TITLE: 12/17 Day Shift: 16:00-24:00UTC
STATE of H1: Observing
Support: Typical control room crowd
Quick Summary: Mostly quiet. Evan did some work on DARM, I worked on EX HEPI, lost lock late but got it back in time for the party
Shift Activities:
C. Cahillane I have updated the LHO uncertainty budget, fixed some bugs, and generated fewer, more relevant plots. All calibration versions are included in every budget. I will review the details each version below: C00: No kappas, no static systematics applied C01: No kappas, static systematics applied C02: kappa_tst and kappa_C applied, kappa_pu and cavity pole not applied, static systematics applied C03: "Perfect", so all kappas and cavity pole applied, static systematics applied Whenever I do ratio comparisons between model response functions, the "perfect" C03 model is in the denominator. ***** PDFs 1, 2, and 3 ***** These contain the C01, C02, and C03 uncertainty budgets at GPS Time = 1126259461. (Kappas provided by Darkhan in aLOG 11499. Thanks Darkhan!) Plot 1 is the calibration version response function over C03's response function. Plot 2 is four plots. The mag and phase squared uncertainty components plots and the total mag and phase strain uncertainty by itself. Plots 3-6 are just enlarged versions of Plot 2. ***** PDF 4 and 5 ***** PDF 4 is the Sensing fits and statistics PDF 5 are the Actuation stages fits and statistics ***** PDF 6 ***** This 4 way subplot of all the calibration versions together on one plot. I plot the mag and phase response functions and their ratios. For the C01 calibration version, we have under 7% and 4 degrees of uncertainty (See PDF 1, Plot 2) For the C02 calibration version, we have under 6% and 3.5 degrees of uncertainty (See PDF 2, Plot 2)
C. Cahillane To reproduce these plots, go to the Calibration SVN and go to .../aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O1/Common/MatlabTools/strainUncertainty_Final_O1.m and open this file. At the top of the file (lines 11-15) you can change the IFO you want uncertainty for (L1 or H1) and the GPS time. Run this file after you change it. The code takes < 5 minutes to run. It should post resulting plots in .../aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O1/[IFO]/Results/Uncertainty/ where IFO is replaced by H1 or L1.
We went to commisioning as LLO was down, as I was setting up ETMX they came back online. As I returned ETMX to its nominal state so we could go back to observing I broke the lock.
The sensor correction on ETMX HEPI needs to be changed, it is using a bad filter. I think it's using a filter that we adjusted for the T240 that used to be installed there. The fix is a simple copy, paste from another bank, but its causing a lot of extra motion at EX. But it's possible that there maybe other issues
I noticed yesterday that the EX ISI Z performance was bad at low frequency compared to the other chambers. First plot shows each test mass chamber T240 Z spectra. Red is ETMX, blue is ETMY, green is ITMX, brown is ITMY. Around 10mhz ETMX is doing very poorly, it should look like ETMY, which is in a similar configuration. ITMX and ITMY look different because they are still running the 90mhz blends in Z, as Hugh logged a couple weeks ago, alog 24115. I immediately expected some component of the Z sensor correction on ETMX, because we use a broad band low frequency sensor correction whose gain peaking is in this frequency band, somewhat lower than the 45 mhz blend. I did an on/off comparison of the Z sensor correction (LLO was down, so I asked the Mike if looking at this was okay). Second plot is the ETMX Z T240 (dashed lines) and STS ground (solid) with Z sensor correction on (red) and off (blue). The dashed red shows the expected suppression of the microseism, but there is a whole lot of extra motion at 10 -50 mhz, the dashed blue shows that this disapperars when I turned the sensor correction off. That I've seen, none of the other BSCs see this, so I think the other filters are correct.
This extra motion is spilling over into other DOFs, mostly RX/RY. The third plot is HEPI IPS (solid) and L4C (dashed) RX, red is sensor correction on, blue is off. RY is similar, but it looks somewhat worse because these measurements were taking when the IFO was locked, so Tidal was running: the X low frequency motion looks really bad on HEPI because of this, RY probably sees some of that.
