Last weekend I used the offset-lock methof to measure the cavity length noise of the OMC. I tried this with a single-bounce beam last fall, but the intensity noise from the IMC was too large and it contaminated the signal. Here, with the carrier light from the full IFO, the intensity noise is low enough that a good measure of the displacement noise can be made, at least below 100Hz. Here I describe how to offset-lock the OMC and how the cavity length noise is measured; also I make a projection of the OMC cavity noise contribution to DARM. Noise due to OMC length fluctuations should be >10x below the DARM noise floor, except around the ISI resonances at ~1kHz.
This result is complementary to the cavity length noise measurement that Koji & I made by PDH locking the OMC with a single-bounce beam. In comparison, this half-fringe (or "offset-locking") method is limited by intensity noise, but it's less invasive and can be performed entirely from the control room. It might be useful for, e.g., estimating the OMC cavity noise during PEM injections or remeasuring the displacement noise after we install dampeners on the HAM6 ISI (still speculative).
[Yet another method is estimating the displacement noise from the dither-locking error signal; Koji has done this in April and it agrees with the PDH result below 10Hz, but above 10Hz the dither error signal is limited by sensing noise.]
Here are the steps to lock the OMC on the half-fringe, while the full IFO is locked (and the DARM offset engaged). This is essentially the same technique as I used last fall (and is halfway coded in the OMC guardian), which was itself a copy of what Zach did at LLO.
The next steps adjust the OMC-LSC error signal path to set the offset locking at the half fringe point:
Figure 1 illustrates how the offset locking technique uses the RIN on transmission to measure the cavity length noise (delta-x). There's a theorist on my thesis committee, this is for them.
Figure 2 is the transfer function of the length servo, while locked on the half-fringe. This was used to correct for the loop suppression.
Figure 3: the top panel is a plot of the measured RIN during the half-fringe lock (red), and the same data corrected for the loop suppression (blue). The RIN has a noise floor of ~1e-7 / rt[Hz] above 100Hz. This noise is coherent between the DCPDs and is well above the shot noise + dark noise level. (To demonstrate this I plot the NULL stream, along with the DCPD dark noise; both of these were convereted to RIN-equivalent noise by dividing by the DCPD_SUM during the offset lock, 10.2mA. The shot-noise RIN for 10.2mA is in good agreement with the NULL channel.)
I think the noise floor is due to intensity noise coming from the IFO, and above 100Hz we are not measuring RIN due to cavity length fluctuations (except around 1kHz, more on this later). This 1e-7/rt[Hz] noise floor matches the noise floor of the ISS 2nd loop PDs (not plotted), but the coherence is not =1 everywhere. Why isn't it filtered by the IFO?
Figure 4 is the cavity length noise derived from the RIN measurement, red is the in-loop data, blue is the 'free-running' length noise (corrected for loop suppression). The displacement noise is calculated from the RIN using the RIN/dx relationship, derived from the cavity transmission formula. For the OMC, locked halfway up the fringe, the conversion is 2.72e-9 meters/RIN - to get this number you need to know the transmissivity of the OMC input and output mirrors, it is 8000ppm.
Figure 5 is a comparison between our measurements of the OMC displacement noise: Zach's measurement from L1 (red); Koji's result from the PDH lock of the OMC (black); and this measurement (blue). This plot is an update of LHO:16174. In general the measurements are in agreement. The PDH result has a lower noise floor above 100Hz; probably the other measurements are limited by intensity noise. The half-fringe result is lower than the others around 10Hz; Koji measured the noise from the PZT drivers in January, this may be the limiting noise source for the current measurement. (Zach says that the L1 measurement is possibly limited by laser frequency noise in the 3-40Hz band.) The peaky excess in the half-fringe result around 1Hz and 3Hz are coherent with intensity noise and are not real cavity motion, see Fig. 3.
Figure 6 is a zoom of the region around 1kHz.
Here I estimate the contribution of OMC cavity length noise to the DARM noise. Valera, Ryan, and Sam discussed this in G1100903, and I think my methods are essentially the same as what they describe.
