Displaying reports 65481-65500 of 84445.Go to page Start 3271 3272 3273 3274 3275 3276 3277 3278 3279 End
Reports until 09:53, Tuesday 07 July 2015
H1 PSL
edmond.merilh@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:53, Tuesday 07 July 2015 (19465)
PSL Status report
Laser Status: 
SysStat is good
Front End power is 32.8W (should be around 30 W)
FRONTEND WATCH is GREEN
HPO WATCH is RED

PMC:
It has been locked 13 day, 21 hr 9 minutes (should be days/weeks)
Reflected power is 2.5 Watts  and Power in Transmission= 22.6 Watts.
(Reflected Power should be <= 10% of Power in Transmission)

FSS:
It has been locked for 17 h and 34 min (should be days/weeks)
TPD[V] = .98V (min 0.9V)

ISS:
The diffracted power is around 6% (should be 5-9%)
Last saturation event was 2 h and 28 minutes ago (should be days/weeks)

NOTES: FSS TPD V is due for a tweaking.
H1 General
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:19, Tuesday 07 July 2015 (19464)
FF LSC Locklosses

This is Hannah Fair.

 

I’ve been investigating the FF LSC locklosses from ER7. The following are my findings so far.

 

About half of the FF LSC locklosses had a 20-25 second oscillation in one of the PRM and SRM channels, and in the PRCL and SRCL channels (and occasionally MICH). The start of this oscillation ranged between around -2000 seconds to only -100 seconds before lockless. All of these ended with one of the channels saturating. This saturation appears to be the cause of loss. This pattern is independent of laser power.

 

 

The following are locklosses where I also looked at OPLEV channels (Due to timing, I was unable to look at the data from the OPLEV channels for the locklosses before this):

 

 

Some of these are less detailed/precise because of timing and my inability to access data more than two weeks old.

 

Examples of this pattern are attached as images.

Images attached to this report
H1 CDS
james.batch@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:52, Tuesday 07 July 2015 (19463)
Server reboots
The h1boot, cdsfs0, and cdsldap0 servers were rebooted this morning between 08:00 and 08:30 PDT.  The h1boot was powered off, power cords removed for 30 seconds, then power reattached and powered up. No fsck was performed.  The cdsfs0 computer was patched late yesterday afternoon, and was rebooted this morning.  An fsck on the root file system was performed with no errors.  The cdsldap0 computer was also rebooted, no fsck was performed.
H1 ISC
stefan.ballmer@LIGO.ORG - posted 20:24, Monday 06 July 2015 - last comment - 23:43, Sunday 12 July 2015(19461)
DRMI back, MICH freeze working, but no obvious benefit
Evan, Kiwamu, Jenne, Stefan

- DRMI alignment is back to the old-good one: strategy: Used old slider values for everything but large optics. Tweaked SR3 (for instance) to get the beam spot centred on ASPD. Aligned PRX using PRM and PR2.
- DRMI ASC worked except PRC2 loop (didn't further investigate because we didn't care without the arms)
- Then we focused on MICH freeze:
  - We fine-tweaked the transfer function using a zpk([0.03],[0.054],1,"n")gain(0.555556) filter.
  - This made the gain roughly 1 below 0.1Hz. Plot 1 shows that - if measured coherently - we win up to a factor of 10 reduction at 0.01Hz. (Blue: no MICH freeze, red: MICH freeze)
  - In terms of RMS reduction (position) of the power spectrum, we gain a factor of 2, at the cost of significant noise injection at 8Hz. (Plot 2)

Interestingly, this RMS is now small enough that we spend most of the time in about 1/3 for the whole simple Michelson fringe. Unfortunately there is still slow drift, so parking at a "good" position isn't quite possible. But we are definitely in a regime where simple "fringe velocity" isn't a good parameter by itself. Fringe position must matter too. In our brief attempt to see locking performance changes we didn't notice anything significant though.

However, the next time we have high winds, we should definitely re-evaluate MICH freeze.


Images attached to this report
Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - 23:43, Sunday 12 July 2015 (19586)

As was pointed out during the commissioning meeting, the labels in the attached pdf are reversed.

