Activity Log: All Times in UTC (PT) 23:00 (16:00) Take over from TJ 23:15 (16:15) Complete initial alignment. 23:16 (16:16) Trying to relock 23:37 (16:37) Sheila left the site 00:00 (17:00) Put IFO in down state until wind and seismic calms down. 02:05 (19:05) Robert S. left the site 02:15 (19:15) Wind below mostly 30 mph - trying to relock 02:35 (19:35) Wind back up, gusts near 40 mph– Cannot get past LOCKING_ALS, will wait for things to settle a bit more 04:18 (21:18) Wind up and down; Seismic still high. Tried relocking with same negative results 04:43 (21:43) After 12 lockloss at LOCKING_ALS in 12 locking attempts and now seeing wind gusts up to 50+ mph, put the IFO in a DOWN state waiting for Mother Nature to relax 06:28 (23:28) Wind dropping but still gusty, seismic activity still high. Going to give locking another try 07:00 (00:00) Turn over to Travis End of Shift Summary: Title: 10/10/2015, Evening Shift 23:00 – 07:00 (16:00 – 00:00) All times in UTC (PT) Support: Sheila, Elli Incoming Operator: Travis Shift Summary: - After many tries cannot get past ALS locking state. Wind still over 35 mph with gusts to mid-50s. Will wait until settle down before trying to relock. - Turned on Jim W. 45 mHz ST1 blends on ITMY while trying to lock (04:18 to 04:43). Saw no difference in the behavior of Y and X during ALS locking. Saw no apparent difference in behavior of the ALS locking with the 45 mHz or Quite_90 ST1 Blends. - Wind strong and gusty all shift. Seismic activity also high all shift. The wind is still in the upper 20s and gusty, although it is trending lower. In the past 30 have been able to get to LOCK_DRMI_1F before lockloss. Conditions are improving.
Wind had settled a bit (in the teens and 20 mph range) but seismic activity still high. I tried to relock using the 45 mHz Blends, supplied by Jim W, on ITMY. There was no observed difference in the locking/lockloss behavior with the 45 mHz or Quite_90 Blends. I restored the Quite_90 Blends on ITMY. Note: While trying to relock this time the wind came back up into the 20s and 30s with several gusts in the 40s, and a couple of gusts over 50 mph. I don't know how good a test of the 45 mHz Blends this was.
IFO has been unlocked all shift. Wind is still high (gusts in the 50s mph) but calming down. Mostly wind is in mid 20s to low 30s. Seismic activity is still high but also settling down. Tried relocking about 30 minutes ago, with no luck. Still cannot move beyond LOCKING_ALS. As conditions improve will continue to try relocking.
Title: 10/10/2015, Evening Shift 23:00 – 07:00 (16:00 – 00:00) All times in UTC (PT) State of H1: At 23:00 (16:00) Unlocked due to high wind and seismic activity. Running initial alignment. Outgoing Operator: TJ Quick Summary: Wind is high 35mpg with gusts to over 40mph; seismic activity is also high. At shift change, TJ was finishing an initial alignment. Now trying to relock.
Title: 10/10 Day Shift 15:00-23:00 UTC (8:00-16:00 PST). All times in UTC.
State of H1: Unlocked, high winds and high microseism
Shift Summary: Locked until 21:24, haven't been able to relock since due to environment issue.
Incoming operator: Jeff B.
Activity log:
After the lockloss at 21:24 UTC we haven't been able to lock since.
A few possible environmental factors for these locking woes:
Out of Observing so Sheila can run her A2L script while LLO is down (WP#5552)
Observing at ~75Mpc. LLO was up for an hour or so but they are back down. The Hanford Fire Dept had to drive to MY to check a panel that was giving them an alert. Gardening crew is still on site and so is a tour group.
1. The re-calibrated C01 hoft data now exist at CIT.
The results of some quick tests are given below.
