Displaying reports 67521-67540 of 77153.Go to page Start 3373 3374 3375 3376 3377 3378 3379 3380 3381 End
Reports until 01:09, Saturday 08 February 2014
H1 ISC
stefan.ballmer@LIGO.ORG - posted 01:09, Saturday 08 February 2014 - last comment - 20:10, Saturday 08 February 2014(9930)
Lisa is disappointed
Evan, Lisa, Kiwamu,Stefan

Tonight we fixed our PRC oscillation problem: it was due to a demod phase that was 11deg off. Combines with the fact that MICH is only acting on the BS, this messed up our loop shape. We carefully phased REFL_45 to 144.6deg, and lowered the MICH gain to 50 and PRCL GAIN TO -0.6. (All these gains are in guardian now.)

Next we went on to 3f locking. We phased the 27MHz by simply maximizing the signal in I (we needed 90deg). Switching PRCL to 27_I was straight forward.

For MICH we wanted to user the 135MHz signals, but the signal seemed dead. Thus we tired 27_I. The transition worked fine, but we are still saturating the BS around 30-40Hz, and typically loose lock after 20sec or so.

As a result Lisa was disappointed: despite cooking dinner for us, be didn't quite achieve a stable lock on 3f tonight. But we promised her that we'll increase the modulation depth and the light of the 3f diode.
Comments related to this report
kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - 02:11, Saturday 08 February 2014 (9931)

Also, we implemented a new state in the PRMI guardian for the 3f locking. It transitions the sensor from the 1f signals to the 3f signals by ramping the sensing matrix elements. This works fine although the way it does currently is a rough discrete gain step.

Another thing we would have to mention is that we could not bring HAM3 ISI back to its level 3 isolation. We tripped the ISI when we accidentally tripped PR2. We tried the isolation script from the medm screen but it seems that it tries to enable a couple of blank filters and stops at some point before ramping up the isolation gains. This needs to be revisited. Currently it is only damping.

kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - 20:10, Saturday 08 February 2014 (9934)

Lisa, Kiwamu

Today, we looked at free swinging wave form of the 3f signals. The signals in REFLAIR_B_RF135 was visible and we confirmed that the signal size made sense by comparing it with the RF27 signals.

Here are our back of envelope calcuation:

  • RF27_I signal gain= (19.8 dB diplxer gain) x  (2k-ish Ohm BBPD response) x ( 2.66e4 W/m IFO response from  T1300238) x (0.1 rad modulation depth)^3
  • RF135_I signal gain= (50.7 dB diplxer gain) x  (1k-ish Ohm BBPD response) x ( 3470 W/m IFO response from T1300238) x (0.07 rad modulation depth)^3
  • (RF27_I signal gain) / (RF135_I signal gain)  = 1.27

Therefore the RF27 and RF135 should be almost the same signal level. Indeed, we see almost the same size (i.e. peak-to-peak) of the signals in both RF27_I and RF135_I which showed 700 counts p-p and 800 counts p-p respectively without any whitening gains or whitening stages. We didn't check the absolute value at this point.

H1 ISC (ISC)
lisa.barsotti@LIGO.ORG - posted 23:16, Friday 07 February 2014 - last comment - 18:02, Saturday 08 February 2014(9929)
Summary about missing power in REFL beam
Evan, Stefan, Kiwamu, Lisa

There has been some confusion about factors of two in previous entries, so here are our "final" numbers:

- Pin = 8.8 W entering the IMC, measured on the PSL table
- with PRM aligned, R = 98.6%
-  from Paul's calibration  of the MC2Trans diode (we measured 645 uW), it looks like there is T = 88% from the PSL to the transmission of the input mode cleaner;
- given the HAM1 path, we expect 1.25% of the REFL power to reach the LSC RF diode P_exp = 8.8 * 0.986 * 0.88 * 1.25e-2 = 95 mW;


 LSC in vac REFL A (LSC RF PD)  (1.25% of REFL power) = 15900 counts (maximum found by moving RM2)

==> 15900 [counts] * (1/1638) [V/counts] * 2 [diff to single input] * (1/200) [1/Ohm] * 0.8 [W/A] =  78 mW 

 LSC REFL AIR A (LSC RF PD)  (0.625% of REFL power) = 7955 counts 

==> 32.5 mW measured directly in front of the diode on table

==> 7955 [counts] * (1/1638) [V/counts] * 2 [diff to single input] * (1/200) [1/Ohm] * 0.8 [W/A] = 39 mW

 LSC REFL AIR B (BBPD)  (0.625% of REFL power) = 21770 counts 

==> 34 mW measured directly in front of the diode on table


==>  Conclusion : The discrepancy between what we see and what we expect is not a factor of 2, but more like 20%-30%, and in vac and in air diodes gives us consistent numbers. 



