nm

I have restarted all the dmt processes. This is to fix problems seen at LHO in which disk write delays were interfering with the h(t) and DQ segment generation. The changes made were:

 1) remove diagnostic logging from the multicast receiver processes
 2) write the DQ xml files to a local disk and then move them to the gds RAID system as a separate process (not time critical).

A change of the h(t) calibration filter files was also planned, but this will be done after final calibration group tests.

Proposed & Ongoing Maintenance Day Activities

Y--Approved N--Not approved for this week  D--Approved but Delayed

D--Test SDF for Beckoff--JHanks--Delayed to 10-6

Y--Move PMC, LASER & Eq from OSB OL to LSB OL--PKing & JOberling--Completed

Y--Replace Vibration Isolators on End Instrument Air Compressors--BGately--Completed

Y--Restart SATAboy--CPerez--Completed

N--Add Botches to HL & HSTS ASC for Bounce/Roll--SDwyer

Y--ETM ChargeMeasurements--BWeaver--Completed

Y--"Fix" HAM5 Rogue Excitation Error--HRadkins--Completed

Y--Swap RF45 Controller--KKawabe--Completed

Y--Add low f Boost (ASC)----Completed

Y--Update GDS Pipeline for 15 usec delay fix--JKissel

Y--PRAXAIR Deliveries 1 Monday & 2 Tuesday--CP3(MidY)[Monday], CP6(MidX),...

Y--Shutdown Dust Monitors at End Stations--JBartlett--Completed

Y--PCAL as a Hardware Injector Proof-of-Principle--SKarki--Completed

Y--Forklift DCS Shipment from LSB to VPW--CCarrisco--Completed

Y--Restart NDS 0 & 1--JBatch--Completed

Y--Test Hardware Injection under MONIT--JBatch--OnGoing

Y--Update Code on DMT for latest Calibration--JZweizig--Completed

Y--Finalize Rack Photo Assay--FClara--Completed

Y--TMSX Raster For Clipping--SDwyer--OnWaiting onIFO

This morning, during a short window of pportunity, I ran the charge measurements on ETMX and ETMY.  However, the RF45 commissioners were apparently not aware of my hour-long time duration, so the measurements were corrupted at ~45 minutes in.  Thankfully the first few measurments ran somewhat successfully.   Although, numerous parties visited the end stations while the first few measurements were taken so the coherence is not great.  Unfortunately the ETMY measurements from last Fri failed so we do not have any ETMY charge trend between the 8th and today.  So, WE NEED ANOTHER HOUR of measurement time in the next day or so.  We can use the tail of an earthquake ring down if needed.  I'll be trying to pay attention to windows of opportunities for new measruements in the next day or two.

In any case, attached are the trend plots which include todays data - these seem to indicate that it is time to change the bias sign again on at least the ETMY ESD.  The ETMX ESD is "flatter in trend".

ShivarajK, JeffreyK, DarkhanT,

Overview

To reduce phase systematics in the DARM OLGTF model we've adjusted time delays/advances in the actuation and the sensing functions of the DARM loop Matlab model.

With the included 15 us of time-advance into the actuation function, the phase residuals of each of the actuation stage TFs up to 100 Hz measured on Aug. 26 - 29 are under 2 deg at high frequencies (except for L1 stage which is about 5 deg, which is ok because at high frequencies we rely mostly on L3 stage actuation), and the overall actuation function rediduals at high frequencies to mostly under 3 deg (Fig. 1).

To reduce sensing function phase residuals we have added 14 us of time-advance, which is similar to the correction introduced into LLO DARM model for O1 (see LLO alog 20894); with this additional time-advance the sensing function phase residual is mostly under 2 deg (Fig. 2).

DARM OLGTF model for O1 with included actuation and sensing function time delay/advance corrections have phase redisuals that are mostly under 2 deg (Fig. 4).

For GDS pipeline corrections: time delays in the updated H1 DARM model for O1 are:

• par.t.actuation = 114.6997 us
• par.t.sensing + par.t.armDelay = 75.6181 us

Details

In the DARMOLGTF model for O1 we had systematic phase residuals, which we planned to account for by adding time delay/advances into the actuation and the sensing functions (see LHO alog 21827). In the H1DARM model for O1 we implemented the time delay/advance correction capability via par.t.unknown_actuation and par.t.unknown_sensing parameters. After that we revisited actuation function stages' redisuals by looking at the plots produced using cmpActCoeffs_viaPcal_O1.m and analyze_pcal_20150928.m (this is a modified version of a script used at LLO, analyze_pcal_20150903.m, see LLO alog 20894), and confirmed that actuation stages with the included 15 us time advance correction show <2 deg residuals (under 5 deg for L1), Fig. 5, 6, 7; we still have ~ 2 % systematic residual in actuation magnitudes that we are leaving unchanged in the Matlab DARM model and the CAL-CS front-end filter modules (Fig. 8, 9, 10).

We modified "H1DARMparams_1125963332.m", "H1DARMparams_1127083151.m" and their kappa corrected versions and re-run CompareDARMOLGTFs_01.m.¹ Comparison plots show that:

• κ_tst and κ_C corrected actuation function model vs. measurements has residuals of mostly under 2% in magnitude and 3 deg in phase (Fig. 11);
• κ_tst and κ_C corrected sensing function has residuals of mostly ~2% systematic +/-2% in magnitude and under 2 deg in phase (Fig. 12);
• κ_tst and κ_C corrected DARM OLG TF model has residuals of mostly <2% in magnitude and +/-2 deg in phase (Fig. 13); in the frequency range [500 .. 700] Hz residuals are larger (could be due to low measurement coherence, Fig. 4).

