{20}$",
}
self.peak_ided[ii] = 1
elif peak_freq == self.peak_frequencies[first_order]:
field = f"carrier"
peak_dict[field]["10"][-1] = {
"height": self.peak_heights[ii],
"voltage": self.peak_pzt_voltages[ii],
"frequency": self.peak_frequencies[ii],
"true_frequency": np.mod((self.fields_MHz - (nn[1] + mm) * self.omc_hom), self.omc_fsr),
"label": r"$c_{10}$",
}
self.peak_ided[ii] = 1
else:
continue
# Merge dictionaries
#if not "20" in peak_dict["carrier"].keys():
self.peak_dict["carrier"] = {**self.peak_dict["carrier"], **peak_dict["carrier"]}
#print(self.peak_dict)
#print(self.peak_ided)
return
For both measurements I only took slightly over 1 FSR of the data, this is because in order to fit a polynomial to the known peaks (allowing us to calculate the PZT non-linearity), the code assumes the 1st order is the 3rd highest and 2nd order is the 4th highest. In the code above you need to change the indexes in the below lines to match the height order of the peaks (ie. and index of -4 is fourth highest peak).
first_order = np.argsort(self.peak_heights)[-4]
second_order = np.argsort(self.peak_heights)[-3]
When the mode-matching is bad this may not be true, also if there are multiple FSRs in the scan this also may not be true.
First measurement 1st order mode is fifth highest, 2nd order mode is third highest. The scan is here. I took 130 s of data. The PZT fit is here.
Second measurement the 1st order mode was the 4th highest, 2nd order mode was the third highest. The scan is here. I took 140s of the scan data. The PZT fit is here.
First measurement has
1.69/(1.69+15.86) = 9.63 % mode mis-match.
Second measurement has
1.25*100/(1.25 + 16.46) = 7.06 % mode mis-match
I also analysed the single bounce measurements Elenna and Sheila made after OM2 was heated up. So these have both SR3 and OM2 hot.
For both these measurements C02 was the third highest mode and C01 was the fourth highest. I took 120s starting 45s into the scan.
Measurement 1: 23:40:38 UTC on 2025/05/16 with ITMX aligned and ITMY mis-aligned.
See the spectrum with labelled peaks here.
And the PZT calibration here.
Mode mis-match is:
0.93/( 0.93 + 17.29 ) = 5.10 %
Measurement 2: 23:46:48 UTC on 2025/05/16 with ITMY aligned and ITMX mis-aligned.
See the spectrum with labelled peaks here.
And the PZT calibration here.
100 * 0.56/( 0.56 + 17.62 ) = 3.08 %
Bear in mind that this is assuming that there is no astigmatism in the OMC (since there is but we cannot resolve 02 vs 20 modes). This requires some careful analysis of uncertainties to get useful info about how we should tune for better mode-matching. Watch this space.
Sheila, Camilla
Data to take and how each data is used in the model:
Edited instruction for: