In this analysis we used 1 minute FFTs of H1:LSC-DARM_IN1_DQ for derr.
Channels H1:CAL-PCALX_TX_PD_OUT_DQ, H1:CAL-PCALY_TX_PD_OUT_DQ and calibration factors from DCC T1500283 were used to calculate Xpcal.
The time delay of 125 us between Pcal and DARM signals (see LHO aLOG 19186) should cause phase delay of high frequency lines of about 24.3 degrees, but not over 140 degrees as we saw in our analysis. The question, why phases of high frequency lines are rotated by 140 degrees compared to phases of low frequency lines, needs to be studied.
Changes in actuation function, A, can confuse results produces by this method. This issue can be avoided by applying a time dependent A in calculation of Cifo.
An estimation of how much changes in CC pole frequency can increase uncertainty in calculation of external length strain need to be studied.
We plan to repeat this analysis with LLO data.
Picking up where Arnaud left off nearly 2 weeks ago, alog 19208 post vent, I am looking at the health of the TMSX suspension. Basically, we reinvented what he stated - the TMSX LF and RT BOSEMs are less sensitive than they were "before". The TFs show a DC offset from the Model and the TFs taken a year ago. We're not sure why this is - Kiwamu suggests that a change in the stiffness of the suspension made during the June cable strain relieving likely would have caused the resonance peaks to shift as well as the DC offset... We don't think this DC shift is too serious - the loop gain in V and P need to be retuned.
I can drive the TMSX with PIT alignment bias and see the Left and Right (suspect) BOSEMs respond, so they are not "out of range" and are actuating.
I reran the TMSX TFS for PIT and VERT - Both look healthy to me, so whatever bad measurement was posted in the middle of the 19208 alog is still gone.
I agree with Betsy -- a change in stiffness would only affect the magnitude of the transfer function at low-frequencies. An overall scale factor discrepancy like what is shown here is typically a problem with an electronics gain being different (say, if a satellite pre-amp's circuits have much less gain than before), or an incorrect digital gain (say, if the EUL2OSEM / OSEM2EUL matrices were systematically incorrect). It might be that the diodes have a new, worse, open light current, and what is being used for digital compensation / normalization is now in correct. It would be difficult to believe / quite the coincidence that would a problem from *both* LF and RT at the same time. Recall that this is FRS Ticket #3246. ------ For reference, I also quote Keita who had replied on this over a small-email-list: "" Seems like TMSX RT and LF are bigger than before by maybe 5000 counts or so, which I didn't catch when we came out of chamber. We added small masses (strain relief parts) to TMS, so this makes sense qualitatively. These numbers were already big-ish before vent in a retrospect, and RT is now about 4000 counts away from the open value which is supposed to be -2*H1:SUS-TMSX_M1_OSEMINF_RT_OFFSET~26000 cts. No idea if 4000 counts is too small a margine there, nor if the BOSEM height is the cause of the poor measurement results. Anyway, my questions are, 1. Were the suspension bias sliders on or off during the measurement? If not, measure with nominal offset even though we don't know the right alignment for now. 2. Is the S/N of the PIT sensing considerably smaller than before? If it is, TMS should be noisier than before due to noisier PIT damping, which in principle compromise ASC performance for ITMs (DSOFT, CSOFT). Regardless of the answers, my gut feeling is that it's possible to run H1 without fixing the BOSEM height for O1 (unless TMSX is shaking too much due to this and the IFO wouldn't lock). ""
The PIT and VERT TFs that I ran this morning were with the bias sliders enabled.
VAC : pumping going fine. Y-arm to be opened tomorrow. X-Arm on Wednesday. Sloww process to valve-in new getter type pumps.
SUS: FE model changes to be done tomorrow. Betsy picking pu TMS investigations from two weeks ago.
SEI: Evals of FF. HAM6 HEPI Still locked. FE models update for Tues / sensor correction.
CDS: P-Cal cabling at both end stations. Richard/Fil will have a look at the TMS PDs. GPS cabling scheduled for rooftop on Tues.
COMM: Continued working on MICH FREEZE (silmultaneous DRMI locking)
FAC: X-Arm cleaning complete, Y-Arm cleaning ton commense tomorrow. Extra person, Rodney, added to cre to expedite.
1440 hrs. local -> In and out of X-end VEA, 1450 hrs. local -> In and out of LVEA and 1500 hrs. local -> In and out of Y-end VEA. 1515 hrs. local -> Kyle leaving site now.
Previously we have seen that moving to in-vac REFL9I for control of CARM has led to worse DARM noise at high frequencies. So as a first step in diagnosing the issue, I wanted to check the phasing of REFL9.