It's possible this is contributing to the EX ISI ringing up, but the extra RX/RY motion is a little too high in frequency. I've been watching ETMY CPS's today and ETMY X is rung up because of wind. Maybe we have noticed EX ringing up because winds have been mostly north south lately? Or maybe we just can't lock with EY rung up.
The filters are shown in my last plot. Red is the current filter, blue is what the other chambers are running. The gain peaking on red is ~20 at 15 mhz, the gain peaking on blue is ~10 at 30 mhz.
I've continued to analyze stochmon's results (found here) for coherence between the h(t) channels of L1 and H1. One interesting line is at 74 Hz, at which I get coherences at both H1 and L1 from corner station accelerometers. You can find the full results for the coherence here and here, but I've attached some relevant summary slides. Any idea where this is coming from?
Tagging the SEI, SUS, AOS, ISC, and SYS group, since the majority of these channels are projected versions of the ITMY ST2 GS13s and I suspect solving the problem will require action from a broad number of groups. ~74 [Hz] is roughly the right frequency for the fundamental of QUAD cage resonances. For H1 and L1 ITMY specifically, See LHO aLOG 5322; The X (beamline) direction attachment shows a broad resonance at ~75 [Hz]. Similarly for LLO LLO aLOG 7214, though the Q of the resonance is significantly lower. Suggested mechanism for coupling to DARM: the QUAD's cage is attached (mechanically) to the the ISI-ITMY's ST2. Thus the GS13s (the most sensitive local sensor in the chamber at those frequencies) are likely to see these resonance, where the resonance is excited by residual ground motion. However, the QUADs are great isolators at least frequencies, so we can rule out "traditional" coupling via direct transmission of this residual motion through the suspension chain to the test mass. What's more likely is that the cage itself is picking up scattered light from some source, and coupling it directly into the cavity's beam line. Note that a similar frequency, low Q feature was found on H1 ETMX while our end-station beam diverter was inadvertently left open for the beginning of the run, see LHO aLOG 22350. I suspect the same mechanism is at play here -- scattered light glinting off the QUAD cage into the IFO beamline.
TITLE: 12/18 OWL Shift: 08:00-16:00UTC (00:00-08:00PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at ~75 Mpc.
Incoming Operator: Jim
Support: Jim, Jenne
Quick Summary:
The range has been ratty since 8 hours ago. Omicron shows band of glitches around 20 Hz and between 100-200 Hz. I don't see any significance changes in environment from 8 hours ago. I dig through the summary page breifly and found SR3 oplev spectogram looking very nasty started 8 hours ago, but the spectrum doesn't show any misbehave osems. So the cause of these glitches is still unknown.
Shift Activities:
Nutsinee asked me to have a look-see at SR3. As you can see in the attached plot (1 day trend), the oplev sum is doing something very weird starting a few hours ago, but the optic motion (as seen by both the oplev and the osems) seems totally fine. So, something is likely funny with the SR3 optical lever laser, but since we don't ever use it in-loop, it's not a high priority for fixing right now.
DMT Omega looks glitchy between 100-200Hz. Useism have reached 90th percentile. Low wind (<5mph). A 5.6M earthquake at North of Ascension Island is coming through. LLO is already down. Hope we ride this one......
TITLE: 12/17 OWL Shift: 08:00-16:00UTC (00:00-08:00PDT), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing
Incoming Operator: Jim
Support:
Quick Summary:
Very quiet night. Nothing to complain.
Shift Activities:
TITLE: 12/17 EVE Shift: 00:00-08:00UTC (16:00-00:00PDT), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing for last 8+hrs with range of ~75Mpc
Incoming Operator: Nutsinee
Support: None needed
Quick Summary:
A nice quiet shift. useism holding steady at 0.4um/s for the last 24hrs. The winds seem to be calming down. And the snow is still on the ground. Range has been a little ratty-looking 70-80Mpc.
