9:15 Fil Aaron to EX working on cabling
10:00 Alastair to LVEA TCS-Y table
10:15 Hugh, Gerardo to LVEA
10:30 Alexa transitioning EY
11:30 JeffB to LVEA, moving SUS pallets for 3IFO
11:00 Kyle to EY cleaning up tools, done 12:00
13:00 JeffB, Bubba to LVEA looking at craning operations around High Bay, out 13:15
14:00 Gerardo to LVEA
14:30 Hugh, Suresh to HAM2 HAM3 for oplev work

K. Venkateswara

I had installed temperature sensors on BRS and GND_T240 yesterday as described in 14825. The first plot shows the trend over a day along with the PEM_VEA temperature sensor. The count to Kelvin conversion was expected to be 1.56e-3 K/count. This seems roughly consistent with the temperature of the T240. The BRS temperature sensor shows a lower magintude and a phase offset due to it's extra thermal shielding and larger mass.

The attached pdf shows the ASD of the temperature sensors and the coherence between them and their respective instruments. The temperature sensors are mostly limited by ADC noise. An op-amp based pre-amp of 50-100 gain would be useful. BRS_RY_Out shows a little bit of coherence near few mHz while T240 X, Y and Z show no coherence with the temperature sensor.

J. Warner, K. Venkateswara

We have turned on sensor correction on Z and X at ETMX since noon today.

Z on ETMX had been switched to TBetter blend by an unknown person during the weekend. Jim switched it back to the 90 mHz blend(Ryan's LLO blend). We then also turned on the X sensor correction which is currently using the tilt-subtracted super sensor.

The first two pdfs show the before and after plots for the two configurations. Before was taken ~3 am this morning and after was at ~12 noon. Note that the improvements in Yaw/Pitch at low frequencies were largely due to going to the 90 mHz blend and then using Z sensor correction.

The third plot shows the improvement in X and Z transfer functions from the ground to Stage 1 before and after the configuration change.

It seems to be helping over a large frequency range above 10 mHz and not hurting anywhere, so we will leave it on for overnight monitoring. If it affects commissioning in any way, it is easy to turn off through the ISI screens.

edit: Z sensor correction is to HEPI_IPS and X is to Stage1_CPS

As a follow up to my alog showing the H1 science frame usage per subsystem, I've found a way to show this as a readable pie chart

Link

Gerardo & Hugh

We recentered these oplevs to make better use of their tracking.  And especially HAM2 as it seemed to be way off on one quadrant.  Luckily we didn't lose the beams.

First attached is a three day trend showing yesterdays fun with HAM2 and the recentering this morning.

Next is the last eighty minutes, maybe given the wandering, the X-Y plots on the medm should have their window zoomed out some.  This seems to be an issue mostly on HAM3 Yaw.

The third plot shows the five hour detail around yesterday morning on HAM2 with the HEPI Cartesian RZ (yaw) RY (pitch) and HP, the horizontal pringle mode.  This further shows even though the HEPI RZ has servo'd back to its reference, the OpLev Yaw would disagree.  Likewise, even though the HEPI pitch shifted way off for most of the time and then came almost all the way back, the OpLev Pitch doesn't follow that in any reasonable way.  Even though these OpLevs have no caibration as I understand, this says alot about system distortion.  I've included a feducial from the large shift in the HP calculation but it doesn't appear to correlate to anything in the OpLev response.

I wanted to try turning on HEPI sensor correction at EY this morning, but I've run into an issue. When I turn on just the new Mitt_sc filter no numbers come out of the outputs. However, when I turn on the filters associated with the fir sensor correction, numbers come out. Even when I just turn on the path, with no filters engaged, numbers come out of the output block. Something about engaging the sensor correction filter completely cuts the signal. I will try copying the filter to a different fm when I get a chance.

As the wandering laser intensity continues I intend to learn more about these systems. I can only report the findings and make the adjustments. ISS diffracted power is down to ~5% this morning. REFSIGNAL was at -2.04V as it was set by me yesterday. Today I have adjusted REFSIGNAL to -2.02V to bring the diff power to ~8.6%. Attached is a past 5 day trend. the spikes, i am told,  are likely caused by activations on MC2? (for example)