H1 PSL (PSL)
sudarshan.karki@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:17, Monday 06 July 2015 (19459)
ISS Diffracted Power

The ISS ref signal was changed from -2.01 V to -2.09 V which in turn changed the refracted power from 15% to about 5 %.

H1 SUS
leonid.prokhorov@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:28, Monday 06 July 2015 (19458)
Results of 2 weeks of OPLEV charge measurements.
Leonid.Prokhorov, Jeffrey.Kissel

Results of OPLEV charge measurements (June, 24 - July, 06): Charge at the ETMX and ETMY is less then +/-10V. ETMY seems slightly negatively charged (about -3..-5V). We haven't see charge growing or significant changing of charge at ETMs over this time. 

Plots in attachment:
a) ETMX, ETMY - all measured charge data points (include today's measurements)
b) ETMX, ETMY mean value of charge for each the day and it's standard deviation + and weighted mean and weighted variance of measured charge for each day.
Images attached to this report
H1 CDS (CDS, ISC)
evan.hall@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:17, Monday 06 July 2015 (19457)
REFL9 phase shifter now controlled externally

Sheila, Evan

The in-vac REFL9 phase shifter is now controllable from the control room.

The REFLAIR9 phase shifter already had a dsub cable running to the Beckhoff concentrator (cable 68, running into concentrator 3), but the REFL9 shifter did not. So we moved this cable over so that it controls the REFL9 shifter. We also moved the cable over by one slot on the concentrator. We flipped control of the REFL9 shifter from internal to external, and then moved the digital delay slider to match the delay given by the toggle switches (23.4 ns). So the LSC-REFL_A_RF9_PHASE channels now control the delay.

Then we locked PRX, drove a line in the PRM, and then verified that the delay shifting works from the control room.

LHO FMCS
bubba.gateley@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:33, Monday 06 July 2015 (19456)
SUPPLY FANS IN OUT BUILDINGS
The variable pitch actuators on all of the supply fans in each of the out buildings were exercised this afternoon. 

S.F. 01 at Mid X and S.F. 02 at Mid Y were found to be faulty. We are only operating 1 fan at each mid station so these can be repaired with no impact to the cooling of the buildings. 

I will look into ordering parts tomorrow. 
LHO VE
kyle.ryan@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:17, Monday 06 July 2015 (19455)
Removed HAM5 and HAM6 annulus pump cart hardware
~0930 hrs. local -> Valved-in HAM6 ion pump -> Experimented with MidiVac vs. LPC controllers -> Leaving on LPC for now -> Will valve-out HAM6 turbo tomorrow
H1 FMP
daniel.sigg@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:10, Monday 06 July 2015 (19454)
NEG Vacuum Gauges Added

The vacuum gauges for the NEG pumps were added to the EtherCAT system. They are now available in EPICS (but not dataviewer until tomorrows DAQ reboot).

Images attached to this report
H1 General
edmond.merilh@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:09, Monday 06 July 2015 (19446)
Daily Ops Log

All times in UTC.

15:00 Morning Checklist:

15:45 Leo doing Charge measurements

15:57 Kyle out to HAM6 to disconnect uneccesary equipment.

16:26 Sudarshan out to LVEA to set up ISS second loop measurement. (called back due to Jim taking measurements on IMCs

16:33 Fil to EX to take meauerements for P-Cal cables.

16:50 ITMY RMS watchdog tripped. Reset.

16:53 Kyle back from HAM6

17:00 - 18:00 Luca's training class

18:15 Sudarsh and Kiwamu out to LVEA to set up ISS Second loop measurements

19:24 Leo finished doing charge measurements.

20:00-21:00 Luca's training class

20:36 Bubba and John to both end station mechanical rooms

21:21 Jordan and Katie to EX. PEM Install and Calibration.

22:30 Sudarsh and Kiwamu into LVEA.

H1 SUS
edmond.merilh@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:51, Monday 06 July 2015 - last comment - 13:52, Monday 06 July 2015(19449)
ITMY rms watchdog tripped

It appears that this tripped at ~ 10:15PDT on July 3?

