During the large earthquake last Friday, Jeff K took the opportunity to run a set of charge measurements on the ETMs.  While the ETMy data did not yield successful plots (am looking into matlab), the ETMx results are posted below in trends from July to now.  Note, we last changed the bias signs (on both ETMX and ETMY) on July 22nd - alog 19848.

Summary:

In an effort to create a inverse actuation filter for Hardware injection through Pcal infrastructure, we use the transfer function between RxPD  and excitation of which RxPD is calibrated in terms of metres of displacement. . Using this RxPD calibration and the measured transfer fumction we calibrate the excitation [cts]  in terms of metres and use it to create the inverse actuation filter. This will be installed in one of the excitation channel, possibly swept sine channel, for testing purpose.

Detail:

In the above plot, the two left plots are the actual magnitude and phase of the measurement and different fits. The red plot is the inverse of measured transfer function between calibrated RxPD and pcal excitation. In short, it is cts of excitation to metres of test mass displacement. The rest of the plots are fit to that measured TF. In this case, the residual plots on the right side are more informative. The blue plot is the residual between measured TF and the fit that includes two zeros. The residual looks pretty good for this case but we do not have the luxury of only using two zeros. We need equal or greater number of poles to roll off the signal at higher frequency. For this we use a complex pole pair at 7 Khz and an additional real pole at same frequency. This creates some magnitude and significant phase distortion at higher frequencies as seen in the green residual plot but this is a systematic and we can account for this in our analysis later.

The magenta plot is the foton implementation of our two zeros and three pole fit plotted in green. There is a difference between the actual matlab generated filter and the foton version of it at frequencies above KHz. This is a known effect and is described in detail in G1501013.

I have written a litlle more detail technical note  and can be found at T1500496.

To assess the health of the HEPI Actuator Parker Valves, which are very susceptable to blockage from fluid contaminants, LLO has regularly done the "Valve_Check" test.  I have never successfully managed to make this work at LHO mainly because of missing files and lack of understanding of all the components to the test.

It also requires the HEPIs to be deisolated as 3hz sines waves are driven to the valves to assess the health of the valve.  The results are posted on a plot and compared to previous values and trends and dramatic changes are spotted indicating a valve problem.  Again, since we don't like taking the HEPI platforms down, and, I haven't been able to get the valve check to run here, an alternative which doesn't require de-isolating the platform is being searched for.

As we are looking for changes in the valve's effectiveness, it seems simple enough to look at the postion of the Actuator (IPS) in response to the Actuator Drive (OUTF.)  So in dataviewer, I was just going to plot the local basis IPS INMON and the OUTF_OUTPUT.  Upon further study, we might find it better to extract from other points of the chain such as IPS OUTPUT to get nm but for now I just grabbed the overview elements which is counts (0.001"/655cts) and the OUTF_OUTPUT...which should be nm in IPS space, not drive to make nm, I think...  Anyway, at this point we are just looking for bad trends or steps that can not be explained.

I was going to start with 14 days of data (LLO runs the valve check weekly) but there was some zero elements that I can't figure out how to remove with DV so I'm getting divide by zero errors.  So here is just a week's data for the BS.

In the attached plot I put the 8 each IPS reading and OUTF drive pairs adjacent (H1 in Chs 1 & 2, H2 in Chs 3 & 4, etc.)  I then made the ratio of reading to drive and put it in the Ch1 graph hiding the original IPS reading.  So the graphs with the brown traces are the ratios between the IPS not seen and the red trace drive in the graph just above.

So what stands out?

Regarding valve health...there are no monotonic trends but it is only a week so maybe not useful.

There is a shift in all vertical channels but they are all about the same magnitude in OUTPUT.  I'd think a bad valve would stand out as a larger shift and the other are just making up a smaller portion of the total load.  While the shift is clear on the Drive OUTF, on the IPS reading it is at the few counts level, related to IFO state maybe and otherwise insignificant?

The ratios are much closer to unity for the verticals but this is just a function of the larger vertical drives as we have a nearly 1/2 mm offset on the vertical hold position on the BS.