First, the noise in the light transmitted through the OMC due to the (suppressed) cavity length noise can be calculated two ways:
For the quadratic case, we calculate the noise in the power measured by the DCPDs due to the cavity length noise as:
dP[f] = (4*F/lambda)^2 * ASD[x(t)**2]
...where F is the cavity finesse (=391), lambda is 1064nm, and the final term is the ASD of the square of the cavity length noise, x(t). This is a quadratic approximation to the peak of the Fabry-Perot transmission curve, for the OMC it is accurate for motion less than ~3e-11 meters, which is true for our data across all frequencies. [Important: you have to take the ASD of the square of the time-series, not the square of the ASD -- the Fourier transform is a linear operator but squaring is not. Thanks Sheila!]
Alternatively, the bilinear coupling is estimated as:
dP[f] = (4*F/lambda)^2 * 2 * x_rms * ASD[x(t)]
I've used x_rms = 3e-13 meters, although this could be an overestimate (see comment below).
Next, to convert dP[f] into an estimate for the DARM noise budget, I turn the crank on the DCPD_SUM --> OMC-READOUT_ERR calculation that is described here:
OMC-READOUT_ERR = DCPD_SUM * (Pref / P0) * xf**2 / (2*x0) * G
...where Pref = 1.56 (power normalization), P0 = 24.1 (input power, Watts), xf = 14 (fringe offset, picometers), x0 = 15.8 (DARM offset, picometers), and G = 8.56e-7 (overall gain factor). These are the values during the lock on Jun 7 at 00:00 UTC that Evan used for his latest noise budget. This calculation converts DCPD_SUM in mA into counts at the DARM_IN1 error point.
Finally, to convert counts of DARM_IN1 into meters of CAL-DELTAL displacement noise, I use a factor of 5e-7, a zero at 389Hz and a pole at 7kHz. The factor of 5e-7 was estimated by matching DARM_IN1 to CAL-DELTAL_EXTERNAL_DQ in DTT. This is about 3x larger than what I expected, based on the calibration of the DARM offset in counts to picometers: 1e-5 counts / 14 picometers. Not sure why there is this discrepancy.
In Figure 7 I plot the CAL-DELTAL spectrum from June 7 with estimates of the contribution from the OMC, using the quadratic and bilinear coupling results. As mentioned before, the OMC length noise projection above 10Hz is probably limited by intensity noise and is bogus, except for the peaks around 1kHz, which are about a factor of two below the noise floor. If this result is correct, it's an ongoing mystery as to why we don't see this 1kHz noise in the DARM spectrum. Robert has investigated the acoustic coupling in this band and also projects that some noise at ~900Hz should be peaking above the noise floor. Why don't we see it?
For interested NoiseBudgeters, the attached text files have the data for the red (quadratic) and blue (bilinear) traces in Fig. 7. (You shouldn't think this noise source has gone unattended in the noise budget until now: Evan says he had measured the OMC-->DARM noise coupling some time ago, using excitations into the OMC-LSC loop, and had convinced himself the OMC wasn't a source of broadband noise. No reason to think any different from this study.)
There is some uncertainty in the value of x_rms. For the half-fringe result, the in-loop RMS is ~4e-12 meters, due to the noise around 0.2Hz (Figure 4). This is certainly an overestimation of the RMS motion during DC readout, because I did not engage the low-frequency boost in the OMC-LSC loop, so the low-frequency suppression was not as large. Koji has measured the RMS from the dither error signal in full lock (LHO:18034) to be ~3e-13 meters. For the PDH measurement (LHO:16089), the RMS motion was even lower, ~4e-14 meters. (The loop gain was significantly larger during the PDH measurement and I suspect it is an underestimate compared to the current loop shape for the OMC.) To err on the side of being conservative I use the dither error signal RMS for the bilinear noise estimation. (Zach measured the L1 OMC in-loop RMS as 7e-13 meters [G1301007, slide 18], but again the loop gain for that measurement is larger than what we use now.)
(Betsy, Calum, Kate, Gary, Travis, Danny)
Since all other work at End-Y finished yesterday, today we performed the in-chamber SUS/SYS discharge procedure T150101 on ETMy and then closed the chamber.
Todays sequence of events at EY:
Jim unlocked the ISI.
Filiberto checked for grounding of the TMS QPD cables at the feedthru since Keita/crew had made adjustments to them. As well, we then rechecked the QPDs with a flashlight for response. All is well with the QPDs post the strain relieving.
Locked lower masses of ETMy and installed discharge equipment onto QUAD frame. Discharged ETMy. Removed equipment and unlocked lower masses. Numbers to follow regarding the charge measured at the ETMy before executing the procedure and after completed. The procedure took about an hour.
