Found leak in OSB kitchen ceiling. Put catch bucket under leak and cleaned up water on floor and opened FSR #4211.
IFO mostly locked in Commissioning mode supporting commissioning/calibration work. There have been several lockloss events during the shift. Relocking has been relatively easy and has not yet required an initial alignment. Microseism has been trending up for the past couple of hours, but the other environmental conditions are OK.
Commissioning/calibration continues.
J. Kissel, While tuning the drive amplitudes on some explorative transfer functions regarding the UIM actuation discrepancy, I aborted a measurement which resulted in a huge spike from my excitation channels (much higher than my requested excitation) and broke the lock. This remains an open CDS Bug, open since this past July (see Bug 897); hopefully now that the run is over, we can install some updates to software such that this finally gets fixed.
Opened FRS ticket 4210.
While investigating an issue with x1seibsctim04 Jim Batch and I noticed that the power supply on the x1seiex IO chassis was dead. We replaced the power supply with a spare unit from the self. The new power supply appears to be getting 5v (some leds where lit), but it would not turn on (the fans would start to spin up and then stop).
Further investigation is needed. For now x1seiex has been disconnected from the dolphin network and turned off.
FRS 4218
https://services.ligo-la.caltech.edu/FRS/show_bug.cgi?id=4218
From the FRS: --- Comment #1 from richard.mccarthy@LIGO.ORG --- Turns out the an ADC interface board had a short dragging the power supply down. Replaced the board and returned the unit to service.
Transition Summary: Title: 01/12/2016, Evening Shift 00:00 – 08:00 (16:00 – 00:00) All times in UTC (PT) State of H1: IFO locked and in Commissioning, for calibration work. Outgoing Operator: TJ
TITLE: 01/12 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00UTC (08:00-16:00 PDT), all times posted in UTC"
STATE Of H1: Nominal Low Noise, Calibration injections ongoing
SHIFT SUMMARY: Quiet day in terms of maintenance, no problems I can think of. The commissioning and PEM work has been the cause of a few locklosses, and it came up easy every time (I didn't touch anything this last time)
INCOMING OPERATOR: Jeff B
ACTIVITY LOG:
The plot shows 150 days of the three stations - 120B is the LVEA, 410B is EY, and 510B is EX.
Gary Traylor, Ed Merilh, Travis Sedecki, Jeff Kissel While At LHO last week, I was curious as to why the DRMI was taking so long to acquire under guardian control. Ed and Travis suggested this step could take up to 20 minutes sometimes. It seems that there is not enough motion of the BS to pass through a fringe for DRMI to lock. I showed them a procedure that LLO operators may use to wiggle the BS alignment just enough to sweep a fringe that can spontaneously lock DRMI as long as all other alignments are good enough. From the MEDM align screen, the Yaw value for the BS can be adjusted by 0.2 using the arrow keys on the keyboard and immediately returned to its previous value at a ramp time of 1 second which will move the BS just enough to cross the fringe and when and if all of the other degrees of freedom are close, can cause a spontaneous lock. During my demonstration this worked 2 out of 3 times immediately and even though the 3rd attempt took a bit more time, I switched the slider direction to -0.2 then back to the previous value which locked immediately. Guess it needed the other edge of the fringe. I hope this is helpful for other operators to use during quiet times for quicker lock acquisition.
Still investigating, generic lokcloss plots attached. Only thing that these plots show is CHARD P&Y with an odd chatter about 120sec before lockloss.
Posted in SEI log 911. Repeated here verbatum:
LLO lost lock Christmas Eve: LLO aLog 23821. They found railing T240s and centering the T240 masses solved the issue. Stuart emailed me and set me down my current hole. Most of the things I found down there I knew before but I still appreciate the reminder and I learned a few things on the way back out.
Yes the T240 Mass Positions are monitored, for example:
Slow: H1:ISI-ETMX_T240MON_U1_INMON
Fast: H1:ISI-ETMX_T240MON_U1_IN1 (4k tp)
These are counts with a calibration of 20V/2^16cts/2
The second divide 2 is from the 2x gain in the T240 Interface chassis (still waiting for Ben to confirm this interpretation.)
