Alexa, Nic, Jim, Dave

Alexa reported strange LSC-PD_DOF_MTRX input ramped mux matrix behavior last weekend. Symptoms were: new element values were taken immediately without loading, ramping continued indefinitely. The current theory is that a rogue script is setting H1:LSC-PD_DOF_MTRX_LOAD_MATRIX to 1 frequently. On monday this channel was added to conlog, and conlog reported that during monday afternoon and early evening this EPICS channel was being set to 1 several times a second. We also discovered that the DAQ trends were not showing this high frequency activity, this underreporting is under investigation (only seen in the LOAD channel, all other matrix channels trend correctly).

At 11/10 20:19PST monday evening the rogue loader stopped running and has not restarted since. Initial scans of guardian and home account directories have not found any script which would be loading the matrix frequently. Guardian logs its PV settings and these are seen at very low rates (max 100 per day). We may have to wait for the problem to reappear in order to track it down further. Investigation is continuing.

As noted over the last few days, the temperature at LHO has dropped significantly over the last few days and the HVAC temp control of Ey and the LVEA have wandered more than normal.  For the record, attached is an 8 day trend showing the temperature drop at End-Y versus the ETMy main and reaction chain vertical, pitch, and yaw positions.

New IM4 nominal bias sliders: [13350, -5056].

Good range for IM4 bias after the initial alignment procedure is [13350 +- 2400, -5056 +- 330] assuming that the MC is behaving well.

The "good range" gives you +-2 mm displacement on the PR2 baffle, which is a non issue for clipping, or +-60urad in IM4 rotation.

IM4 slider calibration was remeasured, it's: 0.025 rad/bogorad for PIT, 0.182 rad/bogorad for YAW.

The slider change from yesterday, i.e. [3364.4, -118] slider counts (micro bogorad), corresponds to [88.3, -21.5] urad physical rotation.

What was done:

After the LVEA temperature settled, IM4 was scanned while the PR2 baffle and the SRM baffle was monitored. Before I started IM4 [P,Y] was [9985.6, -4938].

For IM4 YAW, I was able to see when the beam barely touched the PR2 baffle edge, and when the straight shot beam on SRM baffle disapperaed. I made the average to determine when the beam is 50% blocked.

For PIT the driver railed before I was able to completely block anything, I only recorded when the beam barely touches the PR2 baffle edge.

Since baffle hole appears to be a 65.4mm diameter circle, and since the beam is supposed to be 26mm from the right edge, the new position is

P = (52000-25300+-1400)/2 = 13350+-700.

Y =26/65.4*(1300+-70) + 39.4/65.4 * (-9250+-140) = -5056+-90.

Slider calibration is the angle over the baffle diameter 65.4mm/17m divided by two divided by the slider difference, i.e.

calibration for P = 65.4e-3m/17m/2/(52000E-6+25300E-6+-1400E-6 bogorad) = 0.0249(1+-0.02) rad/bogorad

for Y = 65.4e-3/17/2/(1300E-6+9250E-6+-160E-6) = 0.182(1+-0.015) rad/bogorad

JeffK says may be a leftover from unexplained ISI trips.  I'll study.

Here are TFs from the Ground STSs to the ISIs GS13 in low gain.  I'll switch to high gain and compare when that transition won't potentially disturb the commissioners.

In low gain, there is good coherence bewteen 2 and ~10 hz.  Cross couple channels, shown for HAM2, are all pretty small.

See plot...I don't know what this is.

So this ISI sat tripped for some 20 minutes until I was scanning the SEIs.  I will implement an alarm system so these do not languish.

It tripped at Nov 14 2014 03:48:32 UTC, which is 19:48:32 local time yesterday.

I noticed while walking by that air currents (from my passing) caused the curtains to swing free and then thump on the box.  This doesn't seem good.  The curtains could likely be tied back, easy.  Or maybe the cleanroom should be moved, a bit harder.

Seems like the temperature was already good-ish as of 18:00 or so yesterday.

Doug will rezero SR3 optical lever around 10am
The beam balance is misbehaving, Krishna will be here Tuesday to investigate
PEM cabling at end Y
Ken moving AC outlets at end X
Jeff and Andres packing and removing tooling at end X and end Y

Looks like an unwarranted glitch on the actuator.  The CPS aren't moving before the trip.  The GS13 respond quickly (hard to tell if this is cause or effect) but again there is no preamble.

model restarts logged for Thu 13/Nov/2014
2014_11_13 09:48 h1ioppsl0
2014_11_13 09:48 h1psldbb
2014_11_13 09:48 h1pslfss
2014_11_13 09:48 h1psliss
2014_11_13 09:48 h1pslpmc

restart of h1psl0 models during beckhoff chassis repair.