With DRMI locked, I drove a line in PRCL at 212 Hz and then adjusted the in-vac REFL9 LO phase shifter in order to minimize the appearance of the line in REFL9Q. (Since we don't have CARM at the moment, PRCL is the next best thing. Of course, the phasing should be rechecked for CARM once we are back to full locking.)
Originally the phase shifter had 16+4+1/4+1/8+1/16 = 20.44 ns delay, with REFL9Q/REFL9I = 0.15/0.85 = 0.18 at 212 Hz. Now the phase shifter has 26+4+2+1+1/4+1/8 = 23.38 ns delay, with REFL9Q/REFL9I = 0.005/1.08 = 0.008.
Nic, Evan, Jenne We tried looking at the efficacy of MICH freeze with DRMI today. First, we looked at the MICH fringe velocity in Michelson-only: With the MICH freeze engaged, the fringe velocity seems to slow down by a factor of about 2 versus without the freeze. Then we aligned the DRMI and tried to get some locking statistics (length of time waiting for lock) with the freeze on vs. off, but we aren't really getting any locks at all. We waited more than 15 minutes without a lock with the freeze off, so we went to trying with the freeze engaged. With MICH freeze engaged, we had 2 wait times of 2 or 3 minutes, but all other times have been more than 15 minutes. (We tried changing trigger threshold settings a few times, which is what defined the ends of these 15 minute wait stretches). So far, it's not clear to us whether the MICH freeze is having a significant effect at all. We think we'll try again later.
Nic, Jenne, Evan
In spite of the bad POPAIR situation, we were able to get DRMI to lock by increasing the whitening gain of POP18 (from 12 dB to 45 dB), and by lowering the trigger thresholds for MICH by a factor of 10, and SRCL by a factor of 5.
After DRMI locked, we were able to optimize the buildups of POP18 and AS90, mostly by moving PR3 positive in pitch, and then compensating by moving PR2 negative in yaw. In this way we increased the buildup of POP18 by a factor of 45. (We then undid the extra analog whitening gain.) So this seems to support the idea that our issues are caused (at least partially) by misalignment of the power recycling cavity.
We went onto the table and again tried to resteer onto POPAIR_B, but we got only 10 % more power on the PD. POP18 is now at about 6 ct (normalized), whereas we expect about 300 ct for DRMI without arms. So there is still a missing factor of 50 somewhere.
We measured the OLTFs of PRCL, MICH, and SRCL, and they seem fine. So the DRMI LSC seems healthy as far as we can tell; there's just some problem with the POP path.
(evan jenne nic)
Evan said that the Q of the BS butterfly hadn’t yet been measured.
We let the system alone for 10 minutes in DRMI and analyzed the ringdown. The biggest SNR was in the PRCL error signal.
The resonance frequency is 2449Hz, the Q factor is . This means a time constant of 12 minutes.
Ringdown with fit is atached.
(script attached)
I've been working on a diagram of the timing system with specific locations and uses of every timing system component. I've put it up on DCC as https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-D1500201. I'd appreciate feedback regarding what else would be useful (while bearing in mind that I'd like this to stay clear and simple). I'm also happy to make extra pages if someone needs a detailed view of some particular element of the system that wouldn't fit into the overview shown. Happy 4th!
Jenne, Evan
Tonight we ran through initial alignment of the corner in order to get back to DRMI locking (without arms). This is a bit different than usual, since we cannot use the X arm as a reference for PR3 (via the COMM beat note) or for IM4 and PR2 (via the IR input pointing).
Initially we just restored the suspension slider values for PRM, PR2, PR3, SR2, SR3, SRM, and IM4 to their pre-vent values. Then we tried locking PRX, but found that we could not get decent fringing, even by moving the PRM a milliradian or so in pitch and yaw. So we instead restored the pitch and yaw values of PR3 as seen by the oplev, and then optimized the fringing using PR2 and PRM. This allowed us to lock PRX with a decent amount of light at the AS port (>1000 ct on ASAIR_LF with 10 W PSL power), and we then engaged the PRX WFS loops as usual.
We were able to lock the dark Michelson and optimize the BS angle without issue.
We were able to lock SRY using a similar philosophy as PRX: we restored the SR3 alignment to its pre-vent values as seen by the oplev. After that, we saw fringing and were able to optimize it by moving SRM. Then we were able to lock SRY and engage the SRC alignment loops without issue.
Then we tried moving on to DRMI locking. The flashes at the AS port look more or less normal, but there seems to be very little going on in POP18. We saw some flashing with peaks < 1 ct, but for normal DRMI acquisition we expect hundreds of counts. We went onto ISCT1, and found that the beams were low (by about 1 mm) on both the POPAIR diodes. We adjusted the spot on POPAIR_B so that it is more centered, but this only brough the flashing up to at most 15 ct (at 20 W PSL power).