Shift Activities:
Evan G, Jeff K
Summary:
We finally processed the data Jeff collected (aLOG 21325) to investigate the mysterious zero near 100 Hz. Unfortunately, while we began to further understand the calibration measurements, we also uncovered new issues needing investigation.
Solved:
New mysteries:

Details:
Taking Jeff's measurements of the driver electronics (plotted magnitude only called rawXX.pdf attached) and dividing by the fitted values for the low-pass filters from aLOG 21283, we can see the remaining effect of the BOSEM in the circuit (see XX.pdf attached). We plot the magnitude and phase of each state. Left hand plots are over the full range of 1 Hz to 10 kHz, while right hand plots are zooms from 1 Hz to 200 Hz.
Fortunately, from these measurements, we can confirm that the DC transconductance is: UL = 578 uA/V, LL = 589 uA/V, UR = 582 uA/V, LR = 600 uA/V. Earlier measurements (see 21127 and 21142) had found that this was off by a factor of 2, but we do find the expected value. However, when trying to understand the "zero-like device" we found that the frequency dependence at higher frequency goes like f^{3/4}! Now we are confused.
Looking closely at the low frequency region, and in the zoom (right hand plots) we see that the fitted zero-pole pair doesn't quite take out the low-pass filters for state 3 and state 4 (last two low-pass stages). This could be because of the buffers in the driver electronics, but we are not sure if this is really the cause.
We also started looking at the parameters file for the CAL model and found that the UIM parameters have the wrong zero-pole pair and, in addition, are not using the fitted low-pass filter values. This needs to be rectified.
The script that plots these results is in:
/ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER8/H1/Scripts/Electronics/analyze_uimdriver_wBOSEM_20150908.m
Integration Issue 1179 filed regarding the lack of using the measured UIM z:p parameters in the DARM model.
J. Kissel As a part / start of the review process for the calibration pipeline, it has been requested that -- along with a long-term view of the PCAL to GDS-CALIB_STRAIN ratios (as shown in LHO aLOG 24285) -- we take snap-shots of the entire C01 GDS-CALIB_STRAIN spectrum at a smattering of times, and take the ASD ratios as has been done for the official strain sensitivity plots (see e.g. G1501223). I've done so over the early part of the run, between Sep 11 and Oct 22 2015, every 5 days or so, Sep 11 2015 20:30:43 UTC Sep 18 2015 04:50:43 UTC Sep 25 2015 07:23:43 UTC Oct 01 2015 01:30:43 UTC Oct 05 2015 05:31:43 UTC Oct 11 2015 18:57:43 UTC Oct 17 2015 07:41:43 UTC Oct 22 2015 03:12:43 UTC (recall that we get 420 [sec] of data for each ASD -- see T1500365). Attached are the zooms of the ASDs of both GDS-CALIB_STRAIN and PCAL displacement around the three PCAL frequencies ( C01_H1_O1_Sensitivity_displacement_asd_pcalzoom.pdf) and the ratio of these ASDs (C01_H1_O1_Sensitivity_displacement_asd_pcalzoomratio.pdf) for these 8 data sets. I figured this was plot overload, so I leave all nine plots that come with each official strain simply committed to the CalSVN here: /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O1/H1/Results/DARMASDs/ where the collection of plots are dated accordingly (e.g. 2015-10-22_C01_H1_O1_Sensitivity.pdf). The message: for these spot-checks, the ratio between GDS C01 calibrated displacement and PCAL calibrated displacement is within the expected 10%, and all but the earliest data point data point is better than 5%. Very good -- great job CAL team! ------- These plots were made with a generalization of the official strain producing script that now lives in /ligo/svncommon/CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O1/Common/Scripts/produceofficialstrainasds_O1_C01.m
Per the Shift Check Sheet (for Thursday's task), I went and checked on the Crystal & Diode Chillers for the PSL. The Crystal Chiller was not at maximum, so I added 125mL (basically to get the water's meniscus close to the "MAX" level). NOTE: according to the notepad, this was filled on 12/16 with 125mL also.
Diode Chiller was fine (no red error light).
H1 has been locked for 5.5+ hrs with a range between 70-80Mpc (only one ETMy saturation).
