I modified some scripts to make easier processing of the charge measurements.

1. Couple of matlab scripts allow to analyze several sets of measured results (instead analyzing one point at time). You can input the set in ESD_Analyse_ManyMeasurements.m, it calls ESD_analysis.m which is a little bit adapted version of ESD_UL_LL_UR_LR_analysis_07_H1.m . As a result you have the set of .mat files in corresponding folders and one figure per set showing dependence of response with different bias voltage. You can processing ETMX and ETMY all together. You can process all data of the day in one script.

2. I modified the long trend matlab script to make two new kinds of plots (you can see it in alog https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=19458). Also, it create plots for several TMs, if you need. New version is Long_Trend_H1_v2.m . 

3. I want to modify python script, but it seems that I can do only one improvement, when I want two and have else one trouble.
- First, which seems to be done, is making several measurements in line, without pause or waiting for operator's reaction. ESD_UL_LL_UR_LR_charge_07-H1-ETMY_Long.py repeats the measurements as long as "ENTER" is not pressed. After this it finish round of the measurement and stops. For sure, it can be stopped by ctrl+c (and you'll have partly measured directory).
- Second - we often have time on both ETMs together. I'd prefer to have one script which measure charge at both arms at the same time. Not in line, as it is realized now, but simultaneously. Now I use two scripts (one for each arm, but I'm not sure if it's the best choice).
- Third, at first run scripts return an error. It happens not at start, but in several first minutes of work. Seems that it happens once for each terminal. These errors do not stop the script. Also, I saw that length of "waiting for response loop" (I mean, number of measured GPS seconds) may differs. It happens rare, but it happens. The measurement time usually becomes smaller, but once I saw more than 2 minutes of measurement for one loop (instead 30 seconds). For sure, any of these errors kills all the processing for the data set. 

So, if you want to use modified versions of scripts - you are welcome!
If you have any suggestions or critic - you are welcome!
If someone could improve python script - I would be happy!

Links for all the committed files:
https://redoubt.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/svn/sus/trunk/QUAD/Common/Scripts/ESD_analysis.m
https://redoubt.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/svn/sus/trunk/QUAD/Common/Scripts/ESD_Analyse_ManyMeasurements.m
https://redoubt.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/svn/sus/trunk/QUAD/Common/Scripts/Long_Trend_H1_v2.m
https://redoubt.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/svn/sus/trunk/QUAD/Common/Scripts/ESD_UL_LL_UR_LR_charge_07-H1-ETMY_Long.py
https://redoubt.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/svn/sus/trunk/QUAD/Common/Scripts/ESD_UL_LL_UR_LR_charge_07-H1-ETMX_Long.py

(times in PST)

0803 - Robert to the LVEA to get a few things

0825 - Robert out

0855 - Katie to LVEA to level magnetometer

0920 - Richard to roof

0927 - Katie out

I came in early to get some work done and decided to try to lock before I began. I very easily made it up to Bounce roll damping before it lost lock. I didnt see any modes badly rung up, but many suspensions were saturating according to VerbalAlarms.

Another look at the sensors after moving units around on Tuesday.  See attached for spectra from a quiet time around 3am local.   Robert sees things looking pretty good except for the drop in coherence on the Z dof between the ITMY and the HAM5 units.  This may be the 30 meters between those instruments but we don't see the coherence drop on the other DOFs.

I've recentered the Masses again on the ITMY unit to see if that helps.  The other differences seen mostly on the STS2 at the ETMX position are reasonable given the distances  to the other sensors.

Last night I tried running the corner station BSC's in with some blends provided by RichM. The end stations stayed in the old configuration. Attached plots show the performance of ITMX vs ETMX. I compare RX/Y on ETMX and RY/X on ITMX. The results are mixed. Dashed lines are ITMX, solid lines are ETMX.

Something else to note, ITMX was not performing as well as the other chambers (something like an order of magnitude worse at a few hz, no different at low frequency though), the new blends now bring it's performance up to the other chambers. I've looked at the blends and all other controls components on this chamber, and haven't been able to find a reason for the difference. Suspicious. Last plot shows the difference, red and blue are the new blends, green and brown(?) are from the previous night with the "old" blends.

Killed the digital video camera software running on h1digivideo1, then killed several processes that wouldn't die nicely, then restarted the digital video camera software.  The EPICS IOC was not running properly for camera 18, this restart seems to have fixed it.

New Ref signal = -2.03V

Vac

• Now in nominal state

SEI

• Jim installing new blend fliters and getting data
• Hugh will take all HEPIs down on TUES for maintenance

SUS

• Quad model change on TUES

CDS

• Work on antennas on roof
• Prep computers for ends that will be changed on TUES

Fac

• Beamtube cleaning and joint sealing on going

Comm

• Still progessing with commissioning work

Weekend Work: Elli and Nutsinee will be coming in to do HWS work

Work safe and have a great weekend!

Sheila, Stefan, Elli, Nic

This afternoon we got a little more time with the IFO.  We redid inital alingment and were able to engage the ASC which increased our recycling gain.  We were able to power up to 15 Watts without a problem, when we increased the power to 23 Watts a 0.4 Hz oscillation that showed up mostly in SRC1 PIT and SRC2 PIT knocked us out of lock.  We've had difficulty in the early part of the evening with ALS, we have the glitches that show up in the arms even when only the arms are locked, reminding us of the glitches seen in alogs 17576 and 15242.  As before, these glitches went away a couple of hours and we are now locking OK again.  