Here is a snip from the T240 operations manual:
So here more may be less in that too many options make decisions harder. Given what we are doing, it makes sense though, that we require the T240 to stay within the +- 0.3V which is much tighter than the STS2 centering voltage limits: +-2.0 or 1.5V (depending on the manual source.) The output voltage range for the T240 and the STS2 are respectively +- 4.5 and 10.0 volts.
Kissel made a script for the STS2 and I've modified it to work for the IFOs ISI T240s. It is found in /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/isi/common/scripts. This is commited to the svn r12384. Here is the output for H1:
scripts 0$ ./check_T240_centering.py H1
Averaging Mass Centering channels for 10 [sec] ...
There are 19 T240 proof masses out of range ( > 0.3 [V] )!
ETMX T240 2 DOF X/U = -1.95 [V]
ETMX T240 2 DOF Y/V = -2.184 [V]
ETMX T240 2 DOF Z/W = -1.098 [V]
ITMX T240 1 DOF X/U = -3.175 [V]
ITMX T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.474 [V]
ITMX T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.576 [V]
ITMX T240 3 DOF X/U = -3.158 [V]
ITMY T240 1 DOF X/U = -0.396 [V]
ITMY T240 1 DOF Y/V = 0.38 [V]
ITMY T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.366 [V]
ITMY T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.445 [V]
ITMY T240 2 DOF Z/W = -0.31 [V]
ITMY T240 3 DOF X/U = -0.861 [V]
ITMY T240 3 DOF Z/W = -3.168 [V]
BS T240 1 DOF Y/V = 0.951 [V]
BS T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.427 [V]
BS T240 2 DOF X/U = 1.008 [V]
BS T240 2 DOF Z/W = 0.509 [V]
BS T240 3 DOF Z/W = 0.983 [V]
All other proof masses are within range ( < 0.3 [V] ):
ETMX T240 1 DOF X/U = 0.13 [V]
ETMX T240 1 DOF Y/V = 0.103 [V]
ETMX T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.125 [V]
ETMX T240 3 DOF X/U = 0.099 [V]
ETMX T240 3 DOF Y/V = 0.094 [V]
ETMX T240 3 DOF Z/W = 0.071 [V]
ETMY T240 1 DOF X/U = 0.139 [V]
ETMY T240 1 DOF Y/V = 0.101 [V]
ETMY T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.151 [V]
ETMY T240 2 DOF X/U = -0.058 [V]
ETMY T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.134 [V]
ETMY T240 2 DOF Z/W = 0.175 [V]
ETMY T240 3 DOF X/U = 0.162 [V]
ETMY T240 3 DOF Y/V = 0.124 [V]
ETMY T240 3 DOF Z/W = 0.244 [V]
ITMX T240 1 DOF Y/V = -0.092 [V]
ITMX T240 2 DOF X/U = -0.163 [V]
ITMX T240 2 DOF Z/W = 0.261 [V]
ITMX T240 3 DOF Y/V = 0.214 [V]
ITMX T240 3 DOF Z/W = -0.293 [V]
ITMY T240 2 DOF X/U = 0.227 [V]
ITMY T240 3 DOF Y/V = -0.293 [V]
BS T240 1 DOF X/U = 0.232 [V]
BS T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.236 [V]
BS T240 3 DOF X/U = 0.137 [V]
BS T240 3 DOF Y/V = 0.256 [V]
Assessment complete.
hugh.radkins@opsws8:scripts
So while most of the units out of 'range' are less than 1 volt, there are three masses at greater than 3volts. And no, LHO has not been monitoring these--thanks to Stuart for the prod to look closer.
Additionally, trekking to the CER is not required for centering. The X bank of the T240INF has an AutoZ (FM6) tied to the Binary Out for centering.
Again from the manual:
The other method is through RS232. The 1 second duration is the thing I wanted to highlight.
Attached are the mass positions for H1 ETMX T240s for 60 days. Very interesting...seven of the nine masses are wandering about +-200counts and the path is very similar, likely the temperature affect. The other two masses though (same T240) are masking most of the temperature swings with a 3000 count drift. Don't know what this tells me other than "please center me."
Performed a run spanning the time period from 1136505617 (Jan 11 2016 00:00:00 UTC) to 1136654705 (Jan 12 2016 17:24:48 UTC)
The following parameters were used for this run:
Ten injections were found to be scheduled to occur within this time period. All 10 were found to occur within the time period.
