Jason, Kiwamu,
PR3 oplev has not been properly behaving. We don't know when it ran into the issue. We will take a close look in the next maintenance Tuesday as we are suspecting a bad QPD and/or bad electronics.
[Cross-coupling issue]
Currently the symptoms are that:
At this point, we are not sure if this is due to a bad QPD segment or some kind of electrtonics issue.
[Dip switch confusion]
Independently of the cross-coupling issue, we found that a dip switch for the seg3 whitening filter had been set differently than the rest of three segments. We thought this would fix the cross coupling issue at the begginig, but switching it to the position that everyone else have been did not solve the issue because the cross-coupling behavior which is described above arose in turn. It is unclear how long the dip swtich has been in this configuration. Note that the last maintenance activity on PR3 was performed almost a month ago (on 7th of this April, alog 17722)
Changing WP #5182 -> had intended to bake out BSC6 RGA for 24 hours starting today but will bake in 4 hour increments over the next few maintenance days instead -> As such, pump cart at BSC6 will only run during maintenance periods.
After the guardian states were rekeyed during the March SUS guardian revamping (alog 17259), the SUS_GUARDIAN_STATES_OVERVIEW_CUST.adl screen has been incorrectly displaying the SUS GRD status. Today I fixed this and now the status lights accurately represent what state the SUS GRD is in.
Note, here's is the address of the medm file:
/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sus/common/medm
ALS build against RCG2.9.2 [WP5183]
Jeff, Jim:
h1alse[x,y] models were built against RCG Tag2.9.2 and restarted. No DAQ restart was required. RCG version number on the GDS_TP screens is 4002 for this build.
DAQ reconfiguration [WP5184]
Jeff, Jim, Dave:
The DAQ was restarted at the following local times: 07:24, 07:25, 09:58, 11:39
The first two restarts were to apply the new INI files if they had been updated (they had not). The first raised DAQ errors on certain front ends, the second was to see if they could be cleared.
The third was to apply the new H1BROADCAST.ini and H1EDCU_HWS.ini files. Again certain front ends needed their mx-streams restarted.
It was then found that dataviewer would not show any fast channels in the signal selection list, and the slow channels were not quite correct. Jim tracked this down to a badly formed line in my updated H1EDCU_HWS.ini file. I have forgotten to put a close-square-bracket at the end of one channel. This was corrected and the fourth DAQ restart applied the fix (this time no frontends were DAQ glitched).
Take home message, always run inicheck on new ini files.
Guardian Reboots:
Jamie, Betsy, Jeff, Dave:
we rebooted the h1guardian0 machine twice this morning. First was to see what the load averages start with after a reboot (answer, 7 after 1 hour running). The second was to apply Jamies newer version of guardian.
prior version (guardian, ezca) = 1390,443
new version = 1445:474
On Saturday, I was able to get some data on the effect of different blend filters on DARM. It looks like we probably don't want to be using the 45mhz blends, or they need some re-working to reduce their low frequency performance. The attached plots are DARM from 2 lock stretches on Saturday. This is the CAL CS DELTAL spectra, which Jeff helped me calibrate, hopefully he'll explain in a comment. Blue traces are both end stations with 45mhz blends, orange traces are both end stations with 90 mhz blends, black is the ground. Ground was pretty similar between the 2 cases, range was similar, though slightly higher with the 90mhz blend, possibly better alignment? First plot is .01 hz to 3 hz, where most of the action is, the second plot is 1hz to 100hz.
The first plot shows the 90 mhz blend does as well as the 45mhz blend down to .3 hz, then does a factor of several worse until ~50mhz, where the gain peaking on the 45mhz blend causes more motion. Above 1 hz the 90mhz blend shows more RMS, I'm not sure of the cause, but there are features visible in the second plot at about 8-15hz that I don't understand. But they are probably not due to the blend change.
The method for calibrating the CAL-DELTAL_EXTERNAL_DQ DARM spectrum and getting it "right" around and below 10 [Hz]: (1) undo the 5 zeros at 1 [Hz], 5 poles at 100 [Hz] whitening DAQ filter LHO aLOG 16702 as one would normally do for this channel at all frequencies. (2) compensate for the digital UIM control filter (FM1 & 2, "int" and "lowboost", two poles at 0 [Hz], two zeros at 0.1 and 0.3 [Hz]) that we don't replicate in the CAL-CS actuation path because of numerical precision noise. (See LHo aLOG 17528) That means, in DTT, one has to apply the following calibration filter: Gain: 0.03 Poles: 1,1,1,1,1, 0, 0 Zeros: 100,100,100,100,100, 0.3, 0.1 where the gain of (exactly) 0.03 is to normalize the z:p = ([0.3 0.1] : [0 0]) filter necessary for getting the actuation at low frequencies correct in step (2) -- i.e. prod(2*pi*[0.3 0.1]) / (2*pi)^2 = 0.03 Why (2) works: Remember that DELTAL_EXTERNAL is the sum of the calibrated DARM_ERR and DARM_CTRL channels, DELTAL_EXTERNAL = (1 / C) * DARM_ERR + A * DARM_CTRL where C is the sensing function (i.e. the IFO's "test mass DARM displacement sensor" calibration) and A is the actuation function (i.e. the ETMY transfer function). A dominates this sum below the DARM UGF at ~40 [Hz]. As such, well below 40 [Hz], DELTAL_EXTERNAL ~ A * DARM_CTRL. Since we're using hierarchical feed back to ETMY, where the UIM/TST or L1/L3 cross-over frequency is ~1 [Hz], then well below *that*, DELTAL_EXTERNAL ~ A_{uim} * DARM_CTRL, i.e. the total calibration for DELTAL_EXTERNAL "well" below 1 [Hz] is dominated by how accurately we reproduce / calibrate / model the UIM actuation path. Since the UIM digital filters we've intentionally left out in CAL-CS have frequency content below ~0.5 [Hz], they're simply "missing" from the calibration of DELTAL_EXTERNAL, and we can, offline, just multiply all of DARM by these filters, and get the "right" answer. This being said, *all* calibration below 10 [Hz] still should be treated with some skepticism, because we have little-to-no precision measurements of the scale factor, DARM OLGTF frequency dependence, and/or TST/UIM cross-over frequency in this band (and we don't plan on making any). I could say it's "within a factor of two," because I think we've done everything right, but I have no measured proof to bound the uncertainty quantitatively. Above 10 [Hz], the latest estimate of precision and accuracy are described in detail in LHO aLOG 18186.
