Displaying reports 61321-61340 of 82999.Go to page Start 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3068 3069 3070 3071 End
Reports until 00:33, Tuesday 06 October 2015
H1 CDS
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:33, Tuesday 06 October 2015 (22256)
Restarted grace query db script in screen
I saw on a terminal on the ops workstation that someone had logged into h1fescript0 and started the query grace db script without running it in screen. I ctrl-c terminated that script. I did a listing of the current screen sessions (screen -ls) and saw two running. The one with PID 4403 had the printout from a crashed query db script. I restarted it in that screen and detached from the session. It is now running in screen with PID 4403.
LHO General
patrick.thomas@LIGO.ORG - posted 00:15, Tuesday 06 October 2015 (22255)
Ops Owl Beginning Shift Summary
TITLE: 10/06 [OWL Shift]: 07:00-15:00 UTC (00:00-08:00 PDT), all times posted in UTC
STATE Of H1: Observing @ ~ 78 MPc.
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Nutsinee
QUICK SUMMARY: From the cameras the lights are off in the LVEA, PSL enclosure, end X, end Y and mid X. I can not tell if they are off at mid Y. Seismic in 0.03 - 0.1 Hz band is around .015 um/s. Seismic in 0.1 - 0.3 Hz band is around .1 um/s. Winds are less than ~5 mph.
H1 General
nutsinee.kijbunchoo@LIGO.ORG - posted 23:52, Monday 05 October 2015 (22254)
Ops EVE Shift Summary

TITLE: "10/05 [EVE Shift]: 23:00-07:00UTC (16:00-00:00 PDT), all times posted in UTC"

STATE Of H1: Observing at ~75 Mpc for the past 9 hours. Range recently went up to ~78 Mpc for no apparent reason.

SUPPORT: Mike

SHIFT SUMMARY: Quiet shift. Minimal/nominal seismic activity. Wind below 5mph. GraceDB querying failed once.

INCOMING OPERATOR: Patrick

ACTIVITY LOG:

23:51 Chris started HW injection.

01:41 Injection done

04:00 Noticed GraceDB querying failure. Restarted the python script. Called Mike about GraceDB events that weren't labeled as INJ.

H1 AOS (DetChar)
nairwita.mazumder@LIGO.ORG - posted 23:12, Monday 05 October 2015 (22253)
Follow up on H1 Loud glitches
I was following up the LHO loud glitches from 26th September. I had a look at the transmitted power signals as done in alog 20395 for dust glitches. The attached pdf contains the plots of band passed (10Hz-100Hz) DARM, as well as ASC-{X,Y}_TR_{A,B}_NSUM_OUT_DQ and SUS-ETMY_L3_MASTER_OUT_LL_DQ channels for the 8  time instances when ETMY saturation was observed. The ETMY saturation times are given below:

 1127380417.6250 1127380418.6875
 1127384361.3750 1127384361.8125
 1127389556.1250 1127389556.2500
 1127403691.3750 1127403691.5000
 1127409078.3750 1127409078.5625
 1127418386.1875 1127418386.4375
 1127423722.0000 1127423722.1250
 1127424221.7500 1127424222.0000
 1127427748.9375 1127427749.0625

It can be noticed that the glitches also appear in  Y TR signals (e.g., ASC-Y_TR_{A,B}_NSUM_OUT_DQ) with large amplitude except the 4th one. For the 4th glitch, it is not visible in ASC-Y_TR_{A,B}. In this particular case, , it is visible in X QPDs  but much smaller than the other ones in Y. Also it doesn't look like that it is much above the noise in the QPD, and even the glitch shape in DARM seems different. In most of these cases DARM is going down and  ASC-Y_TR_{A,B}_NSUM is going up initially. So it is interesting that in spite of ETMY saturation, the glitch shape is completely different as well as nothing can be found in Y QPDs. 


Non-image files attached to this report
H1 General
nutsinee.kijbunchoo@LIGO.ORG - posted 21:22, Monday 05 October 2015 (22252)
Noticed GraceDB querying failure around 4:00 UTC

I followed alog22210 and fixed the problem. Since I wasn't sure when exactly GraceDB querying failed (It was working duringt Chris's injection), I looked into all the GraceDB events that happened after 01:36:48 UTC with FAR of 1e-7 and below as Mike suggested. They were all hardware injections.

H1 INJ (DetChar, INJ)
christopher.biwer@LIGO.ORG - posted 19:07, Monday 05 October 2015 (22251)
8 successfully scheduled coherent hardware injections
Summary:

I performed 8 coherent H1L1 CBC hardware injections. They were all successful.