These match the ten injections recently created by Chris Biwer: https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=24873, https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=24888
There were 10 network injections found. None of these injections occurred as single-IFO injections. While all injections occurred consistently in the ODC-MASTER and GDS-CALIB channels across HOFT, RAW, and RDS frame files, they were not found to occur in the CAL-INJ channel in the RAW frame files (see discussion below); consequently all were flagged as anomalous by HWInjReport (even though, as discussed below, they may not be). All of the injections appear to have occurred with 1-2 millisecond coincidence times, with each injection occurring first at L1 and then at H1. All injections were of type CBC.
All of the injections found were considered inconsistent by HWInjReport because they were not found to occur in the CAL-INJ_ODC_CHANNEL_OUT_DQ channel. However, it has come to my attention that this channel is replaced by CAL-PINJX_ODC_CHANNEL_OUT_DQ (need confirmation; this channel was found by review of some past emails and making an educated guess), which is currently not supported by HWInjReport. Cursory examination of the channel with FrBitmaskTransitions (HWInjCheck, also, does not support the new channel) for injection at 1136584228.995 does indeed reveal the injection to occur at that time in CAL-PINJX_ODC_CHANNEL_OUT_DQ with the expected TRANSIENT (bit 9) and CBC-type (bit 10) injection bits set to “off”. I expect the same will be true for all the other injections. This is likely also the case for injections found during the period of Dec 12 2016 to Jan 6 2016 https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=24747, which also were missing indications of occurrence in CAL-INJ_ODC_CHANNEL_OUT_DQ. It is likely that all injections would be flagged as normal injections if HWInjReport supported the CAL-PINJX channel.
It should not be difficult to upgrade HWInjReport to support the new channel and include the feature in the next release version. After such time, this run can be repeated to confirm that the injections do not contain any further anomalies.
Complete results from this DQ shift may be found at here.
Not sure of the cause yet.
Attached are 7 day pitch, yaw, and SUM trends for all active H1 optical levers.
Centering: All oplevs within acceptable operating range, no re-centering required.
Glitching: No change from last week.
During the last lock segment, we had the Tidal Error messages (X& Y COMM CTRL within 10% of limit). Additionally, noticed on the Striptool on nuc1 that IMC-F_OUT16 was diverging & drifting off-screen (see attached). Ultimately there was a lockloss (could it be related?).
Talked to Hugh while we were locked, and he pointed me to the End Station HEPIs & also to the ISC signals they get. He mentioned they have a limit of 700,000counts. ETMy was moving below -36,000 (this was OK). EX was flatlined at 14,660 (this was ODD). But since both of these were well away from 700,000, we ruled out this being a tidal issue and figured it was something upstream (ISC? PSL?). We'll see how the next lock looks.
The attachment shows how the integrated ALS offsets remain as error point offsets for the IMC-F → UIM offloading.
We should bleed these ALS offsets away once we have transitioned off ALS, and preferrably before increasing the laser power (as this will load CARM by a few microns).
I thought that with EX tidal flatlined, the IMC frequency changes to try and keep H1 locked, but then runs out of range causing lock loss?
Wouldn't that mean the EX flatlined is the issue, IMC_F is just responding?
It seems that during this lock acquisition, there were large offsets remaining on the ALS → UIM offloading filter modules, and correspondingly large offsets on the IMC-F → UIM offloading filter modules (which are used during full lock).
The IMC-F → UIM offloading hit the limit around 15:50:00 Z, causing the tidal offloading to halt. As Cheryl said, this means IMC-F starts accumulating a dc offset to keep the laser on resonance.