Swapped in fresh 1" optic and 3" wafer contam. control witness samples - 1 each on the floor of the chamber just under the QUAD and the other set on the QUAD. All in the same places as before.
Wiped the floor on the way out.
Measured ETMy main and reaction chain P, V, and L TFs. All looked healthy with purge air on and soft cover over door.
Door put on, purge valved off.
Measured particle counts a few times throughout above. Numbers to follow.
Summary: A seismometer was buried 40 m from EY to take advantage of strong attenuation of the tilt signal relative to the acceleration signal from distant sources. Seismometers located outside the buildings may be useful in reducing problems associated with tilt.
Our buildings are tilted by wind. Our seismometers do not discriminate between this tilt and acceleration (like a pendulum), so wind-induced tilt produces spurious control signals that can make it difficult to lock and maintain lock. A tilt sensor can be used to discriminate between tilt and acceleration, but we may also be able to discriminate between the two by taking advantage of source differences in the band below 0.5 Hz, where tilt generates the largest spurious acceleration signals. The tilt in this band is mainly generated locally by the wind pressure against the walls, while the acceleration signal is mainly generated by ocean waves and other distant sources.
While the seismometers are in the far field for most low frequency accelerations, they are in the near field for building-generated tilt (wavelengths at 0.1 Hz are about 50 km). To take advantage of the rapid attenuation with distance in the near-field, I buried an STS-2 seismometer in a meter deep hole I dug 40 m from EY (Figure 1). Figures 2 and 3 show a comparison of the buried seismometer to the SEI seismometer on the ground inside the EY station. During the low wind period the spectra look virtually identical below 0.5 Hz and the coherence is high because the sources are mostly distant and the wavelengths are large. During the high wind period, the buried seismometer doesn’t change that much (there is some change in the microseismic peak because high/low wind were about 24 hours apart), but the building seismometer shows a huge signal from tilt. The coherence in windy conditions is low because the tilt is highly attenuated 40 m from the building. Figure 4 shows spectra for higher wind, 15-35 MPH.
Of course the external seismometer would not detect real building accelerations due to the wind. But if the unwanted tilt signal dominates over the wanted wind acceleration signal, a seismometer outside the building may be useful, and I think that this is the case below about 0.5 Hz.
I note that I first tried this in the beam tube enclosure tens of meters from EY, but found that the wind tilts the beam tube enclosure almost as much as the building (but not coherently), supporting a hypothesis that aspect ratio is the important variable. Also, Jeff points out that, if we insulate the buried seismometer well (and I did not) we might even be able to do better than the building seismometers with their current insulation during even low-wind periods. Figure 5 is like Figure 2 except that the signal from the stage 1 Trilliums is included.
Interesting data! I'm fascinated by the observation that at 25 mph, the horz. spectra don't match at any frequency. unfortunately, this makes it seem quite problematic to try and use the data in realtime from the outside sensors, since you have to figure out at what freq. they are telling you something useful, and at what frequency they are not. Certainly at 0.5 Hz, the slab sensors are the ones to use and I suspect that at 0.05 Hz one should believe the outdoor sensor, but in between? Several years ago, in response to an (incorrect) estimate of newtonian noise from wind-eddies, various suggestions of shrouds, fairings, shorter buildings, trees, berms, etc. were floated and dismissed. any evolution of this thinking? this data seems to imply that if we put a wind block 40 m from the building, and kept the wind off the building, we'd be in better shape. Sadly, short of a giant pile of tumble-weeds, I don't see any practical way to achieve this. It certainly bolsters Krishna's assertion that the wind-tilts are local to the buildings.
Yes, but we more often have to deal with the 10-20 MPH range, and I think its clear that the burried seismometer is better for that in the 0.05-0.5 range. For higher wind speeds, I would explore the tilt-acceleration cross over by substituting a burried seismometer for building seimometers and see to what wind speed the burried seismometer is an improvement.
I set up an accelerometer on the beam tube and measured the accelerations as I simulated the tapping that I observed during cleaning, and my tapping experiment mentioned here: https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=19038. Examination of the time series indicated that accelerations during typical taps reached about 1 m/s^2. I suspect that some taps reached 1g. The figure shows spectra for metal vs. fist taps. The above link notes that I was unable to produce glitches while hitting the beam tube with my fist. The fist and metal taps both had about the same maximum acceleration of 1 m/s^2 (ambient acceleration levels are about 4 orders of magnitude lower), so the source of the difference in liberating the particles is probably not acceleration. Instead, it may be the change in curvature of the beam tube, which would be expected to be greater at higher frequencies. The responses from metal taps in figure 1 peak at about 1000 Hz while the fist taps peak at about 100 Hz. These results are consistent with a hypothesis that the metal oxide particles are liberated by fracture associated with changes in curvature rather than simple vertical acceleration.