Waveforms:

Waveforms are in the hardware injection SVN: https://daqsvn.ligo-la.caltech.edu/svn/injection/hwinj/Details/Inspiral/${IFO}/coherentbbh*_1126259455_${IFO}.out

Waveform parameter files are in the hardware injection SVN: https://daqsvn.ligo-la.caltech.edu/svn/injection/hwinj/Details/Inspiral/coherentbbh*_1126259455.xml

Schedule:

The following was appended to the schedule:
1128124325 1 1.0 coherentbbh1_1126259455_
1128125225 1 1.0 coherentbbh2_1126259455_
1128126125 1 1.0 coherentbbh3_1126259455_
1128127025 1 1.0 coherentbbh4_1126259455_
1128127925 1 1.0 coherentbbh5_1126259455_
1128128825 1 1.0 coherentbbh7_1126259455_
1128129725 1 1.0 coherentbbh8_1126259455_
1128130625 1 1.0 coherentbbh9_1126259455_

Recall we had the issue before where injections were being cancelled since they triggered an EM alert for testing. Peter S. documented what needed to be changed in aLog 22163. I reset ${IFO}:INJ-CAL_TINJ_PAUSE and ${IFO}:INJ-CAL_EXTTRIG_ALERT_TIME between injections so that they were not cancelled. It worked.

The gracedb entries for these injections are H190051 to H190068.

I've attached omegascans of the injections.
Images attached to this report
H1 INJ (INJ)
peter.shawhan@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:56, Monday 05 October 2015 (22250)
Stopped hardware injections from getting labeled with H1OPS
Since the current set of hardware injections is testing the injections themselves, not the human response to event candidates, I have changed the Approval Processor configuration to no longer treat hardware injections like real GW event candidates.  That means that they will not get the H1OPS and L1OPS labels, and operators will not be presented with a sign-off box for them.  However, with the CURRENT version of the external alert code (ext_alert.py), audible alerts will still sound in the control rooms.  I am trying to arrange that during tomorrow's maintenance period we will update the ext_alert.py scripts so that the audible alerts sound only for triggers that operators are asked to sign-off on.

After that change is made (hopefully tomorrow), please take any audible alert seriously as a genuine external-trigger alert or low-latency GW trigger alert.  Exception: we are planning to set up weekly tests of the alert system that will happen during Tuesday maintenance periods; details to come later.
H1 CDS (DAQ)
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:22, Monday 05 October 2015 (22248)
CDS model and DAQ restart report, Saturday Sunday 3rd,4th October 2015

O1 days 16,17

Saturday 3rd October 2015. Many unexpected restarts of h1fw0 due to failed SSD raid. No other restarts reported. Details in attached text file.

Sunday 4th October 2015. Many unexpected restarts of h1fw0 due to failed SSD raid. No other restarts reported. Details in attached text file.

Non-image files attached to this report
H1 General
nutsinee.kijbunchoo@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:02, Monday 05 October 2015 (22247)
Ops EVE Shift Transition

TITLE: 10/5 [EVE Shift]: 23:00-07:00UTC (16:00-00:00 PDT), all times posted in UTC"

STATE Of H1: Observing at ~74 Mpc for the past 2.5 hours

OUTGOING OPERATOR: Corey

QUICK SUMMARY: Chris Biwer have just started Burst HW injection at 23:55. This will continue for the next two hours. No seismic activity in the earthquake band. Wind below 5mph.

H1 INJ (DetChar, INJ)
christopher.biwer@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:18, Monday 05 October 2015 - last comment - 18:38, Monday 05 October 2015(22245)
Starting coherent hardware injection test
I am starting some coherent H1L1 hardware injections test. There will be the 8 test injections that Adam and I did not get a chance to perform last Friday. I will add a comment with the schedule when it they have been added. More details to follow later.
Comments related to this report
christopher.biwer@LIGO.ORG - 16:27, Monday 05 October 2015 (22246)DetChar, INJ
The schedule was appended with:

1128124325 1 1.0 coherentbbh1_1126259455_
1128125225 1 1.0 coherentbbh2_1126259455_
1128126125 1 1.0 coherentbbh3_1126259455_
1128127025 1 1.0 coherentbbh4_1126259455_
1128127925 1 1.0 coherentbbh5_1126259455_
1128128825 1 1.0 coherentbbh7_1126259455_
1128129725 1 1.0 coherentbbh8_1126259455_
1128130625 1 1.0 coherentbbh9_1126259455_
christopher.biwer@LIGO.ORG - 18:38, Monday 05 October 2015 (22249)DetChar, INJ
Last scheduled injection performed. More details later.
H1 General
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:14, Monday 05 October 2015 (22238)
DAY Ops Summary