J. Kissel, R. Savage, E. Goetz, D. Tuyenbayev We've replicated a study similar yesterday (LHO aLOG 24784) to what LLO has done in early December (see LLO aLOG 23184), in order to confirm/demonstrate the Delta L = Lx - Ly (i.e. no factors of 1/2) convention for the calibration. In addition, we confirm the accuracy of the relative calibration between PCALX and PCALY by comparing a true CARM and true DARM excitation. In summary, - When the PCALs are driven exactly 180 [deg] apart at equal amplitude (i.e. "true DARM," where amplitude is predicted by PCAL), the DARM displacement (i.e. Delta L = Lx - Ly, as measured by the IFO) is twice the amplitude. Convention confirmed! - Comparing the ratio of a true CARM (driven hard enough that some residual DARM is visible in DELTAL_EXTERNAL) and true DARM excitation (again in DELTAL_EXTERNAL), the ratio of CARM / DARM = 0.004, or 0.4%. This indicates that the relative calibration between the two PCALs better than 0.4%. Very good! Details %%%%%%%%%%%%%% ----------------------------------- Setting the amplitude of excitation ----------------------------------- In order to set up PCALX to drive at exactly the same amplitude as PCALY, we followed Shivaraj's procedure from LLO aLOG 24043, but not perfectly. In step 3 of his procedure, he determined the amplitude ratio between digitally requested counts of drive at PCALY vs PCALX end assuming the Optical Follower Servo (OFS) PD has been well-calibrated into force on the test mass (Newtons), such that the relative offset in the PCALY and PCALX servo represents the relative amplitude ratio of digitally requested drive to impose the same amount of force on the test mass. LHO's OFS PDs have not yet been into Newtons. Instead, we use each PCAL's main TX PDs, which *have* been well-calibrated into Newtons, and take the ratio of the TX PD (in Newtons) to OFS PD (in Volts), TX PD(X) N (X) TX PD(Y) N (Y) ------ = --- and -------- = --- . OFS PD V OFS PD V These transfer functions are frequency independent. Further, the OFS PD Volts are proportional the DAC counts [ct] of the oscillator such that TX PD (Y) OFS PD X Drive [ct] . ------ . ------ = Y Drive [ct] OFS PD TX PD (X) These transfer functions, taken at 36.7 [Hz] are shown in the right-most panels of the two attachments 2016-01-08_H1PCAL_TrueCARM_Drive_TXRX_TF.png and 2016-01-08_H1PCAL_TrueDARM_Drive_TXRX_TF.png. Conveniently, the ratio of transfer functions happens to be 2.00. So, we need to drive the X end exactly twice as hard as as the Y end. Once the amplitude is identical at both PCALs, the phase is tuned as described in Shivaraj's procedue, such that the PCALs are driving at the same phase to achieve pure CARM excitation. Remember, both the Sine and Cosine amplitudes must be ON and the same, for this whole phasing thing to work. For simplicity, we -- like Shivaraj -- just chose the same three frequencies that are on PCALY all the time, 36.7, 331.9, and 1083.7 [Hz] and at roughly their normal amplitudes (100, 1500, and 7500 [ct] respectively). The phase is tuned manually on the PCALX oscillator to 0.0 +/- 0.2 [deg]. This is demonstrated on the middle three panels (one for each line) in 2016-01-08_H1PCAL_TrueCARM_Drive_TXRX_TF.png. We then compare the transfer functions between both end station's estimate of thier respective test mass' displacement. This is shown in the left-most three panels of 2016-01-08_H1PCAL_TrueCARM_Drive_TXRX_TF.png. Recall that at the PCAL X-end, there are troubles with clipping in the RX PD (see, e.g., LHO aLOG 24774), so the PCALX TX PD is the best source of calibrated displacement at that end, and is what is used as the reference in the TFs. This compared against the PCALY's TX PD and RX PD, both of which are also well-calibrated into [m] of Y-end Test Mass displacement. As can be seen, the ratio of TX PDs is better that 0.002 (or 0.2%). Awesome. Though they only looked at it quickly, the PCAL team claimed to understand why PCALY's RX PD is 2% larger than both PCALY and PCALX's TX PDs, but I don't recall why. I'll ask them to comment on this log about it. Though above details of how the amplitude and phase of each excitation is matched may be tough to follow, the take-away is that we "dead reckon" the amplitude with each end stations PCALs calibration (which, admittedly are both based on LHO's working standard, derived from NIST's gold standard). We do not "cheat the result," for example, by driving in CARM, and minimizing the amplitude and phase by minimizing the line height in DARM. Finally, we flip the X-end PCAL excitation phase by 180 [deg], such that we're now driving pure DARM. A remeasurement