When I was producing glitches in DARM for the link above, I noticed that we did not get glitches every metal tap but every several metal taps. I tried to quantify this by making many individual taps at several locations along the beam tube. Unfortunately, we lost lock with the first loud glitch and I did not get a chance to repeat this before the vent. Nevertheless, it would be good for DetChar to look for smaller glitches at the time of the taps given below. Allow a 1 second window centered around the times given below for my tap timing uncertainty. I tapped once every ten seconds, starting at ten seconds after the top of the minute so that there were six taps per minute.
UTC times, all on June 14
Location Y-1-8
20:37 - 20:38 every ten seconds
20:47 - 20:50 every ten seconds
Next to EY
20:55 - every ten seconds until loss of lock at 20:56:10
I don't think the IFO stayed locked for the whole time. The summary page says it lost lock at 20:48:41, and a time series of DCPD_SUM (first plot) seems to confirm that. I did a few spectrograms, and Omega scanned each 10 seconds in the second series, and the only glitch I find is a very big one at 20:48:00.5. Here is an Omega scan. The fourth tap after this one caused the lock loss. Detchar will look closer at this time to see if there are any quiet glitches. First we'll need to regenerate the Omicron triggers... they're missing around this time probably due to having too many triggers caused by the lockloss. I'm not sure why there's a discrepancy in the locked times with Robert's report.
Any chance this could be scattered light? at 1 m/s^2 and 1 kHz, it is a displacement of 25 nm, so you don't need fringe wrapping.
I think that you would expect any mechanism that does not require release of a particle to occur pretty much with every tap. These glitches dont happen with every tap.
Here I present some results from our first Pcal sweep measurement (alog 19128 and 19132) in 5-5000 Hz frequency range.
The main conclusions are:
-----
This time, our traget was the sensing function or the DARM optical plant in counts/meters. To access the sensing function, we essentially need two different measurements i.e. a TF from ETM displacement to DARM_IN1 [cnts/meters] and DARM loop suppression [cnts/cnts]. Jeff took an open-loop TF and Pcal sweep for each arm, but unfortunately the Y arm measurement did not complete (alog 19128). Approximately 8 hours later of Jeff's measurements, TJ managed to measure a sweep of Pcal Y and DARM suppression TFs (alog 19132). So in total we have three different Pcal sweep data sets as follows,
The first two measurements were from a same lock stretch, and the last from a different lock stretch. All the measurement were made with a PSL requested power of 17 W. The plots below show the main results:
The first plot shows the estimated sensing functions from all three sweep measurements. As seen in the plot, signal-to-noise ratio becomes significantly low above a few kHz. Also as the sweep goes across the fundamental and the second harmonic of the violine modes, the coherence dropped and hence a low signal-to-noise ratio. The cyan solid curve represents the model that we have used for generating GDS and CAL-CS where the DC gain is set to 1.311x-6 cnts/meters and a cavity pole frequency to 355 Hz. Additionally, I set a delay time of the model to 55 usec by eye-ball fitting without any good explanation.
The second plot shows the residual between the measrured and model transfer functions. Even though the first two measurements were from the same lock stretch, they differed by approximately 20 % from each other. I am not sure what caused the descrepancy, but it is clear that the descrepancy is mostly in the scaling factor. The last measurement, which was from a different lock stretch showed a lower optical gain by 20 %. We know that our LSC automation can cause such a variation in the optical gain (alog 19014). So I believe that this 20% reduction is real and not due to some calibration in Pcal. Also the first and third measurements showed significant drop in the magnitude below 10 Hz by more than 50 %. Since the phase does not seem to roatte below 10 Hz, this is not a simple zero-pole argument. Looking at the Pcal active intensity stablization servos, Darkhan and I cofirmed that there was no saturation when the low frequencies were measured (although Pcal Y seemed to have saturated at the beginning of the measurement, meaning higher frequencies). We have no idea.