TITLE:  10/5 DAY Shift:  15:00-23:00UTC (08:00-16:00PDT), all times posted in UTC     

STATE of H1:  Observation Mode at 78Mpc

Incoming Operator:  Nutsinee

Support:  Full Room

Quick Summary:

~46hr Lock ended by 6.0 Chilean EQ noted by Terramon.  Then went through some acquisition exercises while we waited for the seismic to die down.  H1 brought back to Observation Mode in the afternoon and it is humming along swimingly.

Shift Activities:

H1 ISC
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:19, Monday 05 October 2015 - last comment - 17:46, Thursday 15 September 2016(22188)
Some CARM loop modeling

I have spent some time trying to understand the behavior of the CARM loop in full lock.

First, I have reduced the loop to the following block diagram:

P is the IFO, K is the IMC, and G is the FSS. F and M represent the fast and slow common-mode feedback paths, and A represents the IMC PDH board and the VCO. A fuller accounting of these blocks is given in the sections below.

The OLTF of CARM is then given by

[ H = frac{P(overline{G}AF+M)}{1-overline{G}AK},]

where [overline{G} = G/(1-G)] is the CLTF of the FSS. For the time being, I have ignored the slow IMC feedback (the crossover with the fast path happens below 100 Hz) and I have assumed the CLTF of the FSS is −1.

The model (described below) shows OK agreement with the measurement (taken 2015-08-14) between 1 and 40 kHz, but above that there is significant deviation in the phase.

I have also included a plot of the modeled IMC OLTF [ J = overline{G} A K]. Getting the model to agree with the measurement requires the inclusion of a mystery gain of 1/3, which I have rolled into the optical plant. Previous measurement of the IMC modulation index provided only an upper limit (which I have used here), so I am hoping that this explains some of the mystery gain.

❦ P(f): CARM optical plant, PD response, and CMB common path

The CARM plant is the TF taking laser frequency fluctuation to rf power on REFL9Q. It consists of the following (at 24 W):

  • dc gain 0.017 W/Hz [from Kiwamu's numerical/analytical analysis, assuming 300 mW of light on REFL9 out of lock and a 9 MHz modulation depth of 0.22 rad]
  • pole at 0.48 Hz [from Kiwamu's numerical/analytical analysis]
  • pole at 8.8 kHz [from transmission through the IMC]

This is multiplied by the PD TF, the SNB TF, and the CMB common TF:

  • dc gain of 2900 V/W from REFL9Q + demod
  • dc gain of 0 dB through the SNB
  • dc gain of −20 dB (CMB input gain)
  • 40 Hz pole, 4 kHz zero, ac gain of 1 (the CMB compensator)

Note that since this measurement we've added 7 dB to the common gain, and correspondingly removed 7 dB from the fast and slow paths. But that shouldn't matter for the OLTF estimate.

❦ F(f): CMB fast path, IMC ao gain

  • dc gain of 7 dB (CMB fast gain)
  • two zeros at 0 Hz, two poles at 5 Hz, ac gain of 1 (CMB fast HPF)
  • dc gain of −2 dB (IMC ao gain)

❦ M(f): CMB slow path, MC2 suspension

Not yet implemented. So far I have only considered the portion of the loop for which |AF| ≫ |M|.

❦ K(f): IMC optical plant, PD response, IMC board input gain

IMC optical plant, 24 W:

  • dc gain of  4.1×10−7 W/Hz [46 mW on IMC REFL out of lock (LHO#20117), modulation index 0.04 rad (upper limit; LHO#9395), fudge factor of 0.35]
  • pole at 8.8 kHz

PD response 880 V/W [responsivity 0.37 A/W (LHO#5277), transimpedance 476 V/A (ibid.), demod TF 5 V/V (rf volts to if volts; D0902745)]

IMC REFL input gain −3 dB [nominally 17 dB at 2.5 W PSL power]

❦ G(f): FSS OLTF

Currently, the CLTF G/(1 − G) is assumed to be −1. I have a measurement of G from Peter K, but I have not yet included it here. Below 100 kHz, the CLTF deviates from −1 Hz/Hz by less than 50 % in magnitude and 5° in phase (see attachment).