All running well here. I was not able to log into the ops workstation (operator0) at the beginning of the shift, but Jim B was able to remedy that.
Snowed earlier in the shift, and we have about 0.75" of snow on the ground currently. Winds are at about 6mph & useism is at 0.4um/s
The omicron scans of the top ten Hanford BBH/BNS triggers on December 16th show a notable recurring wave-like glitch. The glitches are present in the following scans: https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~jacob.broida/Dec16/BBH/GW/1134302174/ https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~jacob.broida/Dec16/BBH/GW/1134294300/ https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~jacob.broida/Dec16/BBH/GW/1134291513/ https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~jacob.broida/Dec16/BNS/GW/1134295111/ Inspection of the auxiliary channels revealed that these signals seem to stem from one channel: H1:ASC-Y_TR_B_PIT_OUT_DQ.The scans for this channel are visible here: https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~jacob.broida/Dec16/BBH/1134302174/#H1:ASC-Y_TR_B_PIT_OUT_DQ https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~jacob.broida/Dec16/BBH/1134294300/#H1:ASC-Y_TR_B_PIT_OUT_DQ https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~jacob.broida/Dec16/BBH/1134291513/#H1:ASC-Y_TR_B_PIT_OUT_DQ https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~jacob.broida/Dec16/BNS/1134295111/#H1:ASC-Y_TR_B_PIT_OUT_DQ The rest of the scans from December 16th can be accessed from the chart here: https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~jacob.broida/Dec16/Results.html
BCV Results for the above glitches. BBH Glitches https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~sudarshan.ghonge/BCV/O1/H1_glitch_151216_bbh/H1_1134289817_1134329417_webpage/ BNS Glitches https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~sudarshan.ghonge/BCV/O1/H1_glitch_151216_bns/H1_1134282617_1134336617_webpage/
Summary: There were 11 scheduled hardware injections: 1134345924 1 1.0 coherentbbh10_1128678894_ 1134348928 1 1.0 coherentbbh11_1128678894_ 1134353728 1 1.0 coherentbbh15_1128678894_ 1134354928 1 1.0 coherentbbh16_1128678894_ 1134356128 1 1.0 coherentbbh17_1128678894_ 1134357328 1 1.0 coherentbbh18_1128678894_ 1134359800 1 1.0 coherentbbh11_1128678894_ 1134361000 1 1.0 coherentbbh12_1128678894_ 1134362200 1 1.0 coherentbbh13_1128678894_ 1134363400 1 1.0 coherentbbh14_1128678894_ 1134364600 1 1.0 coherentbbh19_1128678894_ The first column is the start time of the injection. The second column is an integer that specifies that it was a CBC injection. The third column is the scale factor. And the fourth column is the beginning prefix of the parameter/waveform files. The waveform files can be found here: 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 parameter files can be found here: https://daqsvn.ligo-la.caltech.edu/svn/injection/hwinj/Details/Inspiral/ Two of these happened in L1 only because H1 lost lock. Those two are: 1134348928 1 1.0 coherentbbh11_1128678894_ 1134357328 1 1.0 coherentbbh18_1128678894_ Segments: The segment database reports 9 injections for the H1:ODC-INJECTION_CBC:2 flag: 1134345929,1134345931 1134353734,1134353735 1134354934,1134354935 1134356134,1134356135 1134359806,1134359807 1134361005,1134361007 1134362206,1134362207 1134363405,1134363407 1134364606,1134364607 And 11 for L1:ODC-INJECTION_CBC:2 flag: 1134345929,1134345931 1134348934,1134348935 1134353734,1134353735 1134354934,1134354935 1134356134,1134356135 1134357333,1134357335 1134359806,1134359807 1134361005,1134361007 1134362206,1134362207 1134363405,1134363407 1134364606,1134364607
Parameter estimation started. Results will appear here https://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/ligovirgo/cbcnote/ParameterEstimationModelSelection/O1_PE/HardwareInjs_12162015 ping salvo or john for questions/comments