Since it seemed that the POP path was somehow not aligned, we then relocked PRX (with WFS loops feeding back to PRM) and moved IM4 while watching the spots on the POP QPDs. We centered the spots as best we could, then ran through the other initial alignment steps again, and then tried locking DRMI. However, this did not improve the flashing in POP18. For the time being, we reverted our change to the POPAIR_B pointing on ISCT1.
JCD: Since we were able to lock the individual pieces of the vertex, it seems like the vertex optics are all aligned to one another, however I am less confident in the overall alignment (e.g., the input pointing doesn't match what the Xarm will want, so we're not hitting all of our PDs simultaneously). I am not quite sure how to resolve this, with the sensors that we have at our disposal right now.
ISS Inner Loop has UGF of 22 KHz with a phase margin of about 50 degress. This was measured with variable gain set at 6 dB for the best phase margin. This is the normal operation settings for Inner Loop.
Outer Loop has a UGF of 1 KHz ( designed for 4 KHz) with a phase margin of about 30 degrees. The variable gain was set at 40 dB (max available) and an additional gain stage(?) was switched on as well.
Also tried moving the the Inner loop gain to see if it shows any improvement on the outer loop but no luck.
TF Plots are attached.
These transfer function measurements were taken at ~10 W of PSL power.
The data used for the plot above is attached.
I selected a loud sine-gaussian injection done during ER7 at each site and compared h(t) data from the HOFT frames against the intended strain waveform; this is documented at https://wiki.ligo.org/Main/HWInjER7#Injection_sign_check . It looks like the injection came through with the wrong sign at LHO, but with the right sign at LLO. This should be investigated.
I double-checked the PCAL-based strain sign checks at both LHO and LLO and they seem sound. So the sign flip seen for the ER7 hardware injections would have to be something related to the actuation path used for the hardware injections, e.g. the inverse actuation filter bank or perhaps the location of a minus sign in the main feedback loop (in the output matrix or elsewhere?).
(evan jenne nic)
We wanted to investigate the OMC alignment/backscatter problem. Driving the OMC SUS in Yaw has been known to cause backscatter noise due to the modulation of the optical path length when the OMC moves in Yaw.
Our procedure was to lock the vertex optics in a bright michelson configuration (a state has been added to the IFO_ALIGN guardian to make this easy). Then we wanted to drive the OMC in yaw and choose the yaw->longitudinal matrix element such that the center of rotation would be about the input beam, rather than the omc center of mass. This would be determined by minimizing the scatter as measured by either OMC trans, or the MICH error point.
I was surprised that we were not able to induce any significant backscatter fringe wrapping noise in this configuration. We drove the OMC SUS in longitude up to the point that the beam was misaligning enough to noticibly affect the OMC DC trans.
We also drove the ISI table directly by putting a 1Hz 1mm injection into the Y isolation loop error point.
Driving the path length, we both listened and had a live spectrum running. We saw no evidence of scatter in either OMC trans or MICH_IN1.
We will need to think if there is another configuration (available to use without arms) that will be more sensitive to backscatter.
I forgot to mention that we turned on the AS fast shutter and OMC pzt high voltage supplies for HAM6.
This measurement didn't work because I was wrong about the calibration. The isolation loop error points are in nanometers, not micrometers. So we were moving the table 1000 times less than I thought.
8:52 Sudarshan work on ISS
Fil to EX (run cables)
9:16 Jordan to HAM6 checking on PEM sensors
9:44 Kyle to HAM6
10:01 Kyle grab He bottle at EY
10:15 Leo - EX ESD measurement
10:20 Kyle out of EY
11:25 Dave and Stefan to EY - Hook up GPS receiver
11:32 Fil & Andrea back from EY
11:50 Jordan to LVEA testing PEM accelerometer
12:04 Leo done with EX ESD measurement. Starting EY ESD measurement.
12:47 Jordan back
13:00 Kyle to EX
12:42 ISI HAM5 tripped
-No correlation with PEM acc. sensors. Not sure what happened. Coincides with sharp peak on 1-3 Hz ground motion plot. Suspect electronics issue.
13:42 Fil and Stefan to EX by the rack
13:53 Jordan to EX
14:12 Leo finished EY ESD measurement
14:24 Rick and Sudarshan to LVEA - ISS work by PSL enc.
