A tour group was on site early this afternoon.  Arrival time at LSB = ~12:30 PM.  Departure time = ~3:00 PM.  Group size = ~20 adults.  Vehicles at the LSB = ~10 passenger cars.  The group walked the site near the corner station and visited the control room between 1:30 and 3:00 PM.

Adam, Chris

We are beginning to test coherent hardware injection with tinj. Will update this aLog with schedule as they happen.

Commissioning from 19:37:35UTC to 21:43:53UTC.

DHARD_Y FM2 turned off at the end of Commissioning. 

During the commissioning period that just ended, there was:

- Praxair at EX

- light equipment moved from OSB receiving to MY (pickup truck)

- equipment moved from VPW receiving to MY (pickup truck)

- EX pcal switches changed, and backed out

- DHARD_Y FM2 engaged and disengaged

- ETMX Diag_Reset to clear another timing error that showed up today

19:26UTC - 12:26PT, truck at receiving

19:37:35UTC - Commissioning , Praxair on site

Praxair takes about 2.5 hours, so expect to be in Commissioning until about 22:15UTC.

There is a second Praxair truck expected today as well.

19:44UTC - Richard, Filiberto, Mid-Y

19:45:55UTC - engaged FM2 on DHARD_Y, Sheila's filter

- heard the rumbling of the truck in the CR, and saw the range drop to 55Mpc just before engaging the filter

- apparently the truck had to turn around and go to the Y arm, which is the rumbling I heard

TITLE: IFO returns to Observe after multiple large earthquakes over the last 4 hours.

ASSISTANCE: Hugh (HAM5 SEI clearing all Guardian issues), Sheila (bounce-roll mode damping)

TIMELINE: 

15:00UTC - start of shift, high ground motion

- SYS_DIAG telling me ISS defracted power is too high - I reduce the slider.  Defracted power was 12 and went to 9.

15:47:12UTC - ground motion just coming down enough to relock, first DRMI lock since the earthquake in Canada

16:09:36UTC - IFO made it to Bounce Violin Mode Damping

16:19:37UTC - IFO unlocked

- A couple more DRIM locks that didn't survive.

- Four more 5-6 magnitude earthquakes come in and prevent locking.

18:04:31UTC - IFO ready to lock, and this starts the locking sequence that resulted in the IFO going to Low Noise

- Longer than usual time from ready to Low Noise, and one reason was that the roll mode on ITMY was about 4, so with Sheila's help I started the damping of the roll mode manually, and waiting for it to improved  = 20 minutes

18:55:04UTC - IFO in Low Noise

18:58:57UTC - IFO in Observe

All buildings are beginning to respond to the lower outdoor temperatures so Bubba and I have turned on heaters in both end stations and the LVEA.

One stage of HC5 is now on in the LVEA. This will impact the input chambers the most. The response appears to be ~0.5 F.

The End stations have variac control so these have been incremented from 4ma(off) up 8.5ma

TIME: 16:39UTC, 9:39PT

STATE OF THE IFO: Unlocked

EXPLANATION:  The IFO did lock and made it past ENGAGE_ASC_PART3, but then another earthquake arrived, and broke the lock, and ground motion is high.

Video0's striptools have been modified, and now they have a red background, due to the channels DHARD_Y and DHARD_P.

When making a change to a screen, it's important to test it in all situations.  Maybe this addition worked quite well during our long lock, but right now with earthquakes and relocking, the change to the striptools have rendered them unusable.

FOM image attached.

Following Sheila's entry (alog 21708), I've tried to figure out which locklosses where due to Earthquakes during the week of Sep 10th (ER8).

Out of the 22 locklosses seen this week, I've counted 6 locklosses due to EQs. Sheila counted 9, I'll double check my conclusions with her.

The ground velocities represent the maximum amplitude predicted by the Seismon software.  These predictions could be inaccurate by a few percents.

Six examples is not enough to do some accurate statistics, but the behavior observed during ER8 doesn't contradict the conclusions drawn from ER7 (see DCC T1500230). My conclusions were:

• Ground motion < 0.6microns/s: very unlikely to trip SEI or loose lock
• 0.6 < Ground motion < 8 microns/s: very unlikely to trip SEI but will probably loose lock
• 8 microns/s < Ground motion: would propbably trip SEI and loose lock

Note: among the 16 remaining locklosses, some of them are due to a high ground motion, but EQ is not the cause (wind? human activity?).