of the relative phase between X and Y confirms the 180 +/- 0.2 [deg] difference, and the amplitude ratios between end stations's TX and RX PDs are identical (also awesome). Both the DARM and CARM configurations were measured at the normal amplitude, driving all three lines at once. While driving in DARM, the DELTAL_EXTERNAL displacement is exactly twice the predicted test mass displacement at all three frequencies These are shown in the attachments 2016-01-08_H1DARM_ASD_PCAL_TrueCARM_Drive.pdf and 2016-01-08_H1DARM_ASD_PCAL_TrueDARM_Drive.pdf. However, while driving all three lines simultaneously in CARM, we did not have enough actuation range on PCALX to see any residual DARM motion. As such, we repeated the test only driving the 331.9 [Hz] line, but much harder in both end stations (12e3 [ct] at Y, 24e3 [ct] at X). At this level of drive, the residual DARM motion during true CARM excitation was visible. Comparing that ratio of CARM to DARM, we find the residual, relative drive calibration between the end stations, (true CARM EXC) / (true DARM EXC) as measured by DARM is 0.0042683 at 331 [Hz]. A large fraction of this residual DARM is likely limited by the precision to which we've measured the ratio of requested actuator strengths (which we rounded to 2.00, instead of higher precision; upon later inspection with a cursor, the ratio is 2.0037675). However, the calibration has been demonstrated to better than the total uncertainty claimed by PCAL, 0.76%, so we need not spend the time to be more precise. The location of the measurement templates are restated here for convenience: /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/PostO1/H1/Measurements/PCAL/ 2016-01-08_H1DARM_ASD_PCAL_TrueCARM_Drive.xml 2016-01-08_H1DARM_ASD_PCAL_TrueDARM_Drive.xml 2016-01-08_H1PCAL_TrueCARM_Drive.xml 2016-01-08_H1PCAL_TrueDARM_Drive.xml and have been commited.
Investigation of ~1.8% discrepancy between TxPD and RxPD calibrated channels
During "H1 PCAL True DARM / CARM Excitations" study (see original alog above) we discovered that H1:CAL-PCALY_RX_PD_OUT_DQ / H1:CAL-PCALY_TX_PD_OUT_DQ transfer function deviates from 1 by about 1.8 % (see top-left subplot in the 2nd image attachment to original alog).
These are the channels calibrated in meters (except for zpk( [ 1, 1 ] : [ ], 1) whitening) of PCALY actuation and we expect them to give the same actuation level.
We found that a N / V calibration factors installed in H1CALEY foton file correspond to a calibration results from May 22, 2015 given in Pcal end-station calibration report (the first column in the report correspond to May 22).
Our recent PCALY end-station calibration measurement show that since May 22 these calibration factors have changed (see DCC T1500131-v2). Between May 22 and Aug 11 an overall optical efficiency of PCALY system increased from 0.977 to 0.989, which is probably the most significant contributor.
Our analysis show that currently installed PCALY TxPD calibration factor is off by 0.89% and RxPD factor is off by 0.78%.
Comparison with recent measurements of PCALY N / V calibration factors
Since RxPD and TxPD calibration discrepancy must be due to non frequency dependent gain factors (the V / W absolute power calibration of TxPD and RxPD) we will use a single line values of RxPD and TxPD readouts. We use TxPD and RxPD outputs in volts to compare how calibrated signals from these two photodetectors will differ from each other.
Amplitudes of voltages measured by RxPD and TxPD at 331.9 Hz (we have a Pcal calibration line at this frequency) at 12/01/2016 01:03:32 UTC are:
VTx = 0.75448 [ V ]
VRx = 1.09274 [ V ]
Currently installed calibration factors are based on following V / W absolute power on ETM calibrations that correspond to May 22 meausrements;
TxPD: ρTxe = 4.3572 [ V / W ]
RxPD: ρRxe = 6.1953 [ V / W ]
The amount of laser power incident on ETM calculated from currently installed calibration factors give values that are discrepant by 1.82 %:
calculated from TxPD: P = 0.17316 [ W ]
calculated from RxPD: P = 0.17638 [ W ]
If instead we use most recently measured calibration factors (from Dec 22, 2015, LHO alog 24398):
TxPD: ρTxe = 4.3187 * 10 [ V / W ]
RxPD: ρRxe = 6.2438 * 10 [ V / W ]
the amount of laser power incident on ETM will be consistent (discrepancy < 0.19 %):
calculated from TxPD: P = 0.17470 [ W ]
calculated from RxPD: P = 0.17501 [ W ]
Additional notes:
There's no indication of when exactly overall optical efficiency changes between May 22 and Aug 11, surfing through alog gave two occasions when some work was done on PCALY: on May 26 (LHO alog 18638) and on May 28 (LHO alog 18665).