For the Horizontal channels, the ratios for all but H4 drift, swing, oscilate around 1 or 2 units whereas H4 swings around 5 to 15 units.  Does this indicate something different about H4? Other than just the zero position of the IPS or conspiring cartesian positions yielding a smaller drive to H4?

Given that the zero IPS reading is not necessarily zero, any conclusion depending on that is biased and so must be salted.

Conclusion, no changes in valve performance in the past week.  More work needed to look at longer time periods.  MIT(tlemen) is looking at this too.

TITLE: Sep 25 Day Shift 15:00-23:00UTC (08:00-16:00 PT)

STATE Of H1: Observing

OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ed

QUICK SUMMARY:

- IFO needed a small amount of tweaking to TMS, BS, and PR3

- SRM and HAM5 ISI and BS ISI tripped on DRMI lock loss??? All restored now.

- SDF  difference for ASL_Y_WFS_DOF3 pitch and yaw gains reduced from 0.03 to 0.015, at 14:30UTC this morning, but no mention from Ed about why, so I set them back to 0.03 

TITLE:  Sep 25 EVE Shift 07:00-15:00UTC (00:00-08:00 PDT), all times posted in UTC

STATE Of H1: Observing

LOCK DURATION: Entire Shift

SUPPORT: none needed

INCOMING OPERATOR: Cheryl V

Activity log:

12:17 Christina checked in the CR

12:30 Mike L gave a courtesy call to check on things and remind me that LLO is haveing GraceDB issues and that we’re to keep the apprised of any alarms that may occur.

13:47 Lockloss: ETMY saturations (9 in a row) No environmental explanation

14:28 After unsuccessfully trying to lock PRMI. I decided to go ahead and do INITIAL ALIGNMENT.

14:49 Did DIAG RESET on H1PASC0 timing error

Shift Summary:

Mid-Shift Summary: IFO Locked @ 72-76Mpc. No obtrusive Seismic or wind activity. 2 ETMY glitches. Approx. 11 hours coincidence with LLO. Some incidental glitches showing on DMT Omega graph in the ~70-180Hz range may have cause some minor glitches in range and a periods of slightly reduced range. There is a timing glitch showing in H1IOPASC0. I made an aLog about it and e-mailed Dave Barker. There doesn’t seem to be any fallout from it that I can detect so I won’t attempt a reset.

I noticed this timing error at 09:32UTC. I don't see any changes in the IFO because of it. No attempt to reset will be made at this time.

TITLE: Sep 25 OWL Shift 07:00-15:00UTC (00:00-08:00 PDT), all times posted in UTC

STATE Of H1: Observing

OUTGOING OPERATOR: Jim W

QUICK SUMMARY:Jim and Miguel left me to myself. IFO Locked at 75Mpc/22.4W. By the  CAL_INJ_CONTROL MEDM screen, it looks as if TINJ and CW are NOT enabled. Darm looks usually quiet with all calbration lines present.DHARD_Y boost is NOT enabled. Site is quiet. All lights are off in LVEA, MID, END and PSL. Wind is <10mph. Microseism seems to be riding steady at ~.1um/s for the last 14hours. EQ seismic at ~ .2 um/s in all axes for the last 4 hours with a little bump in in all axes to about 5e-2um/s about 15 minutes prior to this log. Last glitch in range was about 3.5 hours ago.

• Title: 9/24 Eve Shift: 23:00-7:00UTC 

• State of H1: Observation Mode at 70+Mpc for the last 12hrs

• Support: 

• Shift Summary: First part of shift was occupied with Injections. Those stopped about 2:30

• Activity Log:

• 23:00-0:00 Chris Biwer, MikeL working on coherent injection
  3 Injections scheduled at 1:30, 2:00, 2:30
  2:35 Realize that an earlier injection (G187091) marked EM-Ready may have disabled the later injections
  23:00-0:00 Chris Biwer, MikeL working on coherent injection
  3 Injections scheduled at 1:30, 2:00, 2:30

   

  2:35 Realize that an earlier injection (G187091) marked EM-Ready may have disabled the later injections

Adam, Alex U., Chris, Mike L., Eric

With a bit of effort we have successfully scheduled and injected a coherent CBC hardware injection. We have scheduled three coherent hardware injections for later tonight at 1127179817, 1127181617, and 1127183417. Those injections are the last of the night.