❦ A(f): IMC common/fast path and IMC VCO

IMC common/fast path TF:

  • 40 Hz pole / 4 kHz zero, ac gain 1
  • 1 kHz pole / 20 kHz zero, ac gain 1
  • dc gain −6 dB (IMC fast gain)
  • 140 kHz pole / 70 kHz zero, dc gain 1 (IMC fast path HPF)

IMC VCO TF:

  • dc gain: 537 kHz/V (installed in SFM for the IMC VCO)
  • pole at 1.6 Hz, zero at 40 Hz
Images attached to this report
Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 17:46, Thursday 15 September 2016 (29741)IOO
Evan has told me that the above diagram and OLTF equation are wrong.

He's given me the liberty to preempt the publication of his thesis and provide the erratum for this entry.

The open loop gain transfer function of the CARM loop is defined by the attached diagram, 

H = bar{G} A K P (F/K + M) / (1 - bar{G} A K)

Where again, 
G = open loop gain of the FSS
bar{G} = G / (1-G) = closed loop gain TF of the FSS
A = the IMC Common Mode Board and IMC VCO
P = electro-optical CARM plant of the IFO
K = electro-optical IMC plant
F = CARM fast path through CARM Common Mode Board (fed to the input of the IMC Common Mode Board to IMC VCO)
M = CARM slow path to IMC Length control of MC2


Non-image files attached to this comment
LHO General
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:40, Monday 05 October 2015 - last comment - 15:09, Monday 05 October 2015(22243)
"Mid" Shift Summary

Sorry, had a busy morning/afternoon.

Had a 6.0 EQ from Chile knock us out of lock (17:21).  Seismic signals were elevated for about an hour, so waited that out.  Then after that I did a few tweaks to see if we could reacquire with the alignment we had been running.  Gave H1 about an hour while we waited.  Then we called that off, and went for an Initial Alignment.  H1 then locked up with mostly no issues shortly thereafter.  

The minor issues we did have were related to making some Guardian changes ("we" being Sheila) to include PRMI into lock acquisition.  I believe she also added an OMC PZT slider step as well.

Once at NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE, Sheila took some time to run some commissioning work while L1 was down.  

21:35 Went back to Observation (@73Mpc)

 

Comments related to this report
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 15:09, Monday 05 October 2015 (22244)

Just to clarify, we noticed a problem with the PRMI state that has been in place (It did not turn off the offloading to PRM top mass if it failed to make the transition to DRMI).  I made some changes to fix this, which created a different problem.  Now I think it should be fixed, but we haven't fully tested it.  I hope to test the fix fully durring maintence tomorow, but for tonight if anyone decides to use these and runs into a problem feel free to give me a call. 

I didn't do the OMC thing yet, that will be done durring maintence tomorow.

 

Also:

We were locked for a little bit before LLO rocovered from the EQ, so I had a chance to make a quick injection on ITMX ISI ST2 in the X direction (WP#5528).  I used 0.0283 cnts at 75 Hz starting at 21:18 UTC October 5.  The result is that it seems like if the 77-80 Hz noise is from scattered light, the scattering path does not include anything hanging off the ITMX ISI.  With the same excitation applied to the ETMX ISI we had a borad peak in DARM, with this excitation on the ITM ISI  we get a narrow peak which is a factor of 10 lower.

LHO VE
john.worden@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:42, Monday 05 October 2015 (22242)
HAM6 Pumpdowns

The attached plot shows 2 pumpdowns of the HAM6 chamber. The first is in April and the second in July.

In both cases the duration with rotating pumps is about 8 days. In an attempt to speed the crossover to the ion pump a larger power supply was used in the July pumpdown - this did allow an earlier transition to the ion pump. However, the vent time was longer and perhaps accounted for the same overall time on the turbo pump.

Images attached to this report
H1 ISC
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:08, Monday 05 October 2015 (22240)
One RF45AM glitch period over 5 days since the tapping test

Seems like there was one short period, lasting 2 or 3 minutes around 2015/10/03 16:23 UTC, where RF45 AM became glitchy.

Except that one it has been quiet for 5 days since we tap-tested the problem connectors.

Images attached to this report
H1 General
edmond.merilh@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:02, Monday 05 October 2015 (22239)
PSL OPS Weekly Status report and past 10 day trends
Laser Status:
SysStat is good
Front End power is 32.49W (should be around 30 W)
Frontend Watch is GREEN
HPO Watch is RED
 
PMC:
It has been locked 6.0 days, 23.0 hr 40.0 minutes (should be days/weeks)
Reflected power is 1.805Watts and PowerSum = 26.13Watts.
 