The analysis code, measurements and figures can be found in:
[sus crew]
Following the in chamber work from today at end-Y we took quick TFs on the quad and the transmon. They look ok.
Since the pump won't happen before tomorrow I started matlab tfs for all DOF.
The measurement will be running for few hours.
More clue on the TMSX measurement showing a different TF than before the vent (cf log below 19246). I looked at the response from pitch and vertical drive to the individual osems (LF, RT) and it looks like something is funny with the RT osem which should have the same response as the LF one, cf light red curves below
EDIT : Actually, LF and RT osem response are superposed on the graphs (green LF lies under red RT), so their response is the same.
ETMY ant TMSY transfer functions were measured on thursday after the doors went on, with chamber at atmospheric pressure. They did not show signs of rubbing, cf the first two pdf attached showing good agreement with previous measurements.
Today, I remeasured the vertical dof, after the suspension sagged ~120um from the pressure drop, and it still looks fine, cf figures below.
ETMX and TMSX were measured today when pressure in chamber was about 3 Torrs, after the QUAD sagged by about 130um.
The second pdf attachment on the log above was supposed to show TMSY transfer functions. Attached is the correct pdf.
Kyle -> Soft-closed GV7 and GV5 -> Vented HAM6 Bubba, Hugh, Jim W. -> Removed HAM6 South and East doors Kyle, Gerardo -> Installed NEG and TMDS reducer nipple+valve+elbow at X-end Danny S., Gary T., Gerardo, Kyle -> Hung North door on BSC10 (NOTE: Noticed ~1 hour before hanging door on BSC10 that the purge-air drying tower had been left off since tying-in the 1" TMDS line on Monday afternoon -> Turned it back on and notified the ETMY discharge crew
Forgot to log -> Purge-air measured <-39 C just prior to venting HAM6
To test the power-up status of the SUS HWWD, I activated the SUS ITMY HWWD which is located in the CER SUS-C6 rack. The long DB-37 cables which run from the ITMY M0 OSEMS were not connected to the monitor ports of the HWWD. I found the cables on the top of the rack, and after verifying they were connected to the monitor ports of the satellite amps for ITMY M0 (located in the LVEA beer garden) I plugged them into the HWWD.
After the tests were completed, I disconnected the cables in the CER and returned them to the top of the rack.
Scott L. Ed P. 6/15/15 Cleaned 33 meters ending at HNW-4-076. Removed lights and move to next section north. Test results posted here. 6/16/15 Rehang lights, vacuum support tubes, spray heavily soiled floor areas with water/bleach solution and begin cleaning beam tube. Cleaned 19 meters ending at HNW-4-077. 6/17/15 Cleaned 60.6 meters ending at HNW-4-080. A total of 3603 meters of tube have been cleaned to date.
Hugh, Bubba, Andres, Jeff B. After removing the HAM6 south & east doors, we rolled two cleanrooms and a garb room around the south and east sides of the HAM5/6 big cleanroom. The fans are on. There will be a cleaning of these cleanrooms in the morning. NOTE: The south corridor from just before HAM5 to the north side of the HAM5/6 big cleanroom is blocked. Access to the north side of the output arm will be from the long way around.
Will run the Aux cleanrroms overnight before using. Thxs to Andrias Jim Bubba JeffB
Dan Hoak gave us a clue on page 19067 and then Bas Swinkels ran Excavator and found that the channel H1:SUS-OMC_M1_DAMP_L_IN1_DQ had the highest correlation with the fringes. Andy Lundgren pointed me to equation 3 from “Noise from scattered light in Virgo's second science run data” which predicts the fringe frequency from a moving scatterer as f_fringe = 2*v_sc/lambda. Using the time from Dan and the channel from excavator and the fringe prediction, I wrote the attached m-file. Fig 1 shows the motion, velocity, and predicted frequency from OMC M1 longitudinal. Figure 2 shows the predicted frequency overlayed with the fringes in DELTAL. Math works.
PS. Thanks to Jeff and the SUS team for calibrating these channels and letting me know they are in um. Thanks to Gabriele for pointing out an error in an earlier draft of the derivative calculation.
Remember -- HAM6 is a mess of coordinate systems from 7 teams of people all using their own naming conventions. Check out G1300086 for a translation between them. The message: this OMC Suspension's channel, which are the LF and RT OSEMs on the top mass (M1) of the double suspension (where the OMC breadboard is the bottom mass), converted to "L" (for longitudinal, or "along the beam direction", where the origin is defined at the horizontal and vertical centers of mass of M1), is parallel with the beam axis (the Z axis in the cavity waist basis) as it goes into the OMC breadboard.