Comments related to this report
lisa.barsotti@LIGO.ORG - 18:02, Saturday 08 February 2014 (9933)ISC
Nope..we didn't get the right factors this time either:

W/A  = 1/0.8, and the factor of 2 diff to single is not there (and, even if it doesn't matter, R for PRM is 97.3%, not 98.6%).
I will post another entry with the right numbers..somehow I can't edit this one..

P.S: Still need to calibrate these numbers, measurements were taken all at the same time. It might be also worth to check if the T = 88% transmission from PSL to IMC throughput is correct.

 LSC REFL AIR B (BBPD)  (0.625% of REFL power) = 21770 counts 

==> 34 mW measured directly in front of the diode on table

WFS in vac REFL A (0.625% of REFL power) = 34200 counts
WFS in vac REFL B (0.625% of REFL power) = 36400 counts
H1 SEI
hugh.radkins@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:16, Friday 07 February 2014 - last comment - 18:21, Friday 07 February 2014(9926)
State of ISIs for ITMs ETMX & BS

Left these ISIs in following State

HEPI position loops on

Stage2 ISI in Lvl3 control with 750mHz blends for BS & ITMY and 250mHz for all dofs sans 100mHz for X & Y on the ITMX.

Stage1 ISI in Lvl3 control with T250 blends everywhere except:  T100mHz.44NO on BS & T40mHz.44NO on ITMY or the X & Y dofs. Stage1 of the ITMX blends w/ TCrappy everywhere.

For the ETMX, the blends are all TCrappy, Stage1 is in Lvl3 control while Stage2 is in Lvl2 control.  We are still getting some peaks slowly ringing up things out past the UUG which require notches for the Control3

Comments related to this report
hugh.radkins@LIGO.ORG - 18:21, Friday 07 February 2014 (9927)

Just found the BS Stage2 tripped back to damping only.  Sounds like the Michelson Feedback forces our Actuators to their limit.

H1 ISC
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:14, Friday 07 February 2014 - last comment - 19:57, Friday 07 February 2014(9925)
COMM handoff today

Alexa, Daniel, Sheila

Today we were able to lock COMM stably.  (Thanks to some extra time from the red team and SEI people).   By COMM I mean that we can lock the PSL to the green arm transmitted power, using the mode cleaner as an actuator.  I don't want to call it the CARM handoff as we called it durring HIFOY, to make a distinction between this ALS handoff and when we do the handoff of the common arm degree of freedom to corner IR signals from the ALS signals.  

We have 2 scripts that do the handoff in the new way, userapps/als/h1/scripts COMM_handoff and COMM_down_2

COMM_down_2 brings COMM down in a nice way that does not unlock the mode cleaner.  We will work on getting this into guardian at some point.  We will try simplifying the COMM handoff script in the future.

We are now using a crossover at 15 Hz, 23 degrees of phase margin (plot attached).  This allows us to engage the two notches in the MC2ISCINF (at 29 and 40 Hz) that prevent us from ringing up suspension modes.  We struggled to get the crossover this low, because the slow path losses phase at low frequencies much faster than we understand.  We added into LSC CARM a z5p20 to get some phase back, and also lowered our compensation filter (6) zero to 6Hz.  We are also no longer using the z40:p150 which is used by the mode cleaner locking in MC2M3. 

The ugf is at 10s of kHz, Alexa has plots she will post.  The open loop gain shows a peak at around 27kHZ.  When we looked into why this was, we saw that the PLL has almost no phase margin. 