FSS:
It has been locked for 0.0 days 0.0 h and 9.0 min (should be days/weeks)
TPD[V] = 1.562V (min 0.9V)
 
ISS:
The diffracted power is around 7.759% (should be 5-9%)
Last saturation event was 0.0 days 0.0 hours and 9.0 minutes ago (should be days/weeks)
Laser Status:
SysStat is good
Front End power is 32.49W (should be around 30 W)
Frontend Watch is GREEN
HPO Watch is RED
 
PMC:
It has been locked 6.0 days, 23.0 hr 40.0 minutes (should be days/weeks)
Reflected power is 1.805Watts and PowerSum = 26.13Watts.
 
FSS:
It has been locked for 0.0 days 0.0 h and 9.0 min (should be days/weeks)
TPD[V] = 1.562V (min 0.9V)
 
ISS:
The diffracted power is around 7.759% (should be 5-9%)
Last saturation event was 0.0 days 0.0 hours and 9.0 minutes ago (should be days/weeks)
Laser Status:
SysStat is good
Front End power is 32.49W (should be around 30 W)
Frontend Watch is GREEN
HPO Watch is RED
 
PMC:
It has been locked 6.0 days, 23.0 hr 40.0 minutes (should be days/weeks)
Reflected power is 1.805Watts and PowerSum = 26.13Watts.
 
FSS:
It has been locked for 0.0 days 0.0 h and 9.0 min (should be days/weeks)
TPD[V] = 1.562V (min 0.9V)
 
ISS:
The diffracted power is around 7.759% (should be 5-9%)
Last saturation event was 0.0 days 0.0 hours and 9.0 minutes ago (should be days/weeks)
 
Note: This status comes on the heels of a lockloss due to an earthquake. Just lucky, I guess.
 
Images attached to this report
H1 ISC (ISC)
daniel.hoak@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:09, Thursday 01 October 2015 - last comment - 12:48, Monday 05 October 2015(22175)
OMC Mode Scans at 22W

Way back on September 5th, I collected OMC mode scan data before and after the power-up step from 2.2W to 22.5W.  The idea was to measure the time-evolution of the sideband and higher-order-mode content at the AS port as the IFO thermalizes and the alignment adjusts to the hi-power state.  During the mode scans, I followed Koji’s beacon demodulation technique, and used a DARM excitation to tag the carrier light resonant in the arms.  This lets us disentangle the junk carrier light (resonant in the corner) from the good carrier light (resonant in the arms).

There’s quite a bit of information in these mode scans, but the major results are:

 - After the power-up step, the amount of 9MHz light at the AS port more than doubles, with a time constant of about 6 minutes.  I’m not sure how this informs the studies by Elli & Stefan and Paul regarding the AS36 WFS sensing.  Does this time constant agree with thermal effects in the SRC?  Or is it from slow alignment loops responding to something like wire heating?

 - The contrast defect (ratio of carrier junk light to total available carrier light) is very small, less than 70ppm.

 - The mode-matching of the carrier light resonant in the arms into the OMC is excellent, better than 99%.

 - Unfortunately, these data don’t completely solve the mysteries of the HAM6 power budget.  The 45MHz sidebands saturate the DCPDs at 22W with the preamps in the Hi-Z state, and this makes it impossible to measure the 45MHz sideband power at the AS port using mode scans.  But, we can accurately measure the DCPD photocurrent from the carrier and 9MHz sidebands.  Carrier = 33.6 +/- 0.4 mA, 9MHz SB = 34.9 +/- 0.3 mA.



Measurement Procedure

Here’s an outline of how the mode scan data were collected:

With the IFO locked on RF-DARM at 2.2W, unlock the OMC, turn off the OMC-LSC_SERVO output, turn off the OMC LSC dither.  Turn off all stages of the the DCPD whitening (important).
Check that OMC ASC is on and using the QPDs.  Zero the OMC PZT2 offset.  Make sure the DARM boost (FM1) is on (important).
Set the DARM offset to 1.2e-5 counts in the LSC-DARM filter bank (this should be about 16pm).
Use AWG to set up an excitation on OMC-PZT2, I used a 70V ramp, 70 second period.  Use AWG to set up an excitation on DARM for the beacon scan, I used 1e-8 counts at 201.7 Hz.