The calibration group should decide if it wants to do further testing before we announce that this data is ready for analysis.
Updated missing data and DQ flags are also yet to be inserted into the segment database.
2. The filter files and command line arguments used with gstlal_compute_strain are documented here:
https://wiki.ligo.org/Calibration/GDSCalibrationConfigurations
3. The frame-types, channels names, and DQ flag names are documented in the DCC here:
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1500502
Specifically, the frame-types are H1_HOFT_C01 and L1_HOFT_C01 and exist for:
H1: 1125969920 == Sep 11 2015 01:25:03 UTC to 1128398848 == Oct 09 2015 04:07:11 UTC
L1: 1126031360 == Sep 11 2015 18:29:03 UTC to 1128398848 == Oct 09 2015 04:07:11 UTC
4. I have update the times C01 exists on the GDS calibration configuration pages, on the O1 Run page, and in the DCC document:
https://wiki.ligo.org/Calibration/GDSCalibrationConfigurations
https://wiki.ligo.org/LSC/JRPComm/ObsRun1#Calibrated_Data_Generation_Plans_and_Status
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1500502
(And the wiki pages, https://wiki.ligo.org/Calibration/T1500502_Prototype_Info points to the DCC document.)
5. Missing data flags and updated DQ flags are yet to be inserted into the segment database, pending generating these and an OK to proceed.
Here are some important details:
There is no missing H1_HOFT_C01.
There are gaps in L1_HOFT_C01 due to times when there were bad dataValid flags in the raw 64 s L1_R data. These gaps have been reduced down to the times of those raw frames -/+ 16 wings needed for filtering.
The times of the gaps in L1 C01 hoft intersected with L1_DMT-ANALYSIS_READY:1 are:
$ ./compareSegLists.tcl -f1 segs_MISSING_L1_HOFT_C01.txt -f2 segs_L1_DMT-ANALYSIS_READY_1.txt -i -s -T
1127128496 1127128592 96
1127353008 1127353104 96
1127387760 1127387856 96
1127435760 1127435856 96
1127687856 1127687952 96
1128122032 1128122075 43
1128122086 1128122128 42
1128320816 1128320912 96
Total duration = 661 seconds.
The UTC time of raw L1_R data with bad dataValid flags that intersect L1_DMT-ANALYSIS_READY:1 are:
$ ./compareSegLists.tcl -f1 segs_MISSING_L1_HOFT_C01.txt -f2 segs_L1_DMT-ANALYSIS_READY_1.txt -i | awk '{sum = $1 + 16; print sum}' | xargs -l tconvert
Sep 24 2015 11:14:55 UTC
Sep 27 2015 01:36:47 UTC
Sep 27 2015 11:15:59 UTC
Sep 28 2015 00:35:59 UTC
Sep 30 2015 22:37:35 UTC
Oct 05 2015 23:13:51 UTC
Oct 05 2015 23:14:45 UTC
Oct 08 2015 06:26:55 UTC
Most of the above seem associated loss or gain of lock. For example, see the drop out in L1 lock segments near Sep 24 2015 11:14:55 UTC here:
https://ldas-jobs.ligo-la.caltech.edu/~detchar/summary/day/20150924/
Gaps have been filled in when C00 was missing during maintenance days after DMT calibration restarts, but none of these intersect with L1_DMT-ANALYSIS_READY:1
Bottom line: The analysis using the C01 hoft will lose 661 s of L1 ANALYSIS_READY time due to bad dataValid flags.
6. The data is available via NDS2 and using gw_data_find.
Quick test show no issues, e.g., in these example comparison plots between GDS online and DCS offline C01 spectra from Oct 9 (i.e., after Oct. 6 filter updates):
https://ldvw.ligo.caltech.edu/ldvw/view?act=getImg&imgId=99928
https://ldvw.ligo.caltech.edu/ldvw/view?act=getImg&imgId=99929
And for example, calibration factors (which are not applied) now agree too, e.g., for L1:
https://ldvw.ligo.caltech.edu/ldvw/view?act=getImg&imgId=99835
https://ldvw.ligo.caltech.edu/ldvw/view?act=getImg&imgId=99836
https://ldvw.ligo.caltech.edu/ldvw/view?act=getImg&imgId=99839
The calibration group should decide if it wants to do further testing.