Here I will summarize what has happened.

All attempted/successful injections used the H1L1 coherent waveform from aLog 21838.

The are a couple differences between the sites. LLO uses monit to run tinj, whereas LHO does not. LLO uses the new hardware injection SVN, whereas LHO uses the DAC SVN still. The directory to run tinj at both sites is /home/hinj/Details/tinj.

Note that the times below are not the end time of the inspiral but rather this is the start time of injecting the ASCII file. The end time of the inspiral is listed on the gracedb page for the hardware injection and is ~6.986 seconds after the injection was scheduled.

Adam and Chris set out to do a H1L1 coherent hardware injection. See 21901.

We initially tried to scheduled a hardware injection at 1127175848. However the first step, i.e. to upload a GraceDB entry did not work. Chris was given a permissions warning and denied to upload to the CBC group.

The second attempt was scheduled for 1127168901. This was unsuccessful.
  * A gracedb page was generated for this hardware injection H1 and L1. No explanation for why Chris had permission this time.
  * At LLO the wrong schedule file was updated so there was no injection at LLO.
  * At LHO tinj had stopped before the time of the injection so there was no injection at LHO.

We then stopped the tests and went to the hardware injection telecon.

On the hardware injection telecon we had a group debug session.

We had to get tinj running at LHO again. To do this we did:
cd /home/hinj/Details/tinj
./run_tinj &

After running this command tinj was running again with process ID 11229. We tailed the log file (/home/hinj/Details/tinj/tinj.log) and saw that it was updating again.


Even though tinj is running in the background it still prints output to stdout. So Chris logged out of h1hwinj1 and logged back into h1hwnj1. tinj was still running.

The thought for the tinj failing was that when Chris edited the schedule file (/home/hinj/Details/tinj/schedule) the MCR environment that was used for testing monit received an error. Eric had checked the run_tinj log (/home/hinj/Details/tinj/run_tinj.log); note run_tinj is a wrapper to run tinj in monit. The log said:
ERROR: Unexpected error in tinj.
GPS=1127167412

So we did another test with tinj. The tests were logged in 21911.

The third attempt was scheduled for 1127172657. This injection was unsuccessful.
  * tinj stopped. Debugging by Eric showed that we need to change the filename of the waveform single-column ASCII files. Inspiral waveform files need have _H1 or _L1 at the end. So we renamed coherenttest1_*.out to coherenttest1_*_H1.out and coherenttest1_*_H1.out.
  * We also had to include a _ at the end of the filename in the schedule. So the line should have read "1127172657 1 0.5 coherenttest1_1126257410".

We made these corrections. But LLO went out of lock.

The fourth attempt was scheduled for 1127173421 and it was H1 only. It was successful.
  * The waveform was injected and observed going through the hardware injection filterbanks.
  * It had a scale factor of 0.5 applied.
  * A gracedb page was generated for this hardware injection H1 and L1.

Now that we had tinj running and a successful injection at LHO we waited for LLO to come back.

The fifth attempt was scheduled for 1127175848 and was a H1L1 coherent injection into both detectors. It was successful.
  * This was the first scheduled coherent CBC injection in aLIGO.
  * It was observed in both detectors. There was a CWB trigger for this event in gracedb and it was flagged with the INJ tag.
  * A gracedb page was generated for this hardware injection H1 and L1.

We then scheduled three more injections for the night at 1127179817, 1127181617, and 1127183417.

The schedule file now reads:
1127168901 1 0.5 coherenttest1_1126257410
1127172657 1 0.5 coherenttest1_1126257410
1127173421 1 0.5 coherenttest1_1126257410_
1127175848 1 1.0 coherenttest1_1126257410_
1127179817 1 1.0 coherenttest1_1126257410_
1127181617 1 1.0 coherenttest1_1126257410_
1127183417 1 1.0 coherenttest1_1126257410_

More plots and followup to come later.

An action item is to update the hardware injection documentation with the correct filename format and the commands to restart tinj on the command line.

And I will add as another note, to get to the monit web browser interface. On a controls machine you can type for the URL "http://h1hwinj1/" and it will take you to the monit web browser interface. At the moment I see no way to manage tinj this way but once we switch to monit this will be a good thing to remember.