J. Kissel

I've measured new transfer functions necessary redesign of the H1SUSETMY UIM (L1) DRIVEALIGN frequency-dependent decoupling filters for L2P and L2Y. For the impatient, the last page of the last attachement shows a comparison between the proposed new design and the old, currently installed / in-use design. I have *not* installed this filter because I'd like to discuss the results with commissioners tomorrow morning (and it'll take me some time to resurrect quack to get these installed). In fact, this may argue for us to indeed just copy over ETMX's filter.

Details:
-----------------------------------------
I attach the measurement results (see 2014-11-13_H1SUSETMY_L1_drivealignfilters_rawdata.pdf), but the raw templates can be found here:

/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGL1/Results/Data/
2014-11-13_H1SUSETMY_L1_L2PY_WhiteNoise_ReactionChainTest.xml
2014-11-13_H1SUSETMY_L1_L2PY_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-11-13_H1SUSETMY_L1_P2PY_WhiteNoise.xml
2014-11-13_H1SUSETMY_L1_Y2PY_WhiteNoise.xml

Not that I drove through the TEST filter banks (instead of having to turn off all the existing filters in the LOCK and DRIVEALIGN banks), and made sure that optical lever damping was OFF, and local damping was the LLO design as described in LHO aLOG 14959.

I focus this entry solely on L2P, but the data exists for an L2Y filter if ever needed. in the first four pages, Pink curves are the current measurement, and black curves are what were used in the original design of the previous filter by Arnaud (see LHO aLOG 11832). The encouraging fact is that the data supports exactly what we'd model from the change in damping loop filter design (see green traces on pg 5 of first attachement to LHO aLOG 14959). As an aside -- just because Betsy made me think of it while chasing down slider values -- what effect does reaction chain alignment have on these off-diagonal, lower-stage transfer functions? One might guess that if the L2P cross-coupling isn't something fundamental but a result of dirt alignment affects between the coils on the reaction chain and the magnets on the main, then one would see a change in the L2P transfer function with different alignments of the reaction chain. The good news is that is doesn't have any effect -- see the last page of 2014-11-13_H1SUSETMY_L1_drivealignfilters_rawdata.pdf. I compare the same transfer function for 4 different reaction chain alignments. They still have the old dead-reckoned calibration factors installed, so we know they're not exactly [urads] but close enough for the scale of these offsets used; they use up about 1/2 the DAC range.

As far as the design goes, I used the same transfer function fitting routine and filter generation software suite that (I think) Arnaud used, namely the function
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/Common/FilterDesign/Scripts/Length2Angle_decoupling.m 
which is essentially a wrapper around the function,
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/Common/MatlabTools/happyVectfit.m 
which Keita's wrapper around the function,
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/Common/MatlabTools/vectfit3.m
All tweaking of input parameters to the fitting routine, and plots were made using the overarching script
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGL1/design_H1SUSETMY_L1_L2P_20141113.m

Notable key additions to the design software -- a computation of the final filter's impulse response, as well as a comparison to the previous design.

As I know Arnaud had struggled, I struggled to find a fit with which I was really happy, namely because we all *know* that the L2P transfer function should fall off as some large power of frequency (again, see the models of these TFs on pg 5 of LHO aLOG 14959), but I can't find a set of parameters happyVectFit / vectfit3.m that allows for such a roll-off at high frequency. Indeed, the height of the final flat part of the L2P fit transfer function directly determines the high-frequency gain of the decoupling filter, and directly impacts the impulse response time. I settled on a filter that does a poor job at reproducing the > 2 [Hz] behavior of the L2P measurement, BUT I think it's OK because
(a) the small magnitude of the high-frequency causes a significant drop in impulse response time, and
(b) At the UIM, we're typically driving below 2 [Hz] -- especially if the crossover remains at 0.9 [Hz] as quoted in LHO aLOG 15025, so the accuracy of inversion is not so critical. Though I didn't find any design aLOGs, this seems to have been the philosophy behind the ETMX UIM L2P filter because it ends up looking strikingly similar.
I should say also that having to tune the uncertainty tolerance, the order (i.e. number of poles) in the filter, the tolerance for when to throw out adjacent poles and zeros, the frequency range over which to fit -- all free parameters into happyVectFit.m -- as one has to do to get what one wants in the end really destroys the advantage of automating the fitting process. If only there was a better way...