Jeff, thanks very much for that orientation; that diagram is extremely useful. The data leads me to think the scattering is dominated by the L degree of freedom though. Here's why - In raw motion, T and V only get a quarter of a micron or so peak-peak, while L is passing through 2 microns peak-peak during this time (see figure 1, y axis is microns). Figures 2, 3, and 4 are predicted fringes from L, T, and V. L is moving enough microns per second to get up to ~50Hz, whereas T and V only reach a few Hz. I'd be happy to follow up further.
Peter F asked for a better overlay of the spectrogram and predicted fringe Frequency. Attached 1) raw normalized spectrogram (ligoDV), 2) with fringe frequency overlay from original post above, 3) same but b/w high contrast and zoomed.
Also, I wanted to link a few earlier results on OMC backscattering: 17919, 17264, 17910, 17904, 17273. DetChar is now looking into some sort of monitor for this, so we can say how often it happens. Also, Dan has asked us if we can also measure reflectivity from the scattering fringes. We'll try.
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.
I modified and restarted the BSC-ISI models to close ECR E1500245, E1500253 and E1500270. The changes are listed below, and described in details in the attached pdf.
* removed sts blrms calculation from the sensor correction of stage 1. The calculation is now done at the top level. A list of the new channel names is provided in the attached text files
* Added a pick off of stage 1 CPS X and Y signals to feed the LSC model through PCIE senders on BS ITMX and ITMY
* Added a path from sus to the error point of the stage 1 controls to use for tidal feedback (mainly for LLO).
I added a SUS OFFLOAD link to the BSC overview screen, which pops up the filtering window.
The modified medm and model files listed below have been commited to the svn.
arnaud.pele@opsws7:/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/isi/h1/models$ svn st
Corey, Keita, Kiwamu,
We conituned working on the remaining tasks for the TMSX in chamber (see alog 19157 from yesterday).
This morning we installed the strain reliefs for the two QPDs in which we had a difficulty inserting a screw due to bad threading. Today, we brought 10-32 screws so that the screw can go all the way through to the back without any interference from the bad threads. We put combination of a nut and washer on the other side to hold the 10-32 screw and the strain relief parts. We did this on the two QPDs. So now all four QPDs have the strain reflef parts installed.
We then balanced the table such that the green light is retro-reflected off of ETMY. The table seemed to have pitched by some amount. We decided to move the counter mass at the bottom of the table. The adjustement went very smooth and we were able to get the beam retrao-reflected all the way back to the PD on the ISCTEX table. Touching the TMS digital bias suggested that the pitch angle is good with a precision of about 4 urad. While pitch is good, yaw seemed to be slightly off. So we moved the digital bias in yaw as well and confirmed that adding an additional +40 urad (resulting in a bias of ) in the digital bias can give us a decent alignment on the reflection PD. So we are good in yaw too.
After initial balancing we were concerned that we did not use vented washers for the two QPDs which required the screw/nut workaround. Keita found that one QPD did NOT have a vented washer, so a vented washer was installed. This required a re-balance. We were a little off in pitch, so a counterweight (1/4-20 screw) was added to pitch the TMS.
Photos of this work from Mon afternoon & Tues morning is on ResourceSpace here.
(And ready for the SUS crew to take over.)
Green QPDs were confirmed to work using green beam on the day we entered the chamber.
Today (June 17), with a help from Gary, IR QPDs were confirmed to work using LED flash light.
(times in PST)
0:04 - Locked @ LSC_FF, started PCAL swept line measurement
0:29 - PCAL measurment done, started DARM OLGTF measurement
0:50 - Both measurements done and no more for now it seems, Intention Bit set to Undisturbed
The transfer functions that TJ measured for us have been renamed to be more obvious names as follows:
According to trend data, both mesurements seemed to have done at 17 W. The first file currently resides in aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/PreER7/H1/Measurements/DARMOLGTFs. The other one is in aligocalibration/trunk/Runs/ER7/H1/Measurements/PCAL_TRENDS.
By the way, according to what we had in the calibration svn, TJ must have accidently updated Jeff's DARM OL and Pcal Y sweep measurements with the above latest measurements. I restored Jeff's two measurements back to the previous revisions in the svn. So we now have both Jeff's and TJ's measurements checked in the SVN.