I think it's possible that we're closer to the Newtonian gravitational noise limit than I had thought.  This is on the list of "things we knew were coming, but are perhaps here sooner than I thought they would be". 

The punch line is that we may be limited by Newtonian noise between 16-20 Hz.  Not a wide band, but reasonably consistent with the expectations from papers such as P1200017.

In the attached plot, the blue trace is the calibrated DARM spectrum (CAL-DELTAL_EXTERNAL_DQ) that we show on the wall, taken yesterday.  The green trace is my estimate of the Newtonian noise. 

For the Newtonian noise, I have taken the Z-axis STS-2 seismometer data from the sensors on the ground near each test mass.  (There is one seismometer at each end station, and one in the vertex near the ITMs - I use the same seismometer data for each ITM). The seismometers are in velocity units (I believe Jim said it's nm/s), so I pwelch to get velocity/rtHz, then apply the calibration zpk([],0, 1.6e-10) to get to meters/rtHz.  I then translate to acceleration due to Newtonian noise using eq 1 from T1100237.  Finaly, I add the 4 acceleration contributions (one from each test mass) incoherently and get to displacement by dividing the spectrum by (2*pi*f)^2. 

The Newtonian noise is touching the DARM spectrum between about 16 - 20 Hz. We're within about an order of magnitude in the band 10 - 30 Hz.  Evan will shortly re-run his noise budget code using this "measured" Newtonian noise to see if it helps explain some of the discrepancy between the measured and expected DARM spectra (this spectra is higher than the GWINC curve that is currently used in the noise budget). 

Notably, this estimate of seismically-induced Newtonian noise is somewhat larger than what we've quoted in P1200017 and T1100237.  If I use only the ETMY spectrum as an estimate for all 4 test masses, I get an answer more consistent with our past estimates.  However, using the actual seismic signals from each test mass, I'm getting this slightly higher estimate. 

The script to generate this plot is attached, as is the exported-from-DTT text file of the calibrated DARM spectrum.

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.

I've uploaded new and approved coherent waveforms for hardware injection testing. SVN is at revision number 5097.

There is a H1L1 coherent version of the September 21 test injection that was done at LHO. It can be found here:
  * H1 waveform
  * L1 waveform
  * XML parameter file

There is a H1L1 coherent version of the September 21 test injection that was done at LHO and the waveform begins at 15Hz. This waveform should be tested after the previous waveform has been tested. It can be found here:
  * H1 waveform
  * L1 waveform
  * XML parameter file

JeffreyK, SudarshanK, DarkhanT,

Overview

We made comparison plots of a DARM OLG TF and PCAL to DARM TF measurements taken at LHO with H1DARMmodel_ER8 and H1DARMmodel_O1 (uncorrected and corrected with kappa factors).

One of the main changes in the DARM model update for O1 compared to ER8 was that in the actuation function for ER8 model we did not account for an analog anti-imaging filter. We included that filter into the O1 model. Adding previously missing analog AI filter into the actuation function model increased the (measurement / model) residual to about 1% in magnitude and to ~6 deg around 500 Hz (~10 deg around 900 Hz). Initally some of the ER8 model parameter estimations (ESD/CD gains) were done to best fit the measurments for actuation function that does not include an analog AI.

We also took kappas calculated from calibration lines within about 20 minutes from DARM OLG TF measurement and plotted DARM model for O1 corrected with kappas in two different ways against the measurement to see how kappa corrections will take care of systematics in the model. At this point we don't have comparison results of the DARM OLG TF and PCAL2DARM TF measurements and kappa estimations to make a distinct statement. For this particular measurement from Sep 10, the DARM model that was corrected with κ_tst and κ_C produced smaller DARM OLG TF residual and actuation function residual compared to uncorrected model, but the sensing function residual was did not improve by the correction (see attached pdf's for actuation and sensing residuals).

