Apparently the restart of the DAQ at ~7:30 PDT killed the mx_stream process on the h1pemmx computer. No data was recorded for PEM-MX, including the vault, until the mx_stream was restarted at 7:54.
[Jeff K, Stuart A] Following work yesterday preparing QUAD model updates (see LHO aLOG entry 14645), we convened early this morning to rebuild, install and restart models. A detailed log of our activities follows:- - Bring down the IMC to DOWN state via Guardian (no change to LSC model) - Bring down QUADs to SAFE state via Guardian - Bring down SEI to OFFLINE state via Guardian - Capture new safe BURT snapshots for h1lsc, h1susetmx, h1susetmy, h1susitmx and h1susitmx - Made all QUADs - Installed all QUADs - Restarted all QUADs - Svn-up updated QUAD MEDM screens - Untripped all Watchdogs - Restore QUAD alignments - Restore SEIs to FULLY_ISOLATED via Guardian - Restore IMC to LOCKED via Guardian - DAQ process restart at 14:29 (UTC) - Update other SUS MEDM screens (see LLO aLOG entry 15004) - Cleaned errant IPC issues with diag reset on GDS TP screen - Committed new safe BURT snapshots to svn Summary of benefits: This now makes damping of violin, bounce and roll modes possible via the the L2 (PUM) stage of all QUADs using DARM error. Other benefits include: ESD linearization, providing infrastructure for remote ESD activation and deactivation. Also, old Guardian infrastructure has been removed from the model and MEDM screen, with new Guardian embedded mini control-panel replacing them in the QUAD Overview MEDM screen (as well as for other Suspensions too) This closes-out WP#4915.
We also updated the h1susauxex and h1susauxey models to provide analog and digital monitoring of the ESD Driver, as has been carried out at LLO (see LLO aLOG entry 12688).
The updated local top level SUS QUAD and SUS AUX models have been committed to the svn:- /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sus/h1/models/ M h1susetmx.mdl M h1susetmy.mdl M h1susitmx.mdl M h1susitmy.mdl M h1susauxex.mdl M h1susauxey.mdl
I've started some early morning HWS work in the LVEA.
Inspired by Gabriele's fitting code for the nonstationary noise in DARM at L1 (for example, here), I tried performing a least-squares linear regression on the SPOP and SASY signals from Friday's long DRMI lock. The motivation is to correlate the lower-frequency behavior of the DRMI to something that we can tune up in the ASC or SUS; this is distinct from Gabriele's code in that it doesn't consider the BLRMS in particular frequency bands (since I don't think we care too much about the noise in AS90 at 30Hz at the moment), and it looks over long timescales (which requires a lot of patience if you want to do it in DTT).
At the moment the code isn't as sophisticated as Gabriele's, for example it doesn't look at the square of the channels to find second-order couplings, and the channel ranking is sometimes a little suspicious. But, it's in python. :-)
For Friday's lock, the channel that best explains the time-evolution of ASAIR_B_RF90 is the BS optical lever in yaw; this is demonstrated in the first plot with 30 seconds of data. The fit in that plot only includes a first-order polynomial fit of BS_M2_OLDAMP_IN1 to the data, it's not perfect but it catches the low-frequency motion pretty well. (This may already be academic, since the BS OL was tuned over the weekend.)
The second plot is a 30-second fit using 24 channels in the regression; things that were included are the LSC error signals, the ASC error signals (AS_A_RF36_I_PIT_OUT_DQ and so on), the BS, PR3, and SR3 optical levers (again, BS Yaw was the winner), and some ASC DC signals. The fit isn't great but it kind of captures the excursions. The third plot is 300 seconds of data.
I also looked at POP18, this signal was correlated to the ASC-PRC1 error signal, REFL_A_RF9_I_{YAW,PIT}. The fourth plot shows a fit to 30 seconds of data, the fifth plot is one hour of data. Note that even though the fit coefficients are fixed values (not changing in time), the residuals are consistent over long timescales.
In all plots, the data we're fitting to is the black line, the fit result is the colored dashed line. The x axis is in seconds.
Alexa, Sheila, Rana, Evan, Dan, Kiwamu
Today we worked on getting DRMI locked on 3F. It took us a while to get through the inital alingment sequence for various reasons, but once we did, and sorted out the WFS DC centering (Evan and Rana made some improvements to the AS A centering loop, Dan pointed out that the output matrix was mixed up), we were able to use the ASC to bring the DRMI to a reasonable build up (POP18 at 200 cnts).