We have reduced the time for the REFL trans ramp from 5 seconds to 1 second, this seems to be fine and we could think about making it shorter or reducing other ramp times in the final stages of CARM offset reduction.  We haven't had the REFL trans lockloss today, but this problem has always been intermittent so we will have to continue locking for several days to see if speeding it up actually helped.  

On June 29, 2015, LHO received a forwarded email from Hanford site personnel which contained this comment:  "Beginning Monday, July 6, there will be an increase in truck traffic . . . near the 300 Area. Waste material will be shipped to the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility in central Hanford. The remediation effort will continue until the spring of 2016 . . . truck traffic will be present between the hours of 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m."  The truck traffic mentioned here is the familiar ~30-ton loads in orange containers riding on transport trucks from the Hanford 300 area (~12 miles SE of LHO) to the ERDF pit (~10 miles W of LHO).  One of our site contacts indicates that we can expect about 120 loads per day to ERDF (meaning 2x round trips, but the reverse trip is with an empty container).  At present the hauling contractor anticipates that the loads will move only on the day shift, but these plans could change.  Current daytime PEM-SEIS 1-3Hz plots show this additional traffic. 

1010 hrs. local -> Spun down Y-end turbo and scroll pumps 

1040 hrs. local -> Started pump cart at Y-end RGA and energized RGA filament 

1105 hrs. local -> Spun down X-end turbo and scroll pumps 

1530 hrs. local -> started scan of Y-end 

1545 hrs. local -> Valved-out Y-end NEG 

1600 hrs. local -> Valved-in Y-end NEG 

1615 hrs. local -> Stopped Y-end RGA scan 

16?? hrs. local -> De-energized Y-end turbo levitation 

1655 hrs. local -> De-energized X-end turbo levitation

0829 - Elli to LVEA to turn on Illuminators

0848 - Elli out

0939 - Buba to Mids for fan work

0956 - Kyle to EY to turn on pumop cart

1129 - Bubba back

1144 - Nick to LVEA ISCT1

1145 - Hugh to LVEA to unlock HAM6 HEPI

1146 - Elli, Mike, and students to LVEA for quick tour

1151 - Leo starting charge measurements

1200 - Mike and students out

1210 - Hugh out

1214 - Elli out

1320 - Gerardo to EX to retrieve vac equipment then to MY

1350 - Fil to EX getting length for the new cables to be installed

1509 - Gerardo back

1516 - Kyle to EY for RGA scan

PCAL Laser were turned back on yesterday after the vent recovery at endstations and now the pcal calibration lines are turned on as well.

Sheila, Kiwamu, Chris, Hang

An update of LHO's noise budget is attached ('NB07082015.png'). It used the data from 06/07/2015, at 4:00:00 am UTC, whose predicted BNS inspiral range should be ~60 Mpc according to the summary page. 

Some major updates are: 
1. in SUS/ETMY, updated the ESD driver gain and the TST filter.

2. in LSC Digital, replaced the OMC Front End block.

3. in addition to those already existed 'mystery' gain blocks, some new ones were added. In order to make the NB predicted data match the measured ones (at least at high frequencies) while maintaining each DOF's open loop transfer function consistent with the measurement ('LoopGain07082015.png'), those blocks had to be added before the injection of quantum vacuum noises to have the proper suppression. This seemed indicating that the optickle model was not working perfectly? 

4. A new front end calibration model was built to replace the old OAF.mdl. A comparison between the FE cal and NB was shown in 'FEcheck07082015.png'. In the plot all the blue curves were obtained from the FE Cal and green ones from the NB.

Besides, I also included two plots showing the coupling from MICH (SRCL) to DARM predicted by the NB model, which was generated by measuring TF from MICH (SRCL) control signal (in [ct]) to DARM sensor (in [ct]), then dividing it by the TF from DARM cal (in [m]) to DARM sensor, so the transfer function's unit was [m/ct]. See 'MICH2DARM07082015.png' and 'SRCL2DARM07082015.png'. 

* 07/09/2015: font size increased. Sorry for the previous tiny font size...

After turning the HEPI loops on, noticed the drives to the ISI vertical Actuators are running about 10x higher than usual (compared to the other ISIs.)  Based on the Isolation loops output, these appear to be primarily from the Z dof.  I can't say how much displacement this represents but I'm sure the alignment will be fine if this offset where zero'd.

Sheila, Elli

I moved the ITMs to improve the recycling gain, as well as the PRM.  To get from a recylcing gain of just under 36 to 39 I mostly moved ITMY in yaw.  This may be a different alignment than what we were using durring ER7, but it seems to be an improvement over the alingments we had yesterday, so we have updated references for now.  The green alignment in the X arm did not change, but Elli and I redid the green QPD offsets and camera position for the Y arm.  We lost lock and relocked allowing the ASC to engage with the guardian using these new IR QPD offsets, which was fine and brought us to a recycling gain of 39 again.  For now the many people who want to do things incompatible with full locking have taken over the IFO.  

Old offsets:

  sheila.dwyer@opsws3:~/StripTools$ caget H1:ASC-Y_TR_A_PIT_OFFSET H1:ASC-Y_TR_A_YAW_OFFSET H1:ASC-Y_TR_B_PIT_OFFSET H1:ASC-Y_TR_A_PIT_OFFSET