J. Kissel, D. Barker, B. Weaver After the first reboot of the guardian machine this morning, all SEI chambers except HAM3 came up as expected: the SEI manager and ISI / HPI subordinates are coded to be smart enough to figure out what state the platforms are actually in and restore to that state upon initialization. HAM3's ISI subordinate did not. I was able to identify it because the HAM3 SEI manager was complaining that it's subordinate's request had changed. The solution was to simply by-hand change the request to HIGH_ISOLATED. No big problem here, just want to start recording the outcomes of reboots so we can address any systematic issues. Note this did *not* happen on the second guardian machine reboot today.
This also happened for HEPI HAM1, at least after the second reboot. BUT this may be because he's unique in that it doesn't have a SEI chamber manager telling him where to go, not because of any errant code. I've manually moved the requested state to ROBUST_ISOLATED, which is where the platform was already.
These are two totally different issues. The HPI_HAM1 issue is just because it doesn't have an initial request state defined. I think Hugh has now fixed that.
Jason, Kiwamu,
We revisted the calibration of the oplev on ETMX and ETMY which showed calibration error of a factor of a few (alog 18218). In fact, they alll had underestimated the suspension angle by roughtly a factor of two. Here is a summary table of the calibration factors:
| old calibration [urad/cnts] | new calibration [urad/cnts] | |
| ETMX PIT | 81.2 | 222.5 |
| ETMX YAW | 115.2 | 263.4 |
| ETMY PIT | 77.94 | 172.2 |
| ETMY YAW | 53.55 | 115.4 |
We also updated the SDF so that these new values are already reflected. Note that the number I updated yesterday was not accurate enough (alog 18218) since I was using the misaligned ETMX. We calibrated it again with the aligned suspension. I attach the measurement data nad fitting codes as a zip file.
Replaced QPD Whitening Filter Chassis S1101595 with S1101628. Keita reported 900 count DC offset on segment 2.
Looks like the spring influx of wildlife has had ramifications on our IFO. More testing will be done but looks like mice may have contributed to the problem with the whitening chassis. An opAmp was covered in corrosion and other problems on the board looked like a mouse outhouse. We have cleaned and disinfected the chassis and are waiting for it to dry before doing more tests. See attached photo
Similar to yesterday's plot but I've added MICH SRCL & PRCL
See the attached three panel for all the three building Pressures coherence to trhe IFO control signals.
Corner Station had coherence approaching 0.7 with Mich at ~20mHz, everything else is less.
Scanning through coherence plots from the LVEA pressure to individual platforms and DOFs finds some continuous coherence to the HPI BS RZ. See it on the upper right panel of the attached graph. The thin dark green is the current coherence and still not as bad as the pale thick lighter green reference line from before our controller tweeking back in Jan/Feb. However, there is a fair swath of non zero area from a few mHz to 100mHz. The same area where we see some coherence with MICH.
So why is the BS the most coherent. While the pump servo does get its signal from the pressure sensors at the BS, I'm more suspicious about the very large constant drive the Z DOF on the BS is currently applied by HEPI. When the Pump Stations are off, the BS HEPI sags so low that some of the vertical IPS are out of their linear range. This requires the DC BIAS to be almost 400um for the Z DOF. Maybe this gives us some Z to somethin-mich-is-sensitive-to coupling. It is on our wish list to lift this up with the HEPI Mechanical Springs.
WP #5164 Replaced dataviewer and command line nds tools to remove warning message about communication protocol version being unexpected.
WP #5170 Update control room GDS tools to version 2.16.17.2-1, includes awgstream (compiled against new gds libraries, no code change). This change fixes printing to files in diaggui and foton, gives the user the ability to set very small numbers in awggui, fixes a minor bug in allowed sample rates in foton. For the more obscure changes, foton can be used for non-aLIGO filter development involving non-standard sample rates (using a command line option). In diag and diaggui, multiple broadcast addresses can now be specified as a comma-separated list in the LIGO_RT_BCAST environment variable. Also in awggui, awgstream, diag and diaggui, setting testpoints can be restricted to specific models.
Comparison between the control channels used for the signal recycling cavity (SRC) alignment, H1 and L1:
| DoF | Sensor | Controlled optic | |
| H1 | SRC1 | AS_B RF36I | SRM |
| SRC2 | AS_C DC | SR2 & SRM | |
| L1 | SRC1 | AS_C DC | SR2 |
| SRC2 | AS_A RF36I | SRM |
Both IFOs use a AS port, 36 MHz WFS to control SRM alignment, though H1 uses WFS B and L1 uses WFS A. I don't know if this difference is arbitraty or reflects some real difference in sensing. Both IFOs use the AS port QPD, AS_C, to control the alignment of SR2, though H1 also feeds this signal to the SRM, to decouple the action of this loop (SRC2) from the SRC1 loop.
The other thing to notice is that the DoF (degree-of-freedom) naming between the H1 and L1 is swapped. This is just unfortunate and should be fixed.