I silently started studying the performance of the HLTSs, i.e. PR3 and SR3. The major questions I want to answer in this study is:

• Are our HLTSs behaving as expected (mainly in pitch) ?
• Why do we need an oplev damping loop in pitch while LLO does not need them ?

I did not get a point where I can conclude something yet, but here are some summary of what I did today for it. To be continued.

(what I did)

To start off the study, I did measurements of the pitch transmission -- a transfer function from the suspension point to the mirror in pitch -- on PR3. Since SR3 did not have a GS13 witness sensor routed to the front end model yet, I was not able to get the same measurement on SR3 this time.

I shook ISO_RY_EXC of the HAM2 ISI in order to have better signal-to-noise ratio in the measurement. Note that a passive measurement without excitations did not give me good coherence and so for the reason I ended up shaking the ISI. I used random noise excitation in a frequency band of 10 Hz and limited the amplitude to be 200 counts in order not to trip the ISI watchdog. Also I have added 3rd order boosts below 1 Hz in the excitation in order to further improve the signal-to-noise ratio at the low frequencies. The dtt file currently resides in /ligo/home/kiwamu.izumi/Public/dtt/PR3_pitch_ISI_excitation.xml

I did the same measurement twice, one with the oplev damping loop running in pitch and the other without the oplev damping. The attached below shows the results. The red traces are the ones with the oplev running and the blue are without the oplev running. As seen, the oplev damping loop suppresses the components in 0.1-2 Hz at a cost of a gain peaking at 3 Hz. Since the rms is usually dominated by the components below 1 Hz, this confirms that the oplev damping loop is doing the right job.

(Next move)

As a next step, I would like to compare the pitch transmission with a model in order to see whethere it is something we expected or not.

J. Kissel, A. Staley, K. Izumi, K. Kawabe

Continuing investigations of why ETMY behaves poorly when attempting ALS DIFF (see LHO aLOG 15037) -- I've looked at two more things:
(1) Pitch-only optical lever Damping: This had been turned on only *after* it had been decided that ETMY was "fragile," i.e. any impulses would shake the SUS quite a bit -- but I checked it anyways. First attachment is comparing spectra with the PUM (L2) stage actuated, optical lever Pitch damping loop ON vs. OFF. It's damping pitch, as expected, and not injecting anything terrible. This of course is assessing the stationary noise, and we're worried about non-stationary problems ... but ruling things OUT with quantitative data, I feel, is just as important along the investigatory route.

(2) DRIVEALIGN Matrices: I attach comparisons between everything in the ETMs UIM (L1) DRIVEALIGN matrices (Only the P2P, Y2Y, and L2P have anything in them, so those are what's compared in the attachment). I believe the original design intent for P2P and Y2Y filters was to have global WFS transfer function be similar to the test-mass transfer functions -- hence the high-Q, plant inversion-y type stuff. They are slightly different between the two test masses, but, in-fact, they don't matter matter at all because we don't feed any angular signals to the UIM stage. 

However, I've found that the ETMY UIM L2P frequency-dependent decoupling filter in the UIM bank is significantly different than ETMX's -- and the filter has a much larger step response. I compare three different sets of filters on pgs 1 and 2:
ETMX -- FM1 & FM2, "L2P" & "L2P2" 
ETMY, Current -- FM1, FM2, & FM4 "L2P", "L2P2", and "BetterRolloff"
ETM, Legacy -- FM6 & FM7,  "L2Plegacy" & "L2P2legacy" 
It looks like the initial story here is laid out in LHO aLOG 11832, but there're several more aLOGs referencing UIM / L1 L2P Filters, and how they've been bad, they've been good, they've been turned off, they've been turned on...

The foton calculation of the step response disagrees with the measured step response LHO aLOG 14832 -- but recall that the filter step response is not the only thing measured in that 14832 measurement -- it's measuring both the filter AND mechanical step response. We now have local damping filters from LLO which has reduced the mechanical impulse response time by a factor of a few. This, coupled with a smaller impulse response filter should help, but we'll remeasure once a new filter is designed.

I'll move on to chasing this down -- re-measure the step response, and also remeasure the plant upon which these filters were designed.

Of course, an immediate, band-aid fix could be just to copy ETMX's L2P filter over to ETMY, but while we wait for the temperature in the VEAs to settle down, I've been given the green light to measure some TFs.