Kyle back
14:37 Jordan to EY
15:00 Fil & Stefan back
15:10 Rick & Sudarshan back
15:19 Sudarshan & Jordan to IOT2R table
15:27 Kyle to HAM6
15:41 Kyle back. Shutdown HAM5, HAM6 annulus pump.
Other notes:
- Jordan discovered magnetometer at EY rack output straight line since June 22nd.
- Laser Hazard notifications added to Ops Overview.
HAPPY HOLIDAY!!!!
Calibration Team
The gravitational wave strain h(t) is given by h(t) = Delta L/L where Delta L is is computed using
Delta L = ± (Lx - Ly)
The sign of Delta L can be determined using Pcal actuation on the test mass. Pcal only introduces a push force so pcal readout signal (truly pcal excitation) is minimum when the testmass is away from the corner station (closer to pcal laser). From the first plot the phase between DARM/PCAL is ~ -180 degrees (DARM lags PCAL) which suggests that DARM signal from ETMX will be maximum when pcal is minimum (ETMX further away from corner station). Similarly, from second plot, since DARM and PCAL have a phase difference of ~-360 degrees (essentially 0 degrees), the DARM signal from ETMY is minimum when the pcal is minimum. This shows that the sign convention for the Delta L is '+'
Also the slope of the curve gives the time delay between Pcal and DARM signal chain. The time delay is about 125±20 us. This time delay can be accounted for, within the uncertainity, from the difference in signal readout chain outlined in Figure 3 attached.
Refer to LLO alog #18406 for the detailed explanation behind this conclusion.
I believe this sign check and the sign check at LLO are correct. For the record, below is how I reached that conclusion: The photon calibrator laser can only push, but there is a nonzero baseline intensity and you modulate the intensity around that. The question is, if you apply a positive voltage to the PCAL system input, do you get more force or less force on the test mass? Figure 21 of the PCAL final design document seems to show that the undiffracted beam through the AOM is what is sent to the test mass, so increasing the amplitude of the 80 MHz drive to the AOM REDUCES the force on the test mass. However, the AOM driver electronics could introduce a sign flip when it conditions the input voltage. To check that, I pulled up PCAL excitation and receiver photodiode data (e.g. H1:CAL-PCALX_EXC_SUM_DQ and H1:CAL-PCALX_RX_PD_OUT_DQ) and plotted a short time interval at GPS 1117933216. I saw that the PCAL photodiode signal variations are basically in phase with the PCAL input excitation, with just a ~30-40 degree phase lag at ~500 Hz, presumably from filter delay. So, applying a positive voltage to the PCAL system input causes more force on the test mass, and anyway the PCAL receiver photodiode measures intensity directly. I confirmed this for all four PCALs (H1 and L1, X and Y) and also confirmed that the transmitter and receiver photodiodes vary together. The PCAL pushes on the front of the ETM, i.e. on the face that the primary interferometer beam reflects off of. This being a pendulum, the ETM is closest to the laser (i.e., the arm is shortest) when the force is at its MAXIMUM. LLO alog 18406 has a comment consistent with that: "Theory of pendulums suggests that Pcal signal will be minimum when ETM swings further away from corner station". LHO alog 19186, above, has a statement, "pcal readout signal (truly pcal excitation) is minimum when the testmass is away from the corner station (closer to pcal laser)", which is more ambiguous because the ETM being away from the corner station would put it FARTHER from the PCAL laser. But both draw the correct conclusion from the data: with the intended sign convention, DARM should be at its positive maximum when the X arm is longest (ETMX is farthest from the corner station; PCALX intensity is at its minimum) or when the Y arm is shortest (ETMY is closest to the corner station; PCALY intensity is at its maximum), and that is what was reported at both sites.
Peter,
I disagree with one assumption in your argument, but it does not disprove (or support) the rest of your conclusions.
"The question is, if you apply a positive voltage to the PCAL system input, do you get more force or less force on the test mass? Figure 21 of the PCAL final design document seems to show that the undiffracted beam through the AOM is what is sent to the test mass, so increasing the amplitude of the 80 MHz drive to the AOM REDUCES the force on the test mass. However, the AOM driver electronics could introduce a sign flip when it conditions the input voltage."
As far as I know there's no sign flip in AOM electronics. Undiffracted beam gets dumped in BD2, while diffracted beam is sent to the ETM.
Unfortunately I couldn't find an explicit noting of it in our recent DCC documents.
Oh, the diffracted beam gets sent to the test mass? Then I agree, there isn't a sign flip in the electronics. (In figure 21 in the document, it looks like the undiffracted beam went to the test mass.) BTW, I've posted a multi-frequency look at the hardware injection actuation sign (and amplitudes and time delays) at https://wiki.ligo.org/Main/HWInjER7CheckSGs.