We then looked at the demod phase of our 3F sensors. We tuned both 135 and 27 to miniminize the Q signal, first exciting PRM then SRM.
The best demod phases in degrees:
| PRM | SRM | |
| 27 | 85.5 | 101.8 |
| 135 | -25 |
65 |
We left 27 at 85.8 (we started at 84.8) and 135 at 65 (we started at 63). We thendouble checked the relative gain between 3F and 1F signals, they are the same as previously, and we were able to transition to 3F. (durring all of this DRMI was nice and stable, locking for up to an hour before we knocked it out with an excitation of some sort).
Since this we have made a few attempts to bring the arms in, we redid our entire inital alingment process, and after that realingned the DIFF and COMM beat notes (they haven't been realingned since the pico motor in HAM3 was moved last week). We got about 3dBm in both beatnotes.
Once we had the arms (off resonance by 1 kHz in green), we were able to lock DRMI quickly, but the build up was low. When the ASC came on, it did improve the build up but as the build up got better, we started to mode hop. This was repeated a few times. By offsetting SRCL by -800 counts, we were able to avoid this mode hopping.
We have now rung up the roll mode at 13 Hz on ETMY.
some additional info for the roll mode:
(Developing the roll mode)
In a first half an hour or so, the roll mode was not excited and therefore we could close the ALS DIFF loop relatively easily. However at some point, we saw the roll mode slowly developing on a time scale of roughly 5 or 10 minutes which eventually killed the DIFF loop supposedly due to saturation in ETM DACs. After this incident, we were never able to stably lock the DIFF loop. The loop did not stay locked for a minute. I then waited for an hour while leaving ETMY untouched with a hope that the mode settles down in the meantime. But it did not. I still had a difficulty closing the loop.
(ETMY ESD is bad)
Before we started working on the DIFF loop, we briefly checked whether the ESDs are functional or not by injecting a line in pitch at 2.13 Hz. The ETMX ESD looked fine, but the ETMY ESD was pretty bad. Even though I shook the mirror vertically in pitch, oplev showed the motion which was mostly dominated by a yaw motion. The yaw motion was bigger than the pitch one by more than a factor of 5. Apparently the situation is different from how we used to be a couple of weeks ago (see alog 14415). I did not try exciting it in the yaw direction this time. I believe that the ESD is the cause for ringing up the roll mode.
(Some efforts did not help)
I tried two things in order to mitigate the issue. But neither worked.
Initial attempts to take Phase 3b M0-M0 undamped TF acceptance measurements for both ITM (QUADs) this morning showed rung up P & R modes cross-coupling into other DOFs. Both ISI's were damped and FULLY_ISOLATED via Guardian. Measurements were as follows:- - M0-M0 undamped results (2014-10-27_0800_H1SUSITMX_M0_ALL_TFs.pdf) - M0-M0 undamped results (2014-10-27_0800_H1SUSITMY_M0_ALL_TFs.pdf) Measurements from above have been compared with each other and the model (allquads_2014-10-27_H1SUSITMs_Doff_Phase3b_ALLM0_ZOOMED_TFs.pdf). All data, scripts and plots have been committed to the sus svn as of this entry. TFs will need to be repeated at the next opportunity.
The ITMX HWS is not currently seeing a return beam. I will investigate this further in the morning.
Attached picture shows the PR2 scraper baffle when DRMI is locked.
Light blob from the right edge of the baffle hole is probably some scattering even though the scattering itself should be pretty weak.
What is strange is that the baffle hole looks offset to the left (west) by quite an amount.
I cannot prove that this is due to some parallax effect, but if anything the camera is looking at the baffle slightly from the east (right), about 16m away.
Anyway, there shouldn't be any offset, the hole is centered in the baffle (see D1000328 and especially Z-plate). If there is an offset, however, that agrees with the fact that the beam is close to the baffle edge AND that the beam was close to the center of PR2 when the clipping was worse.
We need to open viewports and see what's going on.