Back to Observing at ~73Mpc after Robert's work, LLO is still down.
While LLO is down, Robert will do some injections
Title: 10/10 DAY Shift: 15:00-23:00UTC (8:00-16:00PDT), all times posted in UTC
State of H1: Observation Mode at 74Mpc
Outgoing Operator: Travis
Quick Summary: No issues, it was locked his whole shift with a handful of saturations as usual. Microseisms are VERY high, wind is between 5-20mph, and LLO is currently down.
Title: 10/10 Owl Shift 7:00-15:00 UTC (0:00-8:00 PST). All times in UTC.
State of H1: Observing
Shift Summary: Locked for the entire shift in Observing. Wind and seismic calm. A typical number of ETMy saturations.
Incoming operator: TJ
Activity log:
14:45 Landscapers on site
Locked in Observing Mode for the past 12 hours.
Activity Log: All Times in UTC (PT) 23:00 (16:00) Take over from Ed 23:00 (16:99) Intent Bit set at Observing 23:40 (16:40) Finished GRB hold 23:58 (16:58) Kyle & Gerardo – Back from Mid-Y 06:15 (23:15) Nutsinee – Left the site 07:00 (00:00) Turn over to Travis End of Shift Summary: Title: 10/09/2015, Evening Shift 23:00 – 07:00 (16:00 – 00:00) All times in UTC (PT) Support: Marissa Incoming Operator: Travis Shift Summary: - 23:00 (16:00) IFO locked. Intent Bit set to Commissioning. Wind is moderate, some seismic activity. - 23:00 (16:00) Received GRB alert at 22:40 – Held site in stand down mode until 23:40 (16:40). A smooth and quiet shift. Some wind (gust up to mid 30mph) and moderate seismic activity in first part of shift. Wind and seismic activity settling down toward end of shift. Had nine (9) saturation alarms during shift.
IFO has been locked at NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE, 22.4w, 76Mpc, in Observing mode for first four hours of the shift. The wind is moderate (between 5 & 20mph), microseism is steady at <0.5micron/s. Higher frequency seismic activity has been declining all shift. In a GRB hold from 22:40 (15:40) to 23:40 (16:40.) There have been six (6) ETM-Y saturation events thus far this shift. All other IFO vital signs are normal.
Kyle, Gerardo 1140 hrs. local -> Spun up LD, Turbo and QDP80 1330 hrs. local -> 7.1 x 10-8 torr*L/sec with cal-leak open -> closed cal-leak -> < 10-11 torr*L/sec with cal-leak closed -> Calibration is OK 1335 hrs. local -> Valved-in Turbo to Y-mid volume -> Y-mid background initially found to be 1.8 x 10-8 torr*L/sec -> Fell steadily to 8 x 10-9 torr*L/sec over the next 60 minutes of pumping Begin Testing 1435 hrs. local -> Began leak testing aLIGO GNB spool welds -> "Bagged" flange-to-spool welds in 180 degree sections -> Applied 5 LPM helium flow at bottom of bag and pumped at top of bag via O2 sensor/pump -> Started 100 second timer when 0% < O2 < 7% -> No response for either flange (4 bagged sections) -> Tested butt welds of cylinder spool roll -> Bagged butt weld in three sections (from flange to stiffener, between stiffeners and from stiffener to other flange) -> Background remained steady at 8 x 10-9 torr*L/sec during entire test period until a few seconds before the conclusion of the last weld test at which point it began to climb -> Stopped helium flow -> signal continued to climb -> removed bags from two most recent welds tested -> signal continued to rise -> Signal peaked at 1.2 x 10-7 torr*L/sec (tens of minutes after stoppage of helium flow) -> Isolated LD from Turbo exhaust -> signal immediately fell to < 10-11 torr*L/sec -> Recombined LD to Turbo exhaust -> Opened up building exterior doors to air out room. 1645 hrs. local -> Valved-out turbo from Y-mid volume and shut down LD and pumps with Y-mid background at 4.6 x 10-8 torr*L/sec. Conclusion: In retrospect, we should have reduced the helium flow rate once a minimum O2% was achieved. As is, we put more helium into the room that was necessary (calculate a total of 85 liters over 90 minutes). As such, we cannot conclude that the last weld tested was the source of the signal response. We did demonstrate, however, that there is a leak(s) at the Y-mid (as opposed to other explanations) when we isolated the LD from the Turbo exhaust and the signal immediately fell off. I propose that for the next session we pump the Y-mid with the turbo for a few hours to get the background back into the 10-9 range then revisit the last two butt welds tested.