I collected ten minutes of data at low power, then engaged the power-up step in the Guardian.  After power-up I collected about an hour of data.  The GPS times of the data are:

Lo-power start: 1 125 478 482
Lo-power stop:  1 125 478 992

Hi-power start: 1 125 479 058
Hi-power stop:  1 125 482 221




Mode Fitting

For each span of data, the analysis code looks at PZT2_MON_DC and finds times when the PZT drive was slowly increasing.  During these periods it grabs the DCPD_SUM data and fits the modes, using the measured transverse mode spacing of the OMC and the known sideband frequencies.  I use the measured FSR and f_HOM from Koji’s lab measurements of the H1 OMC:

FSR = 261.72 MHz
f_HOM = 0.21946*FSR


The peaks are fit using the usual Lorentzian function of the PZT voltage.  It would be better to do this as a function of optical frequency, but the PZT nonlinearity is small enough that I’ve ignored it.  Anyways there's a chicken-and-egg problem, you have to fit the PZT voltage before you can convert voltage to optical frequency.


Problem: 45MHz sideband saturation

At 2.2W, the 45MHz sideband peaks generate about 16mA of photocurrent in DCPD_SUM.  In the Hi-Z state, the DCPDs saturate at 20mA (the precise value varies slightly depending on the preamp electronics, these values have been recorded in, for example, the DCPD filter banks).  At 22W we expect 160mA in each 45MHz peak, so these saturate the DCPDs.

Weirdly, the 45MHz peaks saturate at a slightly lower value than expected.  During the mode scans each of the DCPDs would always flat-top around 27500 counts out of the ADC for each of the 45MHz peaks.  See Figure 3.  To get around this in the mode fitting, I fit the data before and after the flat-top from the saturation.  Unfortunately this doesn’t return the correct peak height: the total power doesn’t agree with what we expect, and it doesn’t agree with the power measured by AS_C.  So we still don’t have a complete picture of the HAM6 noise budget.

We could try mode scans with the DCPD preamps in the Lo-Z state, but this only gains us a factor of four in headroom, and the 45MHz peaks would still be on the edge of saturation.


Results: Contrast Defect, Mode Matching, and the Time Evolution of Sideband Power

Using the beacon dither demodulation, we can tag the fraction of the carrier modes which are resonant in the arm.  For each PZT sweep, the DCPD data was demodulated at the DARM excitation frequency.  A multiplicative factor was applied to match the carrier 00 mode signal in the demodulated signal to the raw DCPD data.  From there, we calculate the fraction of each carrier higher-order-mode that is resonant in the arms.  The procedure is the same as described by Koji.  After some testing I settled on a 10Hz lowpass after the demodulation.

The junk light in the carrier higher order modes is used to calculate the contrast defect: 66.2 +/- 4.5 ppm.  The uncertainty is a combination of the statistical uncertainty from mode heights and the variation from sweep to sweep, and systematic uncertainties described in section 5.6 of P1500136.

The fraction of good light in the CR2 (bullseye) mode is used to calculate the mode-matching of the resonant light from the arms into the OMC.  Mode-matching: 0.997 +/- 0.001.  The alignment into the OMC was not so good during these measurements (a large fraction of the CR1 mode was from the arms), but this was expected since we were using the QPD servo.


The breakdown of DCPD photocurrent from the carrier is:
34.00+/-0.06 mA total carrier light
22.42+/-0.06 mA of light from the arms (note: this is not quite the standard DARM offset)
11.59+/-0.06 mA of junk that's not from the arms

Probably in typical low-noise operations, we have 20mA of carrier light from the arms (fixed by the DC readout loop), and 11.6mA of junk carrier from the corner.


The figures attached are the following:

Figure 1 is a GIF movie showing the evolution of the peak heights following the power up.  Note the dramatic increase in lsb3, a higher-order mode of the 9MHz lower sideband.

Figure 2 is a GIF demonstrating the peak fitting procedure.

Figure 3 illustrates the saturation of the DCPDs by the 45MHz sideband peaks.  The fit to the peaks (which is necessary for the subtraction of the peak shoulders from the surrounding data) is performed using the data on either side of the flat-top from the saturation.  To the eye this looks pretty good, but the peak heights from the fit are way less than what we expect, so there's something bogus going on here.

Figure 4 shows the result of the mode fitting (the same data as Fig. 2). 

Figure 5 overlays all of the hi-power mode scans and labels the peaks.  Not all of the peaks that are labeled are fit in the analysis.

Figure 6 shows the fit of the peak locations (in PZT voltage) to the expected optical frequency, using a 4th-order polynomial fit of voltage to frequency.  This is a sanity check that we correctly labeled the peaks.  The error bars are the standard deviation of each peak location, across the few dozen mode scans.  This is a crude measure of the statistical variation in the peak fitting.