Anyway, the good news is we can reliably do the handoff, and it seems to stay locked at least as long as we left it alone, which wasn't more than 10 minutes or so. 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
alexan.staley@LIGO.ORG - 19:57, Friday 07 February 2014 (9928)

Settings after the handoff:

COMM PLL

  • Polarity: OFF
  • Gain: 31dB
  • Common Filter 1: ON
  • Common Filter 2: ON
  • VCO Compensation: ON
  • Low Pass filter: ON

IMC Servo Board

  • Input 1 enable: ON
  • Input 1 pol: POS
  • Input 2 enable: ON
  • Input 2 pol: POS
  • Input 2 gain: 16 dB
  • Input 1 gain: 10 dB
  • Common Compensation: ON
  • Boost 1: ON
  • Generic filter: ON
  • Fast Gain: -6dB
  • Fast enable: ON
  • Fast Pol: POS
  • Bypass: ON

CM Servo Board

  • Input 1 enable: ON
  • Input 1 polarity: POS
  • Fast polarity: POS
  • Slow polarity: NEG
  • Bypass: OFF
  • Input 1 gain: 9dB
  • Fast gain: 6dB

LSC:REFL_SERVO_SLOW Filter

  • FM1 ON (antiwhitening gain)
  • Gain: -1

LSC-CARM Filter

  • FM8 (z6:p1k), FM1(z5:p20), FM4, FM5 ON
  • Gain: 80

MC2_M3_ISCINF Filter

  • FM6, FM7 (notches) ON
  • Gain 1

MC2_M3_LOCK_L Filter

  • FM9 (chebychev at 300Hz) ON
  • Gain: -300
  • FM3 On/Off as specified

MC2_M2_LOCK_L Filter

  • FM3, FM4, FM10 ON
  • Gain: 0.01

Note: no gains present in any of the input matrices

Measurements:

  1. SCRN0110.TXT, SCRN0111.TXT, SCRN0112.GIF are the magnitude, phase, and pic of the COMM PLL open loop transfer function with the above settings.

  2. SCRN0102.TXT, SCRN0103.TXT, SCRN0101.GIF are the magnitude, phase, and pic of the CM common path open loop transfer function with the handoff (case of MC2_M3 filter FM3 On)

  3. SCRN0104.TXT, SCRN0105.TXT, SCRN0106.GIF are the magnitude, phase, and pic of the IMC open loop transfer function without the handoff (i.e. above settings w/ input 2 enable: OFF)

  4. SCRN0108.TXT, SCRN0109.TXT, SCRN0107.GIF are the magnitude, phase, and pic of the IMC open loop transfer function with the handoff (i.e. above settings, case of MC2_M3 filter FM3 Off)

Images attached to this comment
Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 SEI
hugh.radkins@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:56, Friday 07 February 2014 (9924)
ITMY ISI X-Tilt Decoupling (CPS_Align)

See attached for test progress and final result (Red Traces).  The values for these corrections are 0.0015 & 0.00075 for XtoRX & XtoRY respectively.

The values for ITMY Y-Tilt are -0.0007 & 0.0005 for YtoRX & YtoRY.  The second plot is for this drive axis.  The plot isn't as busy or interesting but the results are slightly better in the cross term.

I'll attach the MEDM to just cause I can.

I'll try to get measurements to show the results that Rich & I have gotten on the other ISIs over the this frenzied week.

Images attached to this report
H1 SUS
arnaud.pele@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:33, Friday 07 February 2014 (9923)
MC offsets snapshots with new calibration

for future reference, attached are the new offsets of MC corresponding to the new calibration calculated by Paul, cf

https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=9870

Images attached to this report
H1 SUS
arnaud.pele@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:24, Friday 07 February 2014 (9917)
ETMX L2 UL still noisy

[Fil Arnaud]

The upper left osem of the ETMX PUM remains noisy : its noise floor is higher than LR by a factor of ~5 @10hz, see red curve vs green of 1st pdf.
To make sure it didn't come from some electronics noise, Fil unplugged the cable between the vacuum flange and the PUM. The noise floor went down by a factor of 15 @10hz, meaning it's definitely not coming from any of the electronics. cf blue of 2nd pdf before unplugging vs green after. The flag might be not centered as well as the other osems

Non-image files attached to this report
H1 General
andres.ramirez@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:00, Friday 07 February 2014 (9921)
Ops Shift Summary
8:50-9:31 Mirror Mounts work in H2 LAE (LVEA)– R. Savage
8:57-12:00 Going to End X to do documentation work – Luis
9:20      PSL Check List: All the parameters were OK except the FSS Threshold on transmitted photo-detector PD = 0.49V (should be 0.9V)
9:25-9:50 Repair person on site to fix the tractor
9:30-     Going to END Y to do TMS work – Corey/Keita
9:49-12:00 Work on SUS electronics (PUM Chassis) at END X – Filiberto
10:07-10:33 Searching for parts in LVEA – Thomas 


H1 ISC
kiwamu.izumi@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:48, Friday 07 February 2014 (9920)
PRMI guardian beta version released

I have created a new guardian which watches the PRMI locking. Once green team finishes their locking activity, we will test this out with the real interferometer.