model restarts logged for Tue 04/Nov/2014
2014_11_04 09:13 h1suspr3
2014_11_04 09:18 h1susbs
2014_11_04 09:18 h1sussr3
2014_11_04 09:20 h1susitmx
2014_11_04 09:22 h1susitmy
2014_11_04 09:24 h1susetmx
2014_11_04 09:25 h1susetmy
2014_11_04 09:41 h1lsc
2014_11_04 09:46 h1broadcast0
2014_11_04 09:46 h1dc0
2014_11_04 09:46 h1fw0
2014_11_04 09:46 h1fw1
2014_11_04 09:46 h1nds0
2014_11_04 09:46 h1nds1
2014_11_04 10:34 h1calex
2014_11_04 10:35 h1caley
2014_11_04 11:12 h1iopoaf0
2014_11_04 11:12 h1pemcs
2014_11_04 11:14 h1oaf
2014_11_04 11:14 h1odcmaster
2014_11_04 11:14 h1tcscs
2014_11_04 12:36 h1broadcast0
2014_11_04 12:36 h1dc0
2014_11_04 12:36 h1fw0
2014_11_04 12:36 h1fw1
2014_11_04 12:36 h1nds0
2014_11_04 12:36 h1nds1

no unexpected restarts. Maintenance Day. Jeff SUS and LSC model work (with associated DAQ restart). Dave CAL work (with associated DAQ restart, plus latest Guardian and Beckhoff EDCU channels)

Greg, Sheila and Dave

Peter Fritschel asked us if we could get a sense of which channels were compressing well in the frame, as part of the decision making of which channels should go into the science frame. Greg wrote a script which calculates the compression rate on a channel by channel basis. To keep the numbers manageable we limited the channels to those with acquisition rates of 1024 or higher.

Sheila suggested a time where the H1 IFO was in its best state to give our most realistic compression rates. The time chosen was 1am PDT Friday 31st October, GPS time 1098777600.

The results are appended as a text file showing 2918 channels (name, acquisition rate, compression ratio).

Also attached is a histogram plot showing the distribution of the compression rates.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/nn00466248

Evan, Sheila, Nic, Lisa

To answer Peter's questions , we have relocked the DRMI (without arms) on 1f and 3f 
(10W input power, 27 mW on the BBPD photo-detector).

The DRMI was very stable in both cases, here are the good times:

 Nov 5, 6:00 - 6:15 UTC  DRMI locked on 1f, WFS on 

 Nov 5, 6:30 - 6:45 UTC  DRMI locked on 3f, WFS on 

Evan is about to post plots with error signal spectra.

It is probably a good idea to make some plots with ground motion/ISI/optical lever signals to "capture" these good times.

This is related to Hugh's log 14774. To elaborate a bit on Hugh's log, I made a measurement with Stage 1 Damped only and HPI isolated. The first plot shows the GND_T240_X ,  ST1_T240_X  and HPI L4C (out of loop witness). There was no coherence with ground below 0.1 Hz but there was significant coherence with HPI L4C. This meant that HPI was somehow introducing excess low-frequency motion.

We then did the same measurement on ETMY and saw no such excess motion. The second pdf shows the corresponding measurement. Stage 1_Y was very coherent with ground_Y. Jim mentioned he had modified the HPI controllers on ETMY as described in Hugh's log, so we decided to try the same on ETMX in X and Y.

This has made a significant difference to the low frequency performance of Stage 1 as shown in the third file. Performance below 0.1 Hz is much closer to ground motion now.

See the attached for some manipulated data.

There are now pressure signals coming from the End Station VEAs just before the BSCs fluid distribution manifolds.  So the pressure before the actuators and the pressure just after the actuators (before and after the distribution manifolds.)  See the first attachment--you can see that there is some 6psi pressure drop from the last transducer on the Pump Station Manifold to the Transducer just before the supply distribution manifold at the chamber.  This is a distance of some 80 or 90 feet of 1" tube.

The idea is that the Actuators are meant to operate at a consistent pressure drop and having the sensors in the area of operation and where we have tighter temperature regulation would be a better thing.  While these epics channels can be conditioned (smoothed, averaged,...) the second attachment shows how much noisier these raw signals would be to produce the differential pressure signal for the servo.  I've subtracted the Return Pressure from the Supply to get the Differential; the vertical scales are the same for the two EX signals,and the same for the two EY signals.  All plots are in PSI.

Why are they so much noisier?  Let me see, maybe the 80 or 90 feet of cable?  We do have an at chamber active signal amplifier, don't know the DCC off hand but later.

Anyway, I may be a little reluctant to switch HEPI to these signals.  I don't think any one has complained about HEPI because we are running on the direct supply pressure rather than the differential.