9:02 Ace on site inspecting septic system
9:08 Filiberto and Aaron to EX, EY for PCal cabling work
9:12 Jim B restarting HAM 4, 5 models to fix WD issue
9:40 Jonathan investigating NDS2 server
9:47 Aidan to HAM 4 area TCS work
11:04 Aidan once again to HAM 4 area
11:10 Doug to LVEA looking for circuit boards
11:12 Kyle to EY dropping off parts
12:14 Fil and Aaron back from end stations
12:35 Cris to EX
13:54 Doug to LVEA recentering SR3 OpLev
I installed the changes to the HWSY optical layout per T1400686. To do this, I:
wus command on the HWS camera to set this to the default frame rate to use whenever the camera powers on.stream_image_Y command in /opt/Hartmann_Sensor_SVN/release/bin/stream_image_Y/distrib/ to view the image from the camera in real-timeThe return beam is shown below. I still need to move the HWS to the conjugate plane of ITMY and determine the magnification between those planes.
Doug, Rana, Evan
We moved the picomotors for the SR3 oplev in order to recenter it on the QPD. Previously, the oplev was at >30 urad in both yaw and pitch; now it is at <0.5 urad.
[Stuart A, Jeff K, Jeff B] In preparation for the QUAD model updates that were recently made at LLO (see LLO aLOG entry 15323), I've today svn'd up the common model parts directory, as follows:- /opt/rtcds/userapps/trunk/sus/common/models/ U QUAD_MASTER.mdl A ESD_LINEARIZATION_WITH_CHARGE_MASTER.mdl A ESD_LINEARIZATION_WITH_CHARGE_OUTF.mdl A FOUROSEM_DAMPED_STAGE_MASTER_WITH_DAMP_MODE.mdl U HLTS_MASTER.mdl U SIXOSEM_F_STAGE_MASTER.md U BSFM_MASTER.mdl U FOUROSEM_STAGE_MASTER_OPLEV.mdl U MC_MASTER.mdl U HSSS_MASTER.mdl U HSTS_MASTER.mdl U FOUROSEM_STAGE_MASTER.mdl n.b. only the first four above model parts are necessary for the QUAD updates, however, the remaining updates include grounded unused inputs required for when updating to RCG 2.9. Checking out the following c-code was also necessary for the ESD remote reset functionality:- /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/cds/common/src A LONG_PULSE.c I then updated the local top-level wiring for all the H1 QUADs to accommodate the updated QUAD_MASTER.mdl, these will be checked in once they are rebuilt and restarted in the morning:- /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sus/h1/models/ ? h1susetmx.mdl ? h1susetmy.mdl ? h1susitmx.mdl ? h1susitmy.mdl I test built the above models on thw h1build machine and encountered no issues for the ITMs. However, the ETMs failed to build due to missing IPC senders in the h1lsc model (H1:LSC-ETMY_DARM_ERR & H1:LSC-ETMY_DARM_ERR), which will be rectified in the morning. Screen-shots of the updated local QUAD models are attached below. All looks good to proceed with the LSC/QUAD model rebuild, install and restarts tomorrow.
The h1lsc model has been modified to add the DarmErr signals: H1:LSC-ETMY_DARM_ERR & H1:LSC-ETMY_DARM_ERR. We have test built the h1lsc model, and found no issues.
This status is reported after the adjustment/instability of the REFSIGNAL mentioned in aLog 14634. Laser Status: SysStat: Warning “VP program online” is red Output power is 29.5 W (Should be around 30 W) FRONTEND WATCH is active HPO WATCH is red PMC: It has been locked 20 days, 2 hours, 8 minutes. Reflected power is 2.1 Watts and PowerSum = 25.7 Watts. (Reflected Power should be <= 10% of PowerSum) FSS: It has been locked for 1 hour, 45 min. Threshold on transmitted photo-detector PD = 2.27 V (should be at least 0.9V) ISS: The diffracted power is around 8.8% (should be 8-10%) Last saturation event was 1 hour, 49 minutes ago
Related: https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=14567
Summary:
We're still close to the East edge of the PR2 baffle, it may be better to go further to the left for safety but we won't gain much as far as the power recycling gain goes.
The centering on PR2 is off by a centimeter-ish (or the baffle is offset from PR2 or the baffle is smaller than it should be).
The beam seems to be somewhat larger than it should be.
There is some clipping downstream of PR2 so we need more scans to find where that is.
In the right plot, blue circle is the PR2 baffle looked down from the PR2, green circles are the IFO beam ideally located, red cross is the PRM-PR2 beam position calculated from the slider, and the red circle is the beam position calculated from the fit.
Note that red cross and red circle have +-14%-ish error bar (both position and the size), but it seems like the beam is bigger and the beam closer to the East edge than it should be.