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 13:52, Monday 06 July 2015 (19452)
For the record, this is the L2/PUM analog coil driver RMS watchdog.
H1 SYS
daniel.sigg@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:04, Monday 06 July 2015 (19451)
Commissioning planning for maintenance periods
 
A tentative plan of commissioning upgrades for the next 3 maintenence periods. The hope is to finalize all major commissioning upgrades by 7/28.
 
Maintenance period 7/7:
- Reboot servers/work stations 8am - 10am
- Complete SEI model changes for adding test points (BSCs)
- Switch main modulation to new RF source
 
Maintenance period 7/14:
- Install fast end station SUS computers
- Add additional ADC board for PI damping
- Updated SUS model to include new common part w/  DARM ctrl for roll/bounce damping
 
Maintenance period 7/21:
- Change master GPS clock to external Trimble unit (requires antenna)
- Change EX timing FO (to fix VCO reporting error)
- Install initial model for PI processing
 
TBD:
- Updated remote ESD monitoring/restart hardware
- Install second low noise ESD
- Install new ISS monitoring hardware
- Install EOM drivers
- Change PSL top periscope mount
 
H1 CAL (CAL)
darkhan.tuyenbayev@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:38, Monday 06 July 2015 (19445)
ER7 sensing function trend using Pcal lines
Calibration team

Introduction

In this analysis we used Pcal lines to estimate frequency dependent changes in sensing function of the LHO interferometer. These changes can affect accuracy of reported displacement from external sources, Delta Lext, that is currently calculated as
 
Delta Lext = derr / (gamma(t) C0) + A * dctrl
 
where dctrl and derr are DARM control and DARM error signals;
C0 and A are models of sensing and actuation functions;
gamma(t) is complex correction factor that should take into account changes in sensing function of particular LIGO interferometer.

Method

At a Pcal line frequency DARM error signal can be written as
 
derr = [ C / (1 + G) ] * Xpcal
 
where G - DARM loop gain G = A * D * C;
Xpcal - displacement of ETM due to Pcal radiation pressue (see DCC T1500206);
C is DARM sensing function; in this analysis we do not use gamma(t), since conventional definition of gamma(t) used as complex correction factor, C = gamma(t) * C0, is not a frequency dependent quantity.
 
Solving it for C gives
 
C = 1 / [ Xpcal / derr - A D ]
 
In the DARM model (see LHO aLOG 18769), sensing function of the interferometer is represented in terms of optical gain, cavity pole frequency, AA filters, OMC whitening, and time delays. For the purpose of this analysis we assume that all of the parameters of DARM control loop, except for optical gain and cavity pole frequency, are not changing over ER7.
Taking these assumptions into account, the following value is calculated to estimate optical gain and cavity pole frequency:
 
Ao / [ 1 + i (f / fp ) ] = 1 / [Xpcal/derr - A D ] * 1 / [ AA * OMCDCPD * delay ] = Cifo
 
We saw that in derr phase differences of high frequency Pcal lines (534.7 Hz and 540.7 Hz) are over 140 degrees off of lower frequency lines (33.1 Hz and 36.7 Hz). To account for all phase differences (uncompensated delays etc.), first we can take a reasonably stable lock stretch and use only magnitude of Cifo from two different Pcal lines (one at low and another at high frequency) to estimate initial cavity pole frequency:
 
fp2 = [ |Cifo,hi|2 * fhi2 - |Cifo,lo|2 * flo2 ] / [ |Cifo,lo|2 - |Cifo,hi|2 ]
 
and from that, estimate phase shifts of each of the Pcal lines independently.
 
After that we can calculate trend of the DARM cavity pole frequency and the optical gain from a single Pcal line in a following way:
 
fp = - Re(Cifo) / Im(Cifo)
Ao = |Cifo|2 / Re(Cifo)
 
With the method used in this analysis Pcal lines that are closer to cavity pole frequency (534.7 Hz and 540 Hz) are more sensitive for changes in fp than lower frequency lines (33.1 Hz and 36.7 Hz).