C. Cahillane I have finally decided to check if linearly adding A_pu for uncertainty is okay. It turns out it's conservative, and we get lower uncertainty bars if we propagate correctly. The equation for A_pu is: A_pu = A_pum + A_uim We had been propagating uncertainty linearly like this: σ_|A_pu| = |A_pum| * σ_|A_pum| + |A_uim| * σ_|A_uim| σ_φ_A_pu = σ_φ_A_pum + σ_φ_A_uim This is bad. The correct way to propagate it is quadratically. I do not yet have a nice write-up of my equations, but they will be included in DCC T1400586 hopefully soon. There is no mysterious method of uncertainty propagation used, just simple first order Taylor expansion. The plot below is my comparison of the correct vs. linear uncertainty propagation. Plot 1 is the comparison including systematic errors in uncertainty. Plot 2 is statistical uncertainty only.
Summary: We had single-IFO time so I tested the new inverse actuation filter for PCALX. WP5530 Sudarshan and I believe we tracked down the factor of 2 and sign error from the initial PCALX test, see aLog 22160. We wanted to do this test to confirm that. CBC injections: The waveform file is: https://daqsvn.ligo-la.caltech.edu/svn/injection/hwinj/Details/Inspiral/H1/coherenttest1from15hz_1126257408.out The XML parameter file is: https://daqsvn.ligo-la.caltech.edu/svn/injection/hwinj/Details/Inspiral/h1l1coherenttest1from15hz_1126257408.xml.gz I did three CBC injections. The start times of the injections were: 1128303091.000000000, 1128303224.000000000, and 1128303391.000000000. The command line to do the injections is: ezcawrite H1:CAL-INJ_TINJ_TYPE 1 awgstream H1:CAL-PCALX_SWEPT_SINE_EXC 16384 coherenttest1from15hz_1126257408.out 1.0 -d -d >> 20151006_log_pcal.out awgstream H1:CAL-PCALX_SWEPT_SINE_EXC 16384 coherenttest1from15hz_1126257408.out 1.0 -d -d >> 20151006_log_pcal.out awgstream H1:CAL-PCALX_SWEPT_SINE_EXC 16384 coherenttest1from15hz_1126257408.out 1.0 -d -d >> 20151006_log_pcal.out I have attached the log. I had to change the file extension to be posted to the aLog. DetChar injection: I injected Jordan's waveform file: https://daqsvn.ligo-la.caltech.edu/svn/injection/hwinj/Details/detchar/detchar_03Oct2015_PCAL.txt The start time of the injection is: 1128303531.000000000 The command line to do the injections is: awgstream H1:CAL-PCALX_SWEPT_SINE_EXC 16384 detchar_03Oct2015_PCAL.txt 1.0 -d -d >> 20151006_log_pcal_detchar.out I have attached the log. I had to change the file extension to be posted to the aLog.