TITLE:  9/24 OWL Shift:  7:00-15:00UTC (00:00-8:00PDT), all times posted in UTC

12:35 H1 Lockloss (nothing obvious:  seismic quiet, and all the H1 strip tools showed nothing obvious before lockloss)

During Lock Acquisition, during 2nd locking attempt, had issues with ALS XARM:

• ALS_XARM Node, there was a Guardian FAULT:  PLL, PDH
  • Symptoms:  Xarm was flashing through all kinds of modes, & guardian was in FAULT state
  • On the PLL medm, the fiber lock temperature controls error signal was in the "Beat Note Error" state (vs "PZT Frequency").  Had no idea how to fix/clear fault, but after a while it appeared to clear up on its own & go to PZT Frequency.
• Waited for DRMI acquisition about 12-15min and then went through Sheila's PRMI procedure:

1) You can either misalign SRM using the SUS_SRM guardian, or use a new state in ALIGN_IFO called SET_SUS_FOR_PRMI_W_ALS. 

2) Request OFFLOAD_PRMI from the DRMI guardian.

• Was in the PRMI_LOCK_WAIT state for a long time (order of 15min?).  How long should we wait for PRMI to lock??

3) Once PRMI locks adjust PRM and BS alignment until you get about 80 counts on POP90 and 50 counts on POP18.  

• PRM finally locked!  PRM was moved the most, a little BS & PR2

4)Realign SRM by undoing whatever change you made in step 1.

5) Request DRMI_1F_OFFFLOADED from the ISC_DRMI guardian.

Waited for DRMI to lock again.  Several times I had a Verbal Alarm which sounded like "Slip Mode"?  What do we do about this?  It looked ugly on AS-AIR video.  Had "Slip Mode" alarms a few times while waiting for DRMI, and then the Vancouver earthquake arrived!

After recovering ISIs and ETMy, took ISC_LOCK to LOCKING_ALS, but haven't made it there yet (the guardian log keeps saying "Waiting for arms to settle").  The 0.03-0.1Hz seismic band was ramping down, but flattened out at 0.3um/s (which is over an order of magnitude from normal quiet levels).  Perhaps we should wait for this to come down to normal levels.

J. Kissel

I've taken new DARM open loop gain and PCALY to DARM transfer functions to validate the current calibration. During the PCALY to DARM transfer function, I take the transfer function from PCALY's RX PD (calibrated into [m] of ETMY motion) and the CAL-CS front-end's DELTAL_EXTERNAL (calibrated into DARM [m], which -- since we're driving ETMY -- is identical to [m] of ETMY motion). These two different methods agree to within 4% and 3 [deg] over the 15 [Hz] to 1.2 [kHz] band. The calibration discrepancy expands to a whopping 9% and 4 [deg] if we look a frequencies between 5 and 15 [Hz] ;-).

I think we're in great shape, boys and girls.

Details
--------------
- CAL-CS does not correct for any slow time depedence (optical gain, test mass actuation strength, etc), so any agreement you see with the current interferometer is agreement with the reference model taken on Sep 10th 2015 (LHO aLOG 21385).

- In the previous measurement, Kiwamu had to fudge the phase by ~90 [us] to get the phase to agree. Now that we've updated the cycle delay between sensing and actuation to 7 [16 kHz clock cycles] to better approximate the high-frequency frequency response of AA, AI, and the OMC DCPD signal chain, we no longer have to fudge the phase -- AND the phase between the two metrics agree. NICE.

- I've made sure to turn OFF calibration lines *during both of these measurements, but there should be ample data just before and just after with calibration lines ON, such that we can compare our results against theirs to help refine our estimates of systematic error.

- The measurements live in
/ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O1/H1/Measurements/DARMOLGTFs/2015-09-23_H1_DARM_OLGTF_7to1200Hz.xml
/ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O1/H1/Measurements/PCAL$/2015-09-23_PCALY2DARMTF_7to1200Hz.xml
and have been committed to the CalSVN. We'll process these results shortly, and perform a similar analysis as Darkhan has done in yesterday's aLOG 21827.

L1 went out of lock. At H1 we turned off the intent bit and injected some hardware injections.

The hardware injections were the same waveform that was injected on September 21. For more information about those injections see aLog entry 21759

For information about the waveform see aLog entry 21774.

tinj was not used to do the injections.The commands to do the injections were:
awgstream H1:CAL-INJ_TRANSIENT_EXC 16384 H1-HWINJ_CBC-1126257410-12.txt 0.5 -d -d >> log2.txt
awgstream H1:CAL-INJ_TRANSIENT_EXC 16384 H1-HWINJ_CBC-1126257410-12.txt 1.0 -d -d >> log2.txt
ezcawrite H1:CAL-INJ_TINJ_TYPE 1
awgstream H1:CAL-INJ_TRANSIENT_EXC 16384 H1-HWINJ_CBC-1126257410-12.txt 1.0 -d -d >> log2.txt
awgstream H1:CAL-INJ_TRANSIENT_EXC 16384 H1-HWINJ_CBC-1126257410-12.txt 1.0 -d -d >> log2.txt

To my chagrin the first two injections were labeled as burst injections.