Data

During ER7 at LHO Pcal calibration lines were injected at following frequencies:
  • PCALX 33.1 Hz and 534.7 Hz
  • PCALY 36.7 Hz and 540.7 Hz

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.

Only data within lock stretches listed in LHO aLOG 19275 were processed.
 
 
Segment 7 (highlighted in figure 1) was used to calculate initial estimates of phase shifts at 4 line frequencies. Cavity pole frequency was separately calculated using 2 PCALX lines and 2 PCALY lines, and the weighted average of the two was taken as an initial value of fp for that lock stretch. For this segment fp,seg7 = 345.87 Hz (+/-5 % statistical uncertainty).
 
 
As we can see from the normalized histogram, the signal levels mostly stayed a constant level within +/-10 %. However, both of the low frequency lines show wider distribution compared to high frequency lines, that mainly could caused by low SNR of these lines.

Results

From cavity pole frequency and optical gain weighted average trends calculated individually for each of the Pcal lines we see that lower frequency lines show dramatically decreasing cavity pole frequency with higher standard deviation, that might have been caused by more complex changes in DARM control loop than simple change in cavity pole frequency.
*Note that data points with cavity pole frequencies over 100% off of model cavity pole frequency were not included into 30 minute weighted averages by setting wheir weights to 0.
 
 
Figure below shows 30 minute weighted mean values of optical gain and cavity pole frequency calculated from 2 Pcal lines: PCALX 534.7 Hz and PCALY 540.7 Hz. Subplots on the left show absolute quantities and 1 sigma statistical uncertainties, subplots on the right show fractional devation of optical gain and absolute deviation of cavity pole frequency from ER7 model. Segment 7, that was initially used to obtain phase corrections, that are not compensated by DARM model, is highlighted in different color.
Note that two low frequency PCAL lines were excluded from this averages to avoid bias from trends from these lines, that probably represents more complex changes in overall gain in DARM loop.
 
 
According to this method during first 6 days of ER7

Additional notes (to be studied)

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.

Delta Lext = derr / (gamma(t) C0) + A * dctrl
 
Delta Lext = derr / (gamma(t) C0) + A * dctrl
 
Delta Lext = derr / (gamma(t) C0) + A * dctrl
 
Images attached to this report
H1 SUS
betsy.weaver@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:56, Monday 06 July 2015 - last comment - 15:22, Monday 06 July 2015(19447)
TMSX investigation

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.

Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 10:17, Monday 06 July 2015 (19450)
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).
""
betsy.weaver@LIGO.ORG - 15:22, Monday 06 July 2015 (19453)

The PIT and VERT TFs that I ran this morning were with the bias sliders enabled.

H1 PSL (ISC, PSL)
sudarshan.karki@LIGO.ORG - posted 20:40, Thursday 02 July 2015 - last comment - 11:50, Monday 25 January 2016(19434)
ISS Loop Transfer Function Measurement

Inner Loop

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

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.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
sudarshan.karki@LIGO.ORG - 18:18, Monday 06 July 2015 (19460)

These transfer function measurements were taken at ~10 W of PSL power.

sudarshan.karki@LIGO.ORG - 11:50, Monday 25 January 2016 (25141)

The data used for the plot above is attached.

Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 CAL (AOS, CAL)
sudarshan.karki@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:01, Wednesday 17 June 2015 - last comment - 14:41, Sunday 12 July 2015(19186)
Gravitational Wave Strain h(t) sign convention determination using Pcal

Calibration Team

Sign of h(t):

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 '+'

Time Delay between Pcal and DARM:

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.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
peter.shawhan@LIGO.ORG - 10:04, Friday 03 July 2015 (19437)CAL
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.
darkhan.tuyenbayev@LIGO.ORG - 10:33, Tuesday 07 July 2015 (19466)

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.

peter.shawhan@LIGO.ORG - 14:41, Sunday 12 July 2015 (19580)CAL, INJ
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.
Displaying reports 65481-65500 of 84445.Go to page Start 3271 3272 3273 3274 3275 3276 3277 3278 3279 End