Chris Buchanan and Thomas Abbott,
Quick follow-up with omega scans. It looks like most of the power is seen in GDS-CALIB_STRAIN about eight seconds after each listed injection time, consistently for each of these three injections. Doesn't look like there are omicron triggers for these times yet, but omega scans for GDS-CALIB_STRAIN are attached.
Full omega scans generated here:
https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~christopher.buchanan/Omega/Oct07_PCALX_Inj1/
https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~christopher.buchanan/Omega/Oct07_PCALX_Inj2/
https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~christopher.buchanan/Omega/Oct07_PCALX_Inj3/
For complete documentation of the detchar safety injections:
The injections are 12 sine-gaussians, evenly spaced from 30hz to 430hz, 3 seconds apart with a Q of 6. There are three sets with increasing SNR of 25, 50, 100 (intended). However, the SNR is limited by the PCAL acuation range at higher frequencies.
To generate the waveforms I used the script written by Peter Shawhan / Andy located here: https://daqsvn.ligo-la.caltech.edu/websvn/filedetails.php?repname=injection&path=%2Fhwinj%2FDetails%2Fdetchar%2FGenerateSGSequencePCAL.m
I tuned the injections to stay within the PCAL actuation limits referenced in Peter Fritschel's document https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-
The intended time (seconds from start time of injections), freqency, snr, and amplitude (in units of strain) for all injections are pasted below:
__time__ __freq__ __SNR__ __AMP__
0.50 30.0 25.0 5.14e-21
3.50 38.2 25.0 4.96e-21
6.50 48.7 25.0 2.15e-21
9.50 62.0 25.0 2.07e-21
12.50 79.0 25.0 1.75e-21
15.50 100.6 25.0 1.78e-21
18.50 128.2 25.0 1.92e-21
21.50 163.3 25.0 2.06e-21
24.50 208.0 25.0 2.39e-21
27.50 265.0 10.0 1.11e-21
30.50 337.6 5.0 8.39e-22
33.50 430.0 5.0 8.51e-22
36.50 30.0 50.0 1.03e-20
39.50 38.2 50.0 9.92e-21
42.50 48.7 50.0 4.31e-21
45.50 62.0 50.0 4.14e-21
48.50 79.0 50.0 3.51e-21
51.50 100.6 50.0 3.55e-21
54.50 128.2 50.0 3.85e-21
57.50 163.3 50.0 4.12e-21
60.50 208.0 50.0 4.77e-21
63.50 265.0 20.0 2.21e-21
66.50 337.6 10.0 1.68e-21
69.50 430.0 10.0 1.7e-21
72.50 30.0 100.0 2.06e-20
75.50 38.2 100.0 1.98e-20
78.50 48.7 100.0 8.62e-21
81.50 62.0 100.0 8.27e-21
84.50 79.0 100.0 7.01e-21
87.50 100.6 100.0 7.1e-21
90.50 128.2 100.0 7.69e-21
93.50 163.3 100.0 8.24e-21
96.50 208.0 100.0 9.54e-21
99.50 265.0 40.0 4.43e-21
102.50 337.6 20.0 3.36e-21
105.50 430.0 20.0 3.4e-21
Here are the SNR of the CBC injections using the daily BBH matching filtering settings: end time SNR chi-squared newSNR 1128303098.986 20.35 32.86 19.86 1128303231.985 22.62 32.73 22.10 1128303398.985 23.25 21.05 23.25 Expected SNR is 18.4. Though a recovered SNR of 20 (about 10% percent difference from 18.4) is comparable to some of the SNR measurements when doing injections with CALCS in aLog 21890. Note this is the same waveform injected here except in aLog 21890 it starts from 30Hz. In both cases the matched filtering starts at 30Hz. The last two have a bit higher SNR though.