It is currently in

/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/lsc/common/guardian/LSC_PRMIsb.py

This guardian script looks into an up script which is in

/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/lsc/h1/scripts/autolock/prmi/sideband/prmi_sb_up.py

If you want to refresh the PRMI locking settings, you can always command this up state and it sets up the LSC settings and PRM/PR2/BS settings upon a request.


 

H1 AOS (SEI)
richard.mittleman@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:14, Friday 07 February 2014 (9912)
ITMX isi isolation

this is a dtt session from last night showing the performance of the ITMX ISI

  The ISI is running a level 3 controller with TCrappy blend filters (40mHz on stage 1 translation)

  Sensor correction and feed forward are NOT running yet

 

  The units are kind of in nm/sec/rthz except that I haven't inverted the L4C and GS13 response (T240s are flat down to 10mhz)

  Left column is X, Y and Z amplitude spectra, Right column is rX, rY and rZ

  Center column is transfer function from the ground

 

  The GS13 plot is in nm/rtHZ and the GS13 noise plot is for a single instrument, so there are factors of 2-ish floating around

 

  and the GS13 is an in loop measurment

Images attached to this report
H1 SUS
filiberto.clara@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:45, Friday 07 February 2014 (9916)
EX - PUM Monitor Readbacks Channels
Arnaud reported PUM monitor readback channels not changing states. Looked at binary commands coming into chassis and could see inputs changing states. The relays could also be heard changing states. Outputs did not change. 
Had similiar issue at corner station https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=3153 

Replaced R111 from 10K to 100K on all channels. All monitors are responding as expected. 
D1100303 Serial Number S1000343.

Filiberto Clara
H1 ISC
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:16, Friday 07 February 2014 - last comment - 11:30, Friday 07 February 2014(9907)
green beat note, alingment this morning

Alexa, Sheila, others

This morning we had a difficult time realinging, for reasons that aren't all clear.  (It seems like this should be easier than it normaly is.)

A few things that happened:

ITMX ISI was not isolating, did someone do this on purpose? Jim brought it back up for us.

The M0 Lock filter gains were reset to 1 again, so that the loop gains for the intial arm alingment were wrong again.  Arnaud figured out that guargian is doing this, and is working on a solution.  Beware, anyone who sets gains in SUS lock filters, they will get overwritten with the sus guardian as is.

After we got the arm cavity alingment back and stable, I had to realing the beat note on ISCT1.  I was able to realing it just by using an IR card and saw 27.4mV pp coming out of the PD, so this seems good enough for now.

Some numbers:

SHG shutter closed: -42dBm reported by PFD RF readback, about 1mV pp noise on the RF mon of the PFD.

Shutter open and beam aligned by eye: -34dBm reported by PFD RF readback, 27.4mV pp out of the PD, and about 2.5 mV pp on RF mon of the PFD. 

Comments related to this report
arnaud.pele@LIGO.ORG - 11:30, Friday 07 February 2014 (9913)

I set a filter with a gain of 23.219 counts/urad in FM1 of ETMX_M0_LOCK_P and a gain of 51.689 counts/urad in the LOCK_Y filter. This way the lock gains remain 1

Logbook Admin General
jonathan.hanks@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:06, Friday 07 February 2014 - last comment - 12:03, Friday 07 February 2014(9906)
aLOG outage moved to 11:30am pacific today
Please save your log entries before 11:30am pacific.
Comments related to this report
jonathan.hanks@LIGO.ORG - 12:03, Friday 07 February 2014 (9914)
The work is completed
H1 AOS
paul.fulda@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:44, Friday 07 February 2014 - last comment - 15:10, Friday 07 February 2014(9898)
Repeating beam size measurements on ISCT1

Evan, Paul

Yesterday we repeated the beam size measurements on ISCT1, with the quieter ITMX.