There were eight separate locks during this shift, with typical inspiral ranges of 60 - 70 Mpc. Total observation time was 28.2 hours, with the longest continuous stretch 06:15 - 20:00 UTC on June 11. Lock losses were typically deliberate or due to maintenance activities.
The following features were investigated:
1 – Very loud (SNR > 200) glitches
Omicron picks up roughly 5-10 of these per day, coinciding with drops in range to 10 - 30 Mpc. They were not caught by Hveto and appear to all have a common origin due to their characteristic OmegaScan appearance and PCAT classification. Peak frequencies vary typically between 100 - 300 Hz (some up to 1 kHz), but two lines at 183.5 and 225.34 Hz are particularly strong. These glitches were previously thought to be due to beam tube cleaning, and this is supported by the coincidence of cleaning activities and glitches on June 11 at 16:30 UTC. However, they are also occurring in the middle of the night, when there should be no beam cleaning going on. Tentative conclusion: they all have a common origin that is somehow exacerbated by the cleaning team's activities.
2 – Quasi-periodic 60 Hz glitch every 75 min
Omicron picks up an SNR ~ 20 - 30 glitch at 60Hz which seems to happen periodically every 70 - 80 min. Hveto finds that SUS-ETMY_L2_WIT_L_DQ is an extremely efficient (use percentage 80-100%) veto, and that SUS-ETMY_L2_WIT_P_DQ and PEM-EY-MAG-EBAY-SEIRACK-X_DQ are also correlated. This effect is discussed in an alog post from June 6 (link): "the end-Y magnetometers witness EM glitches once every 75 minutes VERY strongly and that these couple into DARM". Due to their regular appearance, it should be possible to predict a good time to visit EY to search for a cause. Robert Schofield is investigating.
3 – Non-stationary noise at 20 - 30Hz
This is visible as a cluster of SNR 10 - 30 glitches at 20 - 30 Hz, which became denser on June 11 and started showing up as short vertical lines in the spectrograms as well. The glitches are not caught by Hveto. Interestingly, they were absent completely from the first lock stretch on June 10, from 00:00 – 05:00 UTC. Daniel Hoak has concluded that this is scattering noise, likely from alignment drives sent to OMC suspension, and plans to reduce the OMC alignment gain by a factor of two to stop this (link to alog).
4 – Broadband spectrogram lines at 310 and 340 Hz
A pair of lines at 310 and 340 Hz are visible in the normalized spectrograms, strongest at the beginning of a lock and decaying over a timescale of ~1 hr as the locked interferometer settles into the nominal alignment state. According to Robert Schofield, these are resonances of the optic support on the PSL periscope. The coupling to DARM changes as the alignment drifts in time (peaks decay beacuse the alignment was tuned to minimize the peaks when the IFO is settled.) Alogs about this: link, link, link.
There are lines of Omicron triggers at these frequencies too, which interestingly are weakest when the spectrogram lines are strongest (probably due to a 'whitening' effect that washes them out when the surrounding noise rises). Robert suspects that the glitches are produced by variations in alignment of the interferometer (changes in coupling to the interferometer making the peaks suddenly bigger or smaller).
5 – Wandering 430 Hz line
Visible in the spectrograms as a thin and noisy line, seen to wander slightly in Fscan. It weakened over the course of the long (14h) lock on June 11. Origin unknown.
6 – h(t) calibration
Especially noisy throughout the shift, with the ASD ratio showing unusually high variance. May be related to odd broadband behavior visible in the spectrogram. Jeff Kissel and calibration group report that nothing changed in the GDS calibration at this time. Cause unknown.
Attached PDF shows some relevant plots.
More details can be found at the DQ shift wiki page.
I believe the 430 Hz wandering line is the same line Marissa found at 415 Hz (alog18796). Which turns out, as Gabriele observed, to show coherence with SRCL/PRCL.
Ross Kennedy, my Ph.D. student, implemented tracking of this line over 800 seconds using the iWave line tracker. Overlaid with a spectrogram, you can see that there is quite good agreement as the frequency evolves. We're working on automating this tool to avoid hand-tuning parameters of the line tracker. It would also be interesting to track both this line and PSL behaviour at the same time, to check for correlation. In the attached document there are two spectrograms - in each case the black overlay is the frequency estimate from iWave.