Figure 7 shows the results of the beacon dither demodulation for one sweep.  Black is the raw DCPD data, blue is the demodulated data at the frequency of the DARM excitation, and green is the background demodulation.  This is a replica of Koji’s plot from April.  The blue trace has been multiplied by a constant so it matches the black trace (raw data) at the CR0 peaks.

Figure 8 shows the fraction of each carrier mode that is tagged by the DARM excitation.  The fraction of the 00-mode from the arms is unity, by definition.  Except for the 01,10 mode (due to misalignment from the QPD servo), most of the carrier HOMs are due to junk light, i.e. the fraction of each mode from light resonant in the arms is small.

Figure 9 plots various interesting results as a function of time since power-up.  This plot is probably the most interesting collection of results.  The contrast defect is fairly stable (upper left).  Notice how the carrier mode-matching into the OMC improves over time (middle left), and how the 9MHz power increases (lower right).  The total photocurrent in the 45MHz sidebands (lower left) is bogus due to the saturated peaks.  The time evolution of various measured quantities were fit with exponential curves, the time constants returned by the fits are:

Total photocurrent in 9MHz modes: 370 seconds
AS_C SUM: 400 seconds
Carrier mode-matching (using beacon scan): 830 seconds (note, data are noisy)
Total photocurrent in carrier modes: 320 seconds (note, data are noisy)


Figure 10 demonstrates the change in power in the carrier, 45MHz, and 9MHz modes around the power-up.  Except for the 45MHz data (which is wrong because of the saturated peaks), this is a nice before-and-after picture of the power at the AS port.  In this plot, I have normalized the total DCPD photocurrent in [carrier, 9MHz, 45MHz] modes by the input power (measured by IMC-PWR_IN).

Finally, Figures 11, 12, and 13 show the change in the individual mode heights over time.  There is a large increase in the amount of 9MHz HOMs after the power up.  (Since the 9MHz light is not well-matched to the OMC, it couples to higher order modes of the cavity.)  The 45MHz LSB5 mode increases, but this is a small peak in a fairly noisy part of the mode scan, and might be sensitive to a nearby 9MHz mode.  The 6th-order carrier mode loses a lot of power, this is responsible for most of the reduction in carrier power in Fig. 10.

 

Analysis Code

I have pushed a version of the mode-fitting code to git.ligo.org.  This code can’t run on the control room workstations because of the crummy version of scipy that doesn’t have the peak-finding routines, but there is a script included that will download the data with cdsutils, and you can hack away at it on a laptop from there.

Since the beacon dithering required a high sample rate, across one hour of data, most of this analysis was performed on the LHO cluster.  The code and results are saved in this directory.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - 09:56, Friday 02 October 2015 (22182)

Can you make something like Figure 12 without normalization?

For one thing I'd like to see the ratio of 0 mode VS higher order modes, and for another it seems to me that the SB imbalance is not small for 9MHz at t=4 and becomes worse as time goes, while 45MHz is just fine.

daniel.sigg@LIGO.ORG - 11:23, Friday 02 October 2015 (22183)

Here are AS LF, 18 MHz, 90 MHz and 36 MHz length signals during the most recent lock stretch. One can clearly see that the 9 MHz is in trouble.

Images attached to this comment
keita.kawabe@LIGO.ORG - 13:41, Friday 02 October 2015 (22186)

Due to small finesse, only 00 and 1st order mode for 9MHz are anti-resonant. Especially, LSB 4th order HOM as well as USB 6th are very close to resonance.

"Transmissivity" of SRC against LSB4 and USB6 coming out of BS (which is due to differential mismatch from the ITMs or BS lensing) are about a factor of 7 larger than 00 mode.

Images attached to this comment
daniel.hoak@LIGO.ORG - 12:48, Monday 05 October 2015 (22241)ISC

In this comment I'll try to answer some questions about the calculation details, and post more data on the mode heights.

Parameters for the Contrast Defect Calculation

The contrast defect is calculated as the ratio of junk carrier light at the AS port to the total available carrier light incident on the beam splitter.