The left plot is the same as the one in the above mentioned alog, but replotted such that the X axis was rescaled as the beam distance from the East edge of the baffle using the new calibration of the IM4 slider (explained later). This X axis itself has +-14%-ish error bar.
The curve is the fit of POP_A and POP_B combined for the left half of the plot, assuming that the baffle transmission is approximated by a beam clipped by a vertical edge. Beam radius, edge position and the overall scale were the three fitting parameters (the overall scale is necessary because we don't know if the maximum transmission corresponds to zero loss).
Green vertical line is where we were at this morning, blue is where we used to be last Tuesday.
| Distance from the edge | Radius of PRM-PR2 beam on the PR2 baffle | Loss from the clipping | Centering on PR2 | |
| Ideally | 26mm | 6.1mm | Totally negligible. | centered. |
| According to the IM4 slider | 12(1+-0.14)mm | NA |
42ppm when the radius is 6.1mm, 0.62% when the radius is 9.6mm |
14mm off |
|
According to the fit (which depends on the slider) |
16(1+-0.14)mm ??? | 9.6(1+-0.14)mm ??? | 430ppm | 10mm off |
It would appear as if we should go further to the right on the plot, but clearly there is some kind of clipping on the sled path in that direction. As far as there's no clipping in the POP_AIR path that is OK, that's yet to be seen.
IM4 slider recalibration:
IM4 YAW rotation, though the slider has some calibration in the filter, is actually smaller by a factor of 0.175 than the slider number.
Looked at PR2 camera, and moved IM4 in YAW until the beam is blocked by the baffle.
| IM4 YAW slider value | |
| Left edge | 1376.7 +- 1000 |
| Right edge | -9623.3 +- 1000 |
| Where we were this morning | -7623.3 |
The baffle looks like a 65.4mm diameter circle from when viewed from PRM.
Since IM4-baffle distance is about 17m, we can recalibrate the slider:
IM4 rotation = 65.4mm/17m /2 = 1.92 mrad.
Slider calibration = 1.92 mrad/(1376.6 + 9623.3 urad) = 0.175 [rad/rad]
Fit:
That's a simple fit using the fit function
transmission = @(coeffs_, x_) coeffs_(3)*(1/2+ erf(sqrt(2)*(x_-coeffs_(2))/coeffs_(1))/2);
The script is this:
/ligo/home/keita.kawabe/Clipping/clipping1.m
Removed power to EX tiltmeter for a few minutes to dress power cable inside rack. Work was done around 9:50 AM this morning.
Jim, Dave, Hugo
at 08:03PDT Sunday Morning, 26th Oct 2014 the h1iopseih45 dac-enable was unset (8th bit of h1iopseih45 STATE_WORD). From this point onwards until the h1iopseih45 was restarted this morning no DAC drives were being sent out of this front end. This is presumably a DAC FIFO error, similar to previous such events. We are seeing them roughly once a month.
PSL ISS REFSIGNAL adjusted to -2.09V, bringing the Diffracted Power ~7.5%.
This adjustment caused the ISS loop to drop lock. The autolocker brought it back up each time. After seeing this happen several times, I readjusted the REFSIGNAL to -2.08V, bringing the diffracted power to ~9%. It has now been stable for ~1.5 hours. I'll continue to montior this during my shift.
J. Kissel, J. Warner, K. Venkateswara
Based on Rich's and Jeff's SEI log entry 586 and 594, we made a second attempt at sensor correction on ETMX along X and Z on stage 1, which seems to be working better. To judge the performance I have plotted the stage 1 T240 output and also the Oplev Pitch and Yaw output. We used a slighlty modified version of Rich's sensor correction filter described in the above log.
To establish baseline, the first plot shows the Stage 1 T240_X motin (green), the ground STS (blue) and the tilt-subtracted ground super-sensor (red) with no sensor correction applied. I've also shown the coherence between some sensors and the Oplev motion. All degrees of freedom had Ryan's LLO blend filters.
The next file (SensCorrectOnBRSOff) shows the sensor correction turned on for X and Z on stage 1, but with normal gnd_STS, not the tilt-corrected super sensor.
The final file (SensCorrectOnBRSOn) shows the sensor correction with the tilt-subtracted super-sensor for X. Note that the ground motion (blue) is not the same during these data sets, but the relative differences between the lines are important.