Details

Some of the known issues / systematics in our DARM OLG TF model include:

• Not all of the sign flips in ESD (due-to linearization, direction of the applied force) and PUM were explicitly specified in the model parameters (for ESD sign flips see LHO alog 21739), also the location of a sign flip in the loop that is not part of A, C and D was not identified correctly in the beginning of ER8 (for correct location of this "-1" see LHO alog 21601). These issues were fixed in Matlab parameter file and DARM model for O1. Following aspects are affected by these issues:

- inverse actuation filters need to accout for an extra -1 sign (was fixed, see LHO alog 21703);

- CAL-CS reproduction should have a sign that's opposite from DARM output matrix (at LHO we had this correct, but it needed to be fixed at LLO).

• Shivaraj found that DAQ downsampling from 16 kHz to 512 Hz has frequency dependent phase roll-off that accounted for earlier unexplained ~44 degrees of phase discrepancy between the x_tst excitation and DARM_ERR readout measurement vs. model.

This issue affects EP1 value that's written into Epics record and used for estimation of DARM time-dependent parameters (T1500377). At LHO in the DARM model for ER8 we manually rotated phase of EP1 to +44.4 degrees to account for this discrepancy; we modified both the paramter file and the DARM model script to account for the DAQ downsampling filter TF calculated at the x_tst line frequency.

• JoeB found that an analog anti-imaging filter was not included into the DARM model for ER8 at both LHO and LLO, both sites started with H1DARMmodel_ER8.m script in which we missed to add this filter. On Monday, Sep 21, this issue was fixed in both LLO and LHO DARM models. The issue affects following aspects:

- residuals of actuation function and total DARM OLG TF (systemaic error);

- EP1-9 that are used for estimation of DARM temporal variations.

• We had an extra IOP cycle delay added into "par.t.actuation", which was not present in the parameter file and was not used to generate DARM model.

This variable might have been used in GDS calibration, we need to verify with MaddieW to make sure that this extra time delay is not included into GDS code.

• Both sensing and actuation residuals in the DARM model for O1 model extra delay (time-advance). This might be caused by overcounting time-delays or incorrect estimation of some other parameters.

One of the possible sources of systematic error in the sensing function model is using a single-pole TF to approximate IFO response.

Some of the parameters of the actuation functions were estimated without taking into account an analog AI filter (one of the issues listed above). We need to revisit ER8/O1 actuation function analysis results.

A comparison script, an updated DARM model script and DARM paramter files were committed calibration SVN:

CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O1/H1/Scripts/DARMOLGTFs/

Plots were committed to:

CalSVN/aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/O1/H1/Results/DARMOLGTFs/

P.S. I'll add references later.

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). 

Chris B., Jeff K.

We performed a series of single-IFO hardware injections at H1 as a test. The intent mode button was off at the time.

All injections were the same waveform from aLog 21744.

tinj was not used to do the injections. The command line used to do the injections was:

awgstream H1:CAL-INJ_TRANSIENT_EXC 16384 H1-HWINJ_CBC-1126257410-12.txt 0.2 -d -d
awgstream H1:CAL-INJ_TRANSIENT_EXC 16384 H1-HWINJ_CBC-1126257410-12.txt 0.5 -d -d >> log.txt
awgstream H1:CAL-INJ_TRANSIENT_EXC 16384 H1-HWINJ_CBC-1126257410-12.txt 0.5 -d -d >> log.txt
awgstream H1:CAL-INJ_TRANSIENT_EXC 16384 H1-HWINJ_CBC-1126257410-12.txt 0.5 -d -d >> log.txt
awgstream H1:CAL-INJ_TRANSIENT_EXC 16384 H1-HWINJ_CBC-1126257410-12.txt 1.0 -d -d >> log.txt

I've attached the log (log.txt) which contains the standard output from running awgstream.

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

1126916005.002499000
1126916394.002471000
1126916649.002147000
1126916962.002220000
1126917729.002499000

The expected SNR the waveform is ~18. The scale factors applied by awgstream should change the SNR by a factor of 0.2 and 0.5 when used.

I've attached timeseries of the INJ-CAL_HARDWARE and INJ-CAL_TRANSIENT. The injections did not reach the 200 counts limit of the INJ_HARDWARE filterbank that we saw in the past.

Watching the live noise curve in the control room we did not notice any strong indication of ETMY saturation which usually manifests itself as a rise in the bucket of the noise curve. But this needs followup.

I've attached omegascans of the injections.