There was no indication that an overall optical efficiency of PCALY changed after Aug 11.
Filter archive show that PCALY calibration factors in H1CALEY foton file did not change since Aug 08 2015 03:52:15 UTC.
J. Kissel In order to begin exploring the systematic discrepancy between model and measurement below ~30 [Hz] in the IFO's sensing function (see, e.g. LHO aLOG 24709), we've taken PCAL2DARM and DARMOLGTF transfer functions at the normal amplitude and at half amplitude. Sadly, the IFO lost lock during the last few (low frequency) data points of the last half amplitude DARMOLGTF, but I think we have enough data to make a comparison. Premiliminary message: there's no obvious, unexpected difference between normal and half amplitude. Coherence is less, so the data points are a little more scattered, but no surprise there. One thing of note, while watching the DARM ASD during the measurement, there are no signs of higher harmonics in the PCAL excitation, but once the DARM OLGTF (as driven by the ESD and subsequent upper stages) reaches ~20 Hz, one can clearly see a second harmonic in the ASD meaching along right behind the fundamental excitation frequency. To give a feel, during the normal amplitude drive, once the excitation hit ~15 [Hz], the second harmonic's amplitude was roughly 3.5 orders of mangitude below the fundamental (but still clearly visible thanks to the discrepancy between the 10 and 30 [Hz] sensitivity). Recall that the linearization for ETMY is *not* on in the IFO's lowest noise state. The EY bias voltage remains -380 [V] (with an effective bias voltage from charge of ~ -20 [V]; see LHO aLOG 24547). We leave the IFO down for the PCAL team to explore PCALX problems (see LHO aLOG 24726), and so Betsy can grab this week's charge measurements on ETMY. Analysis of the data to come later, but the files live here: /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/PostO1/H1/Measurements/DARMOLGTFs/ 2016-01-08_H1_DARM_OLGTF_7to1200Hz.xml 2016-01-08_H1_DARM_OLGTF_7to1200Hz_halfamp.xml /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/PostO1/H1/Measurements/PCAL 2016-01-08_PCALY2DARMTF_7to1200Hz.xml 2016-01-08_PCALY2DARMTF_7to1200Hz_halfamp.xml
Later, I have processed the transfer functions that Jeff took and I have made a comparison. I do not see any systematic change between the measurements with the nominal amplitudes and the ones with half amplitudes. See the attached pdf for more details. Note that we are seeking a systematic as large as 20 % at 10 Hz. There are seemingly statistical error in the measurement but they don't look systematic.
The analysis code lives in the SVN at: /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/PostO1/H1/Scripts/DARMOLGTFs/HalfAmp_20160112.m
The resultant plot can be found at: /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/PostO1/H1/Results/DARMOLGTFs/2016-01-08_HalfAmp.pdf
Performed a run spanning the time period from 1132963217 (Dec 01 2015 00:00:00 UTC) to 1136155727 (Jan 06 2016 22:48:30 UTC)
The following parameters were used for this run:
During this time period, 12 scheduled injections were found to have occurred
Only 1 injection was found to not occur:
Of the occurring scheduled injections, only two occurred as single-IFO injections:
All other scheduled injections occurred as H1-L1 coincident injections. The only UNSCHEDULED injections were 5 CALRESETs at L1 and 1 CALRESET at H1.
The CALRESET injections have the same pattern of occurring with only certain paired combinations of the frame flags indicated by HWInjReport, as seen previously. However, all of the occurring scheduled injections have the anomaly of not occurring in the CAL-INJ channel and not having the TRANSIENT bit set to “off” to indicate the presence of a transient injection. They do occur, consistently, in the ODC-MASTER channel for HOFT, RAW, and RDS frames and the GDS-CALIB channel for HOFT frames.
Minor correction made to report. There were, in fact, 2 single-IFO injections that occurred, both in L1. I missed the second one due to an eyeball error.
As reported by Chris B. in https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=24282, the two single-IFO injections were the result of H1 losing lock.
The absence of occurrence of the injections in the CAL-INJ channel turns out to not be an anomaly but the result of a deliberate change to using the new CAL-PINJX_ODC_CHANNEL_OUT_DQ channel to record the information that was originally in CAL-INJ_ODC_CHANNEL_OUT_DQ. Currently, HWInjReport does not check the CAL-PINJX channel, however, it should not be difficult to add checking on this channel.