Some comments:
1. Based on these plots, it looks like turning sensor correction On, even without tilt-subtraction, improves performance at 0.1-0.5 Hz by factors of 2-5. It's effect below 0.1 Hz is not clear - there may be small tilt amplification. Switching to the tilt-corrected super-sensor slightly improves performance below 0.1 Hz by factors of 2 ish. It is probable that we are limited by tilt-reinjection from the low X blend.
2. We are probably limited by the L4C sensor noise between 0.5 to 1 Hz. By improving the L4C blend, we may be able to get another factor of 2ish at these frequencies.
3. The Oplev motion doesnt show much improvement despite better X performance. The pitch is very sensitive to and probably limited by the RY blend.
Sensor correction for X and Z has been left on overnight, since it may help. It is easy to turn off from the ISI medm screen, if it is affecting performance.
edit: I added the Stage 1 Z performance to the plots. The sensor correction appears to improve z performance by ~10 at the microseism. But there may be more pitch motion at ~10 mHz. Not sure what is causing that.
Tomorrow, we will try HEPI sensor correction which may or may not be better.
edit: I have added another file also showing the Stage 1 RY motion (converted to displacement units), which shows good coherence with X motion confirming tilt-reinjection in X.
J. Warner, K. Venkateswara, H. Paris, J. Kissel Just to add some modeling sauce to Krishna's statements, I attach modeled performance plots comparing Rich's aggressive IIR sensor correction filter (from LHO aLOG 586) against Krishna and Jim's even more aggressive IIR sensor correction filter (from 14561). As Krishna says, we're getting better and better performance out of lowering the corner frequency of the sensor correction filter, made possible with the tilt-corrected ground sensor (despite his modest claims that it's not doing much). Indeed, as we continue to improve the residual ground motion subtraction, we get more evidence as suspected from my modeled performance in SEI aLOG 594, that we are limited by L4C sensor noise from ~0.3 [Hz] to 1 [Hz] (and re-injected RY noise between 0.1 and 0.3 [Hz]). At this point, I have no definitive proof other than a similar shape of the 0.3 [Hz] to 1 [Hz] noise to the model and how it evolves with the latest changes in sensor correction -- but with the improved subtraction, its in some sense "exposing" the L4C noise by removing the limiting residual ground motion. Check pages 1 through 5 for comparisons of the FIR filters, and modeled performance using the Ryan DeRosa blends. Suspecting we can improve the L4C noise limitation by adjusting the T240 / L4C inertial sensor blend cross-over, I asked Hugo and and Jim for some information on how that cross-over is defined in the generic control scripts (knowing full well that Ryan would have chosen something different). In response, they pointed me to Brian Lantz's code for generating this crossover, ${SeiSVN}/seismic/Common/MatlabTools/blend_T240_L4C_111012.m In this function, Brian uses the knowledge of the T240 and L4C sensor noises to "optimize" the cross-over. Assuming this cross-over is better, I (1) Reconstructed the inertial sensor half of Ryan's psuedo-complementary blend filters by adding the existing T240 and L4C filters (grabbed directly from foton using readFilterzpk.m, since there's no matlab representation of these filters) (2) Grabbed Brian's T240 and L4C complementary pair from blend_T240_L4C_111012.m (3) Multiplied Brian's T240/L4C pair by Ryan's inertial sensor blend, such that total inertial sensor blend remains pseudo-complementary to Ryan's displacement sensor blend. (4) Ran through the same model, comparing Ryan's inertial cross-over vs. Brian's inertial cross-over. Blamo! -- if we are indeed limited by L4C noise (confirmed only by eye at this point) -- we can improve the noise from 0.3 to 1 [Hz] by another factor of a few. The filter comparison and modeled improvement is shown on pages 6-8 of the attached. We'll figure out how to actually implement this in foton tomorrow (gulp), so we can demonstrate this live. Plots are and model are produced by ${SeiSVN}/seismic/BSC-ISI/Common/Sensor_Correction_Design_BSC_ISI/design_sensorcorrection_IIR_20141021.m
K. Venkateswara
I had a calibration error in the above plots. I've corrected it and attached the following files:
ST1SCoff.pdf = Stage 1 X sensor correction off.
ST1SCBRSoff.pdf = Stage 1 X sensor correction with just GND_STS, BRS not used.
ST1SCBRSon.pdf = Stage 1 X sensor correction with tilt-subtracted ground sensor.
SCCompare.pdf = Comparison of the three configurations. As ground motion was different during these measurements, this is not a good judge of performance below 0.1 Hz, but is useful above 0.1 Hz.