There has been some concern that there might be excess cps noise in some of the channels. So i looked at 20 minutes of data at 1am sunday night/monday morning.

Looking only above 30Hz where the sensors have hit the noise floor, all of the coarse channels are similar and between 3.5-4.5E-10m/rrtHz about what we expect.

The stage 2 channels show two outliers, ITMX H2 and ITMX V1, maybe BS H2 also but that is close enough so that it could just be at a large offset (we expect the noise floor to go as the gap squared) I'll check that.

  The first thing to do is for me to look at another time, and to check the cables and connections for those sensors

I looked at a second data set calling it "B" (24 hours later)  ST2 ITMX H2 and ST2 ITMX V1 still show excess noise BS H2 is down to 4.5-5E-10m/rtHz which is a little bit noisy, but probably within what we are calling acceptable. I attached the data because Jeff asked to see the ADC noise on the plot

When I say large offset I mean > 10000 counts, so 1200 counts is centered for this discussion 

Gabriele, Sudarshan

We were able to close and open the ISS Second Loop with attached python script.

Some details about the script:

• Initially, it makes sure the loop is open, integrator and boost are off, gain is at 0dB and second loop servo is on.
• It sets the ref signal value so that it is not too far away from the nominal value; this value is determined by looking at the average in loop PD value. 
• It then calculates the average of second loop output and compares it to the user defined  threshold to move the ref level signal such that the second loop output is less than the threshold.
• After that, it waits for second loop signal to be around zero crossing to switch on the second loop. This was done because the timing of switching-on the second loop mattered. If the second loop output value was far off from zero, it threw the mode cleaner out of lock.
• At the end it checks if the ref signal is within the threshold. If it is, the boost and integrator are turned on and the loop remains closed, if not, the loop opens.

These python script will be eventually implemented on the IMC Guardian.

Note: We tested it 10 times in a row  and it never failed.

I've been asked to investigate the proper (or not so proper) operation of the SUS AUX /  monitor channels. It appears that, in particular, the L1 stage of ETMY has some questionable counts in the NOISEMON (all 4), the FASTIMON (LR) and the VOLTMON (UL).  I've done an excitation of 4Hz with an amplitude of 10 cts on all stages (Pitch) of ETMY and taken measurements. Below are the results. 

K. Venkateswara

Attached plot shows the various temperature sensors at EX. The thermistor temperature sensors temporari;y use the PEM tiltmeter channels as described in 14825. The two left plots show the thermistors and the top right plot shows the PEM temperature sensors. The very low frequency position of the beam-balance is also a sensitive thermometer as seen in the lower right plot.

There seems to be some oscillation in the temperature control loop for the VEA seen in the last 1-2 days. May need some tuning.

Nic, Sheila, Alexa

We pulled the CM summing junction from R4 (in the ISC racks by the PSL, the one closest to HAM1).  The OK light was not on and the measured transfer function was -80 when it should have been 0dB.  The TF from the excitation to the output was also garbage.

To have maximum power transmitted by the IMC, I had to move the beam on WFS_A a bit out fo the center (WFS_A_DC_PIT = 0.1, WFS_A_DC_YAW = 0.23).  I was not able to recover the same power with centered WFS and an offset on DOF1/2. But maybe just because I didn't have much time to try. Right now, I'm leaving the IMC angular control runnng without any offset. Intensity noise should be good enough.

In a previous report I showed that the beam can wander on the IMC WFS by something like 0.1 in QPD normalized units. To understand how much this can affect the optimality of the IMC alignment, I moved the beam on WFS using the picomotors, and tracked the change of jitter to RIN coupling.

I injected a 11 Hz pitch line on the PZT (amplitude 0.5) and a 17 Hz yaw line on the PZT (amplitude 2) and looked at the amplitude of induced RIN, both in the second loop signals and in IM4_TRANS. All signals gave consistent result, so here I'm quoting only one value.

Here are the raw results. The first four columns give the deviation of the beam position with respect to the initial one (which was not centered)

The effect is not so small, in particular a pitch miscentering of the beam can increase by as much as a factor 3 the coupling of jitter to RIN.