¹we used kappa values at the measurement times from previous calculations (see LHO alog 21827); for the ~30 Hz lines these values shouldn't be too much different from the ones calculated using EP1-9 from the updated O1 model.

H1 DARM model for O1 and comparison script were committed to calibration SVN (r1550)

CalSVN/Runs/O1/H1/Scripts/DARMOLGTFs/H1DARMOLGTFmodel_O1.m

CalSVN/Runs/O1/H1/Scripts/DARMOLGTFs/CompareDARMOLGTFs_O1.m

All of the parameter files in the same directory were modified to include time advances noted in this report.

Actuation function analysis scripts were committed to (r1550) (PCAL parameter files, that were copied from ER8 directory have been also committed into the same directory):

CalSVN/Runs/O1/H1/Scripts/PCAL/analyze_pcal_20150928.m

CalSVN/Runs/O1/H1/Scripts/PCAL/cmpActCoeffs_viaPcal_O1.m

Actuation function analysis plots were committed to (r1551)

CalSVN/Runs/O1/H1/Results/PCAL/2015-09-28_cmpActCoeffs_PCAL_*.pdf

Model comparison plots were committed to

CalSVN/Runs/O1/H1/Results/DARMOLGTFs/2015-09-28_H1DARM_ER8O1_cmp_*.pdf

Summary:

We swapped the 45MHz EOM driver under the PSL table. This box contains the RFAM stabilization board.

Old one: S1500117

New one: S1500118

Related: https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=20392

We need some time to assess the impact of this swap.

Phasing:

In the PSL room, we roughly measured the phase of the driver output VS input by inserting a splitter to the input and measure the zero-cross time difference between the input and the output using a scope.

In the old one the output was 6.9ns ahead of the input, but in the new one it was 6.7ns, so there should be 0.2ns or about 3 degrees more delay.

Later we measured the transfer function from the H1:LSC-ASAIR_A_RF45_I_ERR to Q phase while the MICH was free swinging (PRM, SRM and ETMs are all misaligned). The phase between I and Q was basically 0 degrees as it should be.

We decided to go with 77.3deg, which is within 1 degree of the old phasing.

The h1hwinj1 computer is currently undergoing maintenance and testing.  A fresh checkout of the Details directory has been installed, with the old Details directory being moved to Details-old.  Testing of psinject and run_tinj will be performed to get these under monit control. 

Detailed here.  This process change has been executed.  Confirmed the Rogue excitation does not come on and again the GS13s needed to be switched to low gain.  Also, even in low gain, the ISI still tripped on the CPS with the GS13 pretty rung up too.  I set the ISI guardian to damping only for a few minutes and then it made it to Isolated.

Platform back to nominal with GS13 gain correct in High No whitening.

Title:  09/29/2015, Day Shift 15:00 – 23:00 (08:00 – 16:00) All times in UTC (PT)

State of H1: At 15:00 (08:00) Locked at NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE, 22.4W, 48Mpc

Outgoing Operator: TJ

Quick Summary: IFO locked. In Maintenance mode for start of window.  

• Title: 9/29 OWL Shift: 7:00-15:00UTC (00:00-8:00PDT), all times posted in UTC
  

• State of H1: Locked but Maintenance Day
  

• Shift Summary: Locked the whole time with only one small section of time with a few glitches. I let Maintenance Day start about 30min early since LLO started a few hours ago.

• Incoming Operator: Jeff B

• Activity Log:

• 11:53 - ETMY sat.
• 12:01 - ETMY sat.
• 12:05 - ETMY sat.
• 14:32 - Out of Observing
• 14:54 - ETMY sat.

LLO started their maintenance almost 2 hours ago and Sheila needs a locked IFO for her work (might be hard to come by today)

Since LLO had already gone down (we think for maintence) TJ let me start some maintence work that needs the full IFO locked.  at about 14:32 UTC Sept 29th we went to commisioning to start running the A2L script as described in WP # 5517.

This is a reminder that this lock has been out of the nominal calibrated configuration since the RF45 SET is at 22.2dB instead of the nominal 23.2dB. See alog22045 for times and reason for change.

Locked for my whole shift, not even a saturation. Nothing to report.

• Title: 9/29 OWL Shift: 7:00-15:00UTC (00:00-8:00PDT), all times posted in UTC
  

• State of H1: Observation Mode at ~72Mpc for the last 1hrs
  

• Outgoing Operator: Travis S.
  

• Quick Summary: He had a normal first 6 hours of his shift, then lost lock but brought it right back for me.

Title: 9/28 Eve Shift 23:00-7:00 UTC (16:00-24:00 PST).  All times in UTC.

State of H1: Observing

Shift Summary: One lockloss due to ITMx saturation.  After an initial alignment due to poor ALS alignment, locked up without issue.

Incoming operator: TJ

Activity log: 

5:06 Lockloss.  ITMx saturation.

5:20 Begin initial alignment.

6:02 Briefly went to Observing before seeing RF45 needed some tweaking.

6:07 Locked in Observing Mode.

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).