First we measured the PRM direct reflected beam, in reflection of the window after the ISCT1 periscope. We misaligned ITMX and ITMY for this measurement, and also misaligned the ALS beam from X-ARM with the PZTs. Slight disclaimer with this beam: since it's in reflection from a non-AR coated window, there are two beams of roughly equal power, separated by only a little over 1cm. I would therefore be a little less confident in the x-radius data for this beam. If possible, at some time it would be good to use a pick-off mirror that avoids this problem for the PRM direct reflection beam.

Then we moved the nanoscan to a position in transmission of the window and measured ITMX and ITMY direct reflected beams. For those two measurents we misaligned PRM, ETMX, and the ITM that we weren't measuring the beam from. During this time, 4W was being applied to the IMTY ring heater.

The beam radii we measured were:

  x-radius [um] y-radius [um]
PRM direct 1934 2150
ITMX direct 2338 2424
ITMY direct 2123 2167

The ITM beams we measured yesterday were slightly smaller than we observed last time. For ITMX at least, the motion of the beam on the nanoscan was significantly less than last time, so these results should be more reliable. Rich switched on some seismic isolation before we measured the ITMY beam, which appeared to result in a DC misalignment of ITMY. We adjusted the alignment offsets to account for this and left it aligned in that manner. The alignment offsets that were in place before we began were:

ITMX was at P=92.8 Y=-65.9

ITMY was at P=19.2 Y=-140.7

ETMX was at P=250.7 Y=87.1

PRM was at  P=-685 Y=-447

Attached are the beam motion / radius ASDs from the logged data from the nanoscan. Comparing with the ASDs attached to aLOG 9773, we can see that the ITMX beam motion was significantly less this time.

Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
paul.fulda@LIGO.ORG - 15:10, Friday 07 February 2014 (9918)

Accidentally commented on the wrong entry

Logbook Admin General
jonathan.hanks@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:40, Thursday 06 February 2014 - last comment - 12:03, Friday 07 February 2014(9890)
Scheduled downtime Friday 7 Feb 2014 noon Pacific
The aLOG will be down for maintenance tomorrow at noon (pacific time).

Please post or save your log entries before the maintenance.
Comments related to this report
jonathan.hanks@LIGO.ORG - 10:05, Friday 07 February 2014 (9905)
The downtime is being moved earlier in the day to 11:30am pacific.
jonathan.hanks@LIGO.ORG - 12:03, Friday 07 February 2014 (9915)
The work is completed
H1 IOO (IOO)
paul.fulda@LIGO.ORG - posted 23:43, Wednesday 05 February 2014 - last comment - 16:15, Friday 07 February 2014(9870)
IMC mirror alignment offset calibration using transmitted power drop

I finally got a script working to step the alignment offsets on the IMC mirrors and record the transmitted power drop with MC2trans and IM4trans QPDs. 

The idea behind this was to compare the quadratic function for power drop with misalignment with the theoretical function, giving us a means of accurately calibrating the alignment offsets.

The reason I'm interested in calibrating these offsets accurately is for beam jitter measurements using the coupling from jitter to RIN in transmission of a misaligned IMC [see e.g. LHO aLOG entry 8190]. The coupling factor is determined by the slope of the quadratic function, so we can't calibrate jitter measurements made in this way any better than we can calibrate the DC alignment offset.

The first attached plot shows the normalized transmitted power obtained for each individual mirror DOF, from both IM4trans QPD and MC2trans QPD, over "intended" alignment offset. Also included is a plot of the normalized transmitted power from a Finesse model of the IMC over "real" misalignment offset. From these plots we can see that in general the alignment offsets actually applied to the MC mirrors are larger than the intended alignment offsets. However, the measured data is not always symmetric (especially for IM4). This could be due to clipping at the QPDs. The centering on IM4trans is not as good as the centering on MC2trans, so I would be more confident in the numbers from MC2trans.

I fitted a quadratic function P=A(x-h)^2+k to each of the curves. The calibration is then done by scaling the alignment offsets applied to the actual suspensions by sqrt(Amodel/Adata). The second attached plot shows each DOF again, but this time with the x-axis scaled for the measured data to fit the model. I used the scaling factors calculated from MC2trans data since the centering on this QPD was better. For the most part I'd say the data matches the model well after this scaling.

These scaling factors are:

DOF Scaling factor
MC1 Pitch 0.7043
MC1 Yaw 0.8223
MC2 Pitch 0.8572
MC2 Yaw 0.8326
MC3 Pitch 0.7823
MC3 Yaw 0.8588

I would propose to include these scaling factors in the calibration of the MC mirror offsets.