Taken from the awgstream log the corresponding times are approximates of the injection time:

1127074640.002463000
1127074773.002417000
1127075235.002141000
1127075742.002100000

The expected SNR of the injection is ~18 without any scaling factor.

I've attached omegascans of the injections. There is no sign of the "pre-glitch" that was seen on September 21.

Elli and Stefan showed in aLOG 20827 that the signals measured by AS 36 WFS for SRM and BS alignment appeared to be strongly dependent on the power circulating in the interferometer. This was apparently not seen to be the case in L1. As a result, I've been looking at the AS 36 sensing with a Finesse model (L1300231), to see if this variability is reproducible in simulation, and also to see what other IFO variables can affect this variability. 

In the past when looking for differences between L1 and H1 length sensing (for the SRC in particular), the mode matching of the SRC has come up as a likely candidate. This is mainly because of the relatively large uncertainties in the SR3 mirror RoC combined with the strong dependence of the SRC mode on the SR3 RoC. I thought this would therefore be a good place to start when looking at the alignment sensors at the AS port. I don't expect the SR3 RoC to be very dependent on IFO power, but having a larger SR3 RoC offset (or one in a particular direction) may increase the dependence of the AS WFS signals on the ITM thermal lenses (which are the main IFO variables we typically expect to change with IFO power). This might therefore explain why H1 sees a bigger change in the ASC signals than L1 as the IFOs heat up. 

My first step was to observe the change in AS 36 WFS signals as a function of SR3 RoC. The results for the two DOFs shown in aLOG 20827 (MICH = BS, SRC2 = SRM) are shown in the attached plots. I did not spend much time adjusting Gouy phases or demod phases at the WFS in order to match the experiment, but I did make sure that the Gouy phase difference between WFSA and WFSB was 90deg at the nominal SR3 RoC. In the attached plots we can see that the AS 36 WFS signals are definitely changing with SR3 RoC, in some cases even changing sign (e.g. SRM Yaw to ASA36I/Q and SRM Pitch to ASA36I/Q). It's difficult at this stage to compare very closely with the experimental data shown in aLOG 20827, but at least we can say that from model it's not unexpected that these ASC sensing matrix elements are changing with some IFO mode mismatches. The same plots are available for all alignment DOFs, but that's 22 in total so I'm sparing you all the ones which weren't measured during IFO warm up. 

The next step will be to look at the dependence of the same ASC matrix elements on common ITM thermal lens values, for a few different SR3 RoC offsets. This is where we might be able to see something that explains the difference between L1 and H1 in this respect. (Of course, there may be other effects which contribute here, such as differential ITM lensing, spot position offsets on the WFS, drifting of uncontrolled DOFs when the IFO heats up... but we have to start somewhere). 

Folks have been complaining that the HAM5-ISI Rogue Excitation monitor is a pain. 
(see e.g. https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=21474)

It looks like the coil-voltage-readback monitor for the V2 coil is busted somewhere, and so the monitor is sitting around -500 counts all the time. 

Hugh gave me the GPS time for a recent earthquake, and in the attached plot you can see the watchdog trip from normal (state 1) to damp-down (state 2) at T+3 seconds. The coil voltages come down pretty quickly. Then the WD goes to state 4 (full trip) about 3 seconds later and the coil drive monitors (except V2) get quite small. The rogue excitation alarm goes off about 3 seconds after that, because the V2 monitor has not fallen to abs(Vmon) < +100 counts. 

The V2 monitor just sort of sits at ~-500 counts all the time. 
I'm pretty sure the V2 coil drive is working, otherwise the HAM5-ISI platform would act very poorly.
I'm guessing the problem is somewhere in the readback chain.

Note - the channels I use for this are all Epics channels, so the timing is a bit crude and the voltages are sort of jumpy. The channels are:
H1:ISI-HAM5_ERRMON_ROGUE_EXC_ALARM
H1:ISI-HAM5_CDMON_H1_V_INMON
H1:ISI-HAM5_CDMON_H2_V_INMON
H1:ISI-HAM5_CDMON_H3_V_INMON
H1:ISI-HAM5_CDMON_V1_V_INMON
H1:ISI-HAM5_CDMON_V2_V_INMON
H1:ISI-HAM5_CDMON_V3_V_INMON
H1:ISI-HAM5_WD_MON_STATE_INMON

I've also attached screenshots of the "coil drive voltage too big" calculation and the "rogue excitation alarm generation" calculation from the HAM-ISI master model