Available carrier light on the beam splitter:

  • Input power (measured from IMC-PWR_IN): p_in = 22.56 +/- 0.05 W
  • Loss from 9MHz modulation (Gamma1 = 0.191 +/- 0.005): J9 = 0.9909 +/- 0.0007
  • Loss from 45MHz modulation (Gamma1 = 0.284 +/- 0.005): J45 = 0.9799 +/- 0.0007
  • Input optics transmission: tIO = 0.88 +/- 0.02
  • PRC carrier gain: g_cr = 36 +/- 2

P_carrier = p_in * J9^2 * J45^2 * tIO * g_cr = 673 +/- 40 W

Losses between beamsplitter and DCPDs (including photocurrent --> power calibration):

  • SRM transmissivity: tSRM = 0.37 +/- 0.001
  • Output Faraday transmissivity: tOFI = 0.95 +/- 0.02
  • OM1 reflectivity: rOM1 = 0.9992 +/- 20ppm
  • OM3 reflectivity: rOM3 = 0.985 +/- 0.002
  • OMC transmissivity: tOMC = 0.93 +/- 0.005
  • DCPD responsivity: PDresp = 0.75 +/- 0.02 A/W

P_loss = tSRM * tOFI * rOM1 * rOM3 * tOMC * PDresp = 0.241 +/- 0.008 A/W

The uncertainties on the parameters above are guesswork, not motivated by any direct measurements.  The dominant source of uncertainty turns out to be the recycling gain.

The total photocurrent in carrier HOMs measured by the DCPDs is about 12mA.  Of this, about 0.7mA is tagged as good light from the arm cavities.  Most of this is due to the CR1 mode -- this is expected, since the OMC alignment is not optimal on the QPD servo.  The CR1 mode is quite small, so nearly all of the carrier HOM content is tagged as 'junk light' not resonant in the arms.  This is the measurement used to calculate the contrast defect:

P_junk = 11.3 +/- 0.03 mA

contrast defect = P_junk / (P_carrier * P_loss) = 69 +/- 5 ppm

**Note: in the initial calculation I used a recycling gain of 38+/-2.  Now I use 36+/-2, this has changed the result from what was presented in the main entry.

 

Mode Matching Worst-Case

While the calculation of the contrast defect is somewhat immune to mistakes in the beacon scan measurement (since the amount of carrier HOM content is so small to begin with), the calculation of the carrier mode-matching is highly sensitive to systematics in the beacon scan results.  As is shown in Fig 8 above, the fraction of the CR2 mode that is tagged as 'good light' starts around 20%, but decreases as the IFO thermalizes to around 2%.  If this is incorrect, we have overestimated the mode-matching into the OMC.

To calculate a worst-case scenario, the photocurrent in the CR2 mode for the last 15 mode scans is 2.6 +/- 0.3 mA.  The fraction tagged as good light is 0.025 +/- 0.014.  The carrier 00-mode photocurrent is 21.7 +/- 0.4 mA.  If all of the CR2 light is from the arms, the mode-matching is 88%.

From the mode scans at low power, we know that a substantial amount of CR2 light can be present at the AS port even when the DARM offset is zero, implying the small CR2 fraction from the arms could be real.  (Note: I think the low-power mode scans were taken with different TCS settings, certainly different ETM ring-heater settings.)

 

Mode Height Plots

In the attached plots, I try to answer Keita's question from above.  These plots show the mode heights of the carrier, 9MHz, and 45MHz peaks over time, starting at the end of the power-up step.  Some things to note:

  • The CR6 mode decreases by a factor of ~lots as the IFO thermalizes
  • The odd-numbered lsb and usb modes increase by ~lots
  • It's impossible to measure the 45MHz sideband balance from this data, since the peaks are saturated.
  • Measuring the 9MHz sideband balance is a challenge, because the lsb0 lies very close to the CR9 mode, and cleanly fitting the peak is tough.  The measured height of usb0 is 2x larger than lsb0 (note, usb0 is awkwardly printed underneath lsb8) at the end of the scan period.

I also attach two text files.  The first has the median measured mode height, in mA of photocurrent, for all the modes fit within a single FSR.  The value and uncertainty for each mode are calculated as the median and std() of the mode heights across the last 15 mode scans in the dataset.  The final column is the measured frequency of the mode location, based on the fit of PZT voltage to optical frequency.  (Remember, we use upper case LSB and USB for the 45MHz sidebands, lower case lsb and usb for the 9MHz sidebands.)

The second text file lists the carrier modes (zero through eight) and the measured fraction of the mode due to the 'good light' resonant in the arms, calculated from the beacon scan.  Again, the uncertainty is calculated from the std() of the final 15 mode scans.

Images attached to this comment
Non-image files attached to this comment
Displaying reports 61321-61340 of 82999.Go to page Start 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3068 3069 3070 3071 End