The script can be run again at any time to check for any possible changes in e.g. the OSEM coil driver gains over time. It might be beneficial to take more data points at some point too, but the script takes 15mins or so to run as it is (mainly due to the time given for optics to settle between changes of offset). Another improvement would be to step MC1 and MC3 pitch over a larger range, since the transmitted power is actually fairly insensitive to these DOFs. Both these things can be edited in the top few lines of the script.

In case anyone is interested in running this script in future, it is located at opt/rtcds/userapps/release/ioo/h1/scripts/imc/pfulda/IMC_align_calibrate.py

Be sure to run the mcWFSrelieve script located in opt/rtcds/userapps/release/ioo/h1/scripts/imc/ first though!

I attach the analysis scripts here too, including the measured data, Finesse model and results, and other functions used.

Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
paul.fulda@LIGO.ORG - 20:07, Thursday 06 February 2014 (9904)

In preparation for beam jitter measurements, I applied these calculated gains to the MC mirror M1 OPTICALIGN filter banks. Rather than just edit the gain directly, I made a new filter in each DOF's filter bank with the calculated gain. These filters are all called "alog9870" to point anyone towards the above entry for explanation. I then calculated the required new input offset values to retain the current alignment, and adjusted these while switching the filters on. The IMC is still aligned, but now the alignment offsets are calibrated to um using the data gathered from the IMC power drop measurement.

paul.fulda@LIGO.ORG - 15:12, Friday 07 February 2014 (9919)

Last night I had a bit of time to run the script again for a more detailed measurement, with 21 alignment steps, waiting 15 seconds for alignment to stabilize between each, and also averaging PD data for longer than previously. I also increased the misalignment range from ±30urad to ±50urad for MC1 and MC3 pitch.

Since the alignment offsets are now calibrated based on the previous measurement, I was curious to see if the model now fits well to the new data without the step of adjusting the x-axis.

The attached plot shows the new measured data and the model, without any adjustment of x-axis scaling. I think they all agree pretty well, though the one thing that concerns me slightly is the apparent offset in MC2 pitch. Is it possible there is an offset somewhere in the WFS loop that causes this? If so, maybe we could try adjusting this to maximize transmitted power / minimize reflected power.

Non-image files attached to this comment
paul.fulda@LIGO.ORG - 16:15, Friday 07 February 2014 (9922)

Just for completeness. the new MC opticalign offsets with this calibration included are:

DOF Old offset New offset
MC1 P 883.3 1254.2
MC1 Y -1945.7 -2366.2
MC2 P 470.4 548.8
MC2 Y 257.2 308.9
MC3 P -430.6 -550.4
MC3 Y -2119 -2467
H1 SEI (SEI)
richard.mittleman@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:02, Saturday 01 February 2014 - last comment - 10:50, Friday 07 February 2014(9738)
HAM6 CPS Noise Floor

I measured the noise floopr of the HAM-6 CPS. This is in the configuration that seemed best at LLO, a ground from the electronics rack and a local ground.

 

The gold colored line is twice our noise model which is what we were getting at LLO.  I have been using two different targets which are at +/-4Volts and since the noise goes as the square of the

distance we would expect the noise from the channels using the different targets to be  (1+0.4)^2 and (1 -0.4)^2  (there is a 1mm offest) which is more or less what we are seeing at high frequencies. 

At low frequencies (were we use then in the control) it is clearly steepper then the noise model

 

 there is also a noise spike at 0.5Hz in H2 and V2, I chased this a bit last night and found

 

  - It doesn't look like it is coming from the CPS electronics, I turned of the power to the CPS (unplugging the calbe in the electronics room) and it was still there

 - when I shorted out the inputs to the HAM SEI interface on channels #1 and 2 it popped up in channel H3 and V3 

 - as far as I can tell it has always been at exactly 0.5Hz

 

Images attached to this report
Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
richard.mittleman@LIGO.ORG - 10:50, Friday 07 February 2014 (9911)

the low freqeuncy excess noise might not be real.  After doing some more measurements it looks like the theremal time constant is more like a 1/2 hour (guess) then a few minutes (2" x 2" X 1/2" aluminum wrapped in foam) so I probably didn't wiat long enough for these measurments

Displaying reports 67521-67540 of 77153.Go to page Start 3373 3374 3375 3376 3377 3378 3379 3380 3381 End