So it seems that the normal wandering of the beam on the long period can give some IMC misalignment that will cause a significant worsening of intensity noise. One solution would be to implement the beam size modification already done at Livingston.

re 15131, attached are pdfs of spectra for the ITMY HEPI L4Cs around 1am Tuesday and Wednesday before and after I made these changes Tuesday morning.  The first two pages are the individual runs and the third crowds things up and puts them on the same plot to maybe improve the comparison.

Bottom line--some places better some not as good even considering the differing ground motion.  I think these controller could be more aggressive if we want.

• SEI BSC2 and HAM3 HEPI still need attention
• Jim working on sensor correction at ETMX and ETMY
• SR3 OpLev recentering today
• 3IFO baffle suspension builds ongoing in LVEA West Bay
• EY PEM power cabling ongoing
• 3IFO storage can craning scheduled for tomorrow morning
• VPW cleanup for DCS build ongoing

model restarts logged for Tue 18/Nov/2014
2014_11_18 01:41 h1fw0
2014_11_18 10:51 h1isiham4
2014_11_18 10:51 h1isiham5
2014_11_18 10:56 h1sussr2
2014_11_18 10:58 h1sussr3
2014_11_18 10:58 h1sussrm
2014_11_18 11:01 h1hpiitmy
2014_11_18 11:27 h1broadcast0
2014_11_18 11:27 h1dc0
2014_11_18 11:27 h1fw1
2014_11_18 11:27 h1nds0
2014_11_18 11:27 h1nds1
2014_11_18 11:29 h1fw0
2014_11_18 11:54 h1psliss
2014_11_18 11:57 h1broadcast0
2014_11_18 11:57 h1dc0
2014_11_18 11:57 h1fw0
2014_11_18 11:57 h1fw1
2014_11_18 11:57 h1nds0
2014_11_18 11:57 h1nds1
2014_11_18 11:58 h1nds1

one unexpected restart. Maintenance day. Ham4,5 ISI and SUS work, with associated DAQ restart. PSL ISS work with associated DAQ restart. Double restart of h1nds1?

Alexa, Dan, Nic, Sheila, Evan

Tonight we made some improvements to our automation, and we reduced the CARM offset with DRMI locked on 3F.

• We measured some open loop gains with DRMI 1F + arms off resonance (by 1000 Hz at 532).  They seem to have about the same UGF as wihout the arms, for PRCL we change the gain from 22 to 11 when adding arms, and for MICH we changed it from 5 to 4, SRCL we did not change.
• We turn on the DRMI ASC, it brings AS 90 positive, then if we leave it on we start mode hopping.  For now we are just turning the ASC off once we get a decent build up in AS 90.
• We have not changed the ratio between the 3F and 1F signals in the input matrix.  Evan got a measurement of the sensing matrix.
• Then we decreased the CARM offset without any problems. 

J. Warner, J. Kissel, K. Venkateswara

After improved modelling of sensor correction (SC), thanks to Rich M. (615, 623), we re-attempted SC along X (and along Z). X sensor correction was to stage 1 ISI, while Z was on HEPI. Unlike our previous attempt (14896), we used Rich's SC_filter described previously in 14570.

The first pdf shows the ASD from before SC for X and Z. Stage 1 T240, CPS and ground motion is shown and the coherence between them. The second shows the platform motions after SC. The third pdf shows a comparison between the configurations as measured by the T240 showing the expected 2-5 factor improvement between 0.1 to 0.5 Hz. It also shows an improvement below that which is more surprising (maybe from Z SC?). There is no visible re-injection of noise (factor of ~2 is epxected between 20-40 mHz), because we are probably dominated by pre-existing noise which is larger. More testing will be done tomorrow. The OpLevs are currently mis-aligned so I can't see the effect of SC on them.

Note that the we did not use tilt-subtraction at the moment because wind-speeds were practically zero. We will test the tilt-subtraction when winds pick up a bit.

Once again, if this appears to be adding noise instead of helping, the comissioners can turn it off from the ETMX ISI medm screen as before.

A second round of testing on the all-metal 3IFO QUAD unit Q7 is attached.  After we saw a few cross coupling terms and struggled with coherence in the prior measurement set, we made a few adjustments to the QUAD mechanics.  However, readjusting the lacing cabling and retuning the sensor mounting tablecloth seemed to not help much.  There is still L and R bleeding into P on the reaction chain.  We were able to improve the coherence by building a fort around the test stand however.  The main chain looks to be in pretty good shape though.

The first attachement below is of Q7 with damping on and off.