I edited Peter S.'s matlab script to check the sign of these PCAL CBC injections. Looks like the have the correct sign. See attached plots. To run code on LHO cluster: eval '/ligotools/bin/use_ligotools' matlab -nosplash -nodisplay -r "checksign; exit" Also in hindsight I should have done a couple CALCS CBC injections just to compare the SNR at the time with the PCAL injections.
gwdetchar-overflow -i H1 -f H1_R -O segments -o overflow --deep 1128303500 1128303651 124
It returns an empty table, so no overflows.
A time-domain check of the recovered strain waveforms is here: https://wiki.ligo.org/Main/HWInjO1CheckSGs. I found that the sign is correct, the amplitude matches within a few percent at most frequencies, and the phases are generally consistent with having a frequency-independent time delay of 3 or 4 samples (about 0.2 ms). Details are on that wiki page.
Thomas Abbot, Chris Buchanan, Chris Biwer I've taken Thomas/Chris' table of recovered omicron triggers for the PCAL detchar injection and calculated the ratio of expected/recovered SNR and added some comments: Recovered time time since frequency recovered expected recovered/expected comments 1128303531 (s) (Hz) SNR SNR SNR 1128303531.5156 0.515599966 42.56 34.07 25 1.3628 1128303534.5078 3.5078001022 61.90 39.41 25 1.5764 1128303537.5039 6.5039000511 64.60 28.29 25 1.1316 1128303540.5039 9.5039000511 79.79 23.89 25 0.9556 1128303543.5039 12.5039000511 1978.42 21.38 25 0.8552 suspicious, the frequency is very high 1128303546.502 15.5020000935 144.05 26.24 25 1.0496 1128303549.502 18.5020000935 185.68 26.38 25 1.0552 1128303552.502 21.5020000935 229.34 26.29 25 1.0516 1128303555.501 24.5009999275 918.23 27.34 25 1.0936 1128303558.501 27.5009999275 315.97 11.05 10 1.105 1128303564.5005 33.5004999638 451.89 6.76 5 1.352 1128303567.5156 36.515599966 50.12 68.53 50 1.3706 1128303570.5078 39.5078001022 61.90 78.23 50 1.5646 1128303573.5039 42.5039000511 76.45 52.04 50 1.0408 1128303576.5039 45.5039000511 91.09 48.42 50 0.9684 1128303579.5039 48.5039000511 116.63 47.73 50 0.9546 1128303582.502 51.5020000935 144.05 52.59 50 1.0518 1128303585.502 54.5020000935 177.91 52.3 50 1.046 1128303588.502 57.5020000935 261.81 54.8 50 1.096 1128303591.501 60.5009999275 323.36 55.64 50 1.1128 1128303594.501 63.5009999275 414.01 19.67 20 0.9835 1128303597.501 66.5009999275 390.25 9.55 10 0.955 1128303600.5005 69.5004999638 481.99 9.34 10 0.934 1128303603.5156 72.515599966 48.35 136.81 100 1.3681 1128303606.5078 75.5078001022 71.56 156.91 100 1.5691 1128303609.5039 78.5039000511 76.45 102.72 100 1.0272 1128303612.5039 81.5039000511 138.03 102.85 100 1.0285 1128303615.5039 84.5039000511 134.83 95.52 100 0.9552 1128303618.502 87.5020000935 1283.14 104.17 100 1.0417 frequency seems a bit high 1128303621.502 90.5020000935 211.97 107.18 100 1.0718 1128303624.502 93.5020000935 261.81 104.53 100 1.0453 1128303627.501 96.5009999275 323.36 109.66 100 1.0966 1128303630.501 99.5009999275 414.01 42.15 40 1.05375 1128303633.5005 102.5004999638 959.39 19.11 20 0.9555 this last injection had some kind of glitch on it In most cases looks like the ratio is within 0.1 of 1. On a quick glance I see 10 injections that were not within this range.
I caused a lockloss at 21:24:57 UTC by entering a wrong matrix element while trying A2L. Apologies, especially after a long lock on a windy day with microseism.