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.
I reset the PSL 35W FE watchdog at 17:13 UTC (9:13 PST).
I also noticed the diode chiller was indicating a low water level warning, so I added 300 mL of water; this cleared the low level warning. Crystal chiller is fine.
Photograph of the LHO Control Room at 8:00AM PST, Tuesday 2016 January 12.
Title: 1/12 Owl Shift 8:00-16:00 UTC (0:00-8:00 PST). All times in UTC.
State of H1: Observing
Shift Summary: Concurrent LHO/LLO locks for the past 19 hours. Not a bad way to wrap up O1!
Incoming operator: TJ
Activity log:
15:06 Ken driving his truck around to OSB mechanical building
ITLE: 01/12 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00UTC (08:00-16:00 PDT), all times posted in UTC"
STATE Of H1: Observing at 78Mpc for 19hours
OUTGOING OPERATOR:Travis
QUICK SUMMARY: End of O1! Let maintenance and calibration begin.
Summary: We scheduled 10 coherent CBC waveforms to be injected into H1 and L1 during observation mode (alog 24867). All 10 coherent waveforms were successfully performed once. Waveforms: The waveforms were generated by Salvo and John V. The tagged version of the waveform generation tools was not used. The reason for not using the tagged version is that we wanted to inject precessing waveforms but we do not have a time-domain precessing approximant. Therefore Salvo, John had to make some edits to the waveform generation tools to use a frequency-domain approximant. The waveforms were committed to the SVN. The parameters files are in: https://daqsvn.ligo-la.caltech.edu/svn/injection/hwinj/Details/Inspiral/ The names of the parameter files are: coherentbbh20_1135136337.xml coherentbbh21_1135136336.xml coherentbbh22_1135136336.xml coherentbbh23_1135136337.xml coherentbbh24_1135136337.xml coherentbbh25_1135136337.xml coherentbbh26_1135136336.xml coherentbbh27_1135136336.xml coherentbbh28_1135136335.xml coherentbbh29_1135136336.xml The waveform files are in: https://daqsvn.ligo-la.caltech.edu/svn/injection/hwinj/Details/Inspiral/H1/ and https://daqsvn.ligo-la.caltech.edu/svn/injection/hwinj/Details/Inspiral/L1/ The waveform file names are: coherentbbh20_1135136337_H1.out coherentbbh21_1135136336_H1.out coherentbbh22_1135136336_H1.out coherentbbh23_1135136337_H1.out coherentbbh24_1135136337_H1.out coherentbbh25_1135136337_H1.out coherentbbh26_1135136336_H1.out coherentbbh27_1135136336_H1.out coherentbbh28_1135136335_H1.out coherentbbh29_1135136336_H1.out coherentbbh20_1135136337_L1.out coherentbbh21_1135136336_L1.out coherentbbh22_1135136336_L1.out coherentbbh23_1135136337_L1.out coherentbbh24_1135136337_L1.out coherentbbh25_1135136337_L1.out coherentbbh26_1135136336_L1.out coherentbbh27_1135136336_L1.out coherentbbh28_1135136335_L1.out coherentbbh29_1135136336_L1.out I'll request that Salvo, John include anything they used to generate the waveforms such that their waveforms are reproducible. Schedule: All ten injections were scheduled and successfully injected. The following was added to the schedule file: 1136584223 1 1.0 coherentbbh20_1135136337_ This injection was successful. After this injection completed, we left observation mode briefly so that Jeff could turn off the PUM and UIM PCAL lines (alog 24872). We then returned to observation mode and the following was added to the schedule: 1136586132 1 1.0 coherentbbh21_1135136336_ 1136587232 1 1.0 coherentbbh22_1135136336_ 1136588332 1 1.0 coherentbbh23_1135136337_ 1136589432 1 1.0 coherentbbh24_1135136337_ 1136590532 1 1.0 coherentbbh25_1135136337_ 1136591632 1 1.0 coherentbbh26_1135136336_ 1136592732 1 1.0 coherentbbh27_1135136336_ 1136593832 1 1.0 coherentbbh28_1135136335_ 1136594932 1 1.0 coherentbbh29_1135136336_ These injections were all successful. GraceDB entries: Therefore the following graceid, and end times of the injections is: H215896 1136594946.67 H215895 1136593847.67 H215894 1136592746.63 H215893 1136591646.63 H215892 1136590545.64 H215891 1136589445.66 H215890 1136588345.67 H215889 1136587246.63 H215888 1136586146.67 H215880 1136584236.63 There were three erroenous gracedb entries, please ignore these: H215887 3313.668306 H215886 2214.632416 H215885 1114.669055
Locked in Observing for 15 hours now. Nothing of note to report.
Activity Log: All Times in UTC (PT) 00:00 (16:00) Take over from Ed 00:26 (16:26) John – Back from Mid-Y 00:28 (16:28) Bubba – Back from Mid-Y 00:31 (16:31) Kyle – Back from Mid-Y 01:10 (17:10) Set intent bit to Commissioning to dress up recycling power 01:21 (17:21) Completed alignment tweak on TMS-Y and Back into Observing 08:00 (00:00) Turn over to Travis End of Shift Summary: Title: 01/11/2015, Evening Shift 00:00 – 08:00 (16:00 – 00:00) All times in UTC (PT) Support: Jeff K., Vinny Incoming Operator: Travis Shift Detail Summary: Took IFO to Commissioning to adjust recycling power. Moved TMS-Y pitch from 138.4 to 136.2 and yaw from 21.4 to 21.3. POP_A_LF_OUT is now between 16160 and 16200 counts. Will monitor for continued drift and adjust as necessary. The IFO has been in Observing mode for the entire Evening shift, (minus the 10 minutes, the IFO was in Commissioning mode noted in previous aLOG). Environmental conditions remain good, with wind holding at a light breeze or less (< 7 mph), seismic flat, and microseism improving to 0.4um/s. Range and power remained constant during the shift. The recycling power continues above 16k counts; it has not declined during the shift.
With the exception of dropping into commissioning mode for about 10 minutes the IFO has been in Observing mode for the past 6 hours. The range has been high 70s to low 80s Mpc, power is 21.4W. The wind is calm to light air (0-3mph). Seismic has been on a downward trend for the past 4 hours and is now centered around 0.07um/s. Microseism is also trending downward and centered at 0.5um/s, with occasional CS spikes to just over 1.0um/s. The recycling power is holding above 16k counts.
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.
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.
