TITLE: 09/26 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 150Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: TJ
SHIFT SUMMARY: We stayed locked the entire shift, 9 hours at the end of the shift. Secondary microseism is still rising.
LOG:
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16:48 | VAC | Pump | LVEA | N | AIP pumping on HAM6 | 23:43 |
| 16:27 | TCS | Camilla | VAP prep lab | N | Check on parts dimensions, cheeta | 16:39 |
| 23:20 | CAL | Dripta | Optics lab | LOCAL | PCAL checks | 23:29 |
Closes FAMIS 28424, last checked in alog 86887.
Measurements did not seem to run last week (and couldn't find an alog for it), but did this week.
ITMX did not run this week - just like the previous check on 09/09.
I didn't capture a screenshot in time but I recall the same message from the last check:
"Cannot calculate beta/beta2 because some measurements failed or have insufficient coherence!
Cannot calculate alpha/gamma because some measurements failed or have insufficient coherence!
Something went wrong with analysis, skipping ITMX_13_Hz_1440859844"
Plots attached.
It seems like the charge on ETMX is increasing as seen by a few different metrics...
Currently the 'ETMX_L3_LOCK_BIAS_OFFSET' we use while locked is +6.05425, the sign is flipped when we are down. Specifically in the PREP_FOR_LOCKING main() fx it's set to -8.9, and it looks to be switching the value as expected.
There's not all that much we can do about this right now, we should keep an eye on it and make sure the values are flipped during maintenance windows (they should be since it's in GRD).
This errata is the SR3 version of [LHO: 87160] that dealt with PR3.
While double-checking the PR3/SR3 OSEM calibration script, I noticed a typo on the printing output of the function that generated the logpost [LHO: 85907].
No changes need to be made because the calculated M1 OSEM calibrations and M1_DAMP gains are both correct. Plots and other visual documentation is all correct too.
However, the expected alignments posted in [LHO: 85907] were wrong, as the (old EUL) to (new EUL) transformation matrix was accidentally inverted.
I post here the corrected script output for the SR3 OSEM calibration for the sake of documentation and transparency. Note that the theoretically calculated alignment values match the observed ones for SR3 too [see attached screenshot]
_____________________________________________________
OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-SR3
Stage: M1
2025-07-22_1530 (UTC).
The suggested (calibrated) M1 OSEMINF gains are
(new T1) = 2.174 * (old T1) = 3.213
(new T2) = 1.610 * (old T2) = 1.517
(new T3) = 1.569 * (old T3) = 1.494
(new LF) = 1.331 * (old LF) = 1.733
(new RT) = 1.374 * (old RT) = 1.494
(new SD) = 1.390 * (old SD) = 1.793
To compensate for the OSEM gain changes, we estimate that the H1:SUS-SR3_M1_DAMP loops must be changed by factors of:
L gain = 0.740 * (old L gain)
T gain = 0.719 * (old T gain)
V gain = 0.545 * (old V gain)
R gain = 0.545 * (old R gain)
P gain = 0.629 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.740 * (old Y gain)
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the at the M1 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process
The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * inv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-07-22_1530 (UTC) as a reference, the new apparent alingments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L -5.0 um -7.7 um -2.8 um
T -21.6 um -30.0 um -8.4 um
V 11.8 um 10.6 um -1.2 um
R -576.3 urad -1036.9 urad -460.6 urad
P -266.5 urad -447.4 urad -180.8 urad
Y -585.0 urad -792.6 urad -207.6 urad
We have estimated a OSEM calibration of H1 SR3 M1 using HAM5 ST1 drives from 2025-05-21_0000 (UTC).
We fit the response M1_DAMP/HAM5_SUSPOINT between 5 and 15 Hz to get a calibration in [OSEM m]/[GS13 m]
This message was generated automatically by OSEM_calibration_SR3.py on 2025-09-26 21:16:58.591270+00:00 UTC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
EXTRA INFORMATION
The H1:SUS-SR3_M1_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) T1: 1.478
(old) T2: 0.942
(old) T3: 0.952
(old) LF: 1.302
(old) RT: 1.087
(old) SD: 1.290
The matrix to convert from the old Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+1.353 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.002
+0.0 +1.39 +0.0 -0.0 -0.0 +0.0
+0.0 +0.0 +1.882 +0.02 -0.0 -0.0
+0.0 -0.0 +4.175 +1.882 +0.007 +0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.454 +0.032 +1.59 +0.0
+0.27 -0.0 -0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +1.353
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'T', 'V', 'R', 'P', 'Y')
While double-checking the PR3 OSEM calibration script, I noticed a typo on the printing output of the function that generated the logpost [LHO: 86222].
No changes need to be made because the calculated M1 OSEM calibrations and M1_DAMP gains are both correct.
However, the expected alignments posted in [LHO: 86222] were wrong, as the (old EUL) to (new EUL) transformation matrix was accidentally inverted.
I post here the corrected script output for the PR3 OSEM calibration for the sake of documentation and transparency. Note that the theoretically expected alignment values are in line with the observed ones [see attached screenshot]
____
OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-PR3
Stage: M1
2025-08-05_1700 (UTC).
The suggested (calibrated) M1 OSEMINF gains are
(new T1) = 1.770 * (old T1) = 2.055
(new T2) = 1.547 * (old T2) = 1.544
(new T3) = 1.443 * (old T3) = 1.511
(new LF) = 1.590 * (old LF) = 1.862
(new RT) = 1.774 * (old RT) = 2.063
(new SD) = 1.543 * (old SD) = 1.639
To compensate for the OSEM gain changes, we estimate that the H1:SUS-PR3_M1_DAMP loops must be changed by factors of:
L gain = 0.596 * (old L gain)
T gain = 0.648 * (old T gain)
V gain = 0.617 * (old V gain)
R gain = 0.617 * (old R gain)
P gain = 0.670 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.596 * (old Y gain)
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the at the M1 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process
The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * inv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-08-05_1700 (UTC) as a reference, the new apparent alingments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L -57.1 um -97.3 um -40.2 um
T -101.3 um -156.3 um -55.0 um
V 62.4 um 106.7 um +44.4 um
R 433.5 urad 819.6 urad +386.1 urad
P -631.8 urad -981.5 urad -349.7 urad
Y -166.7 urad -345.9 urad -179.3 urad
We have estimated a OSEM calibration of H1 PR3 M1 using HAM2 ST1 drives from 2025-05-21_0000 (UTC).
We fit the response M1_DAMP/HAM2_SUSPOINT between 5 and 15 Hz to get a calibration in [OSEM m]/[GS13 m]
This message was generated automatically by OSEM_calibration_SR3.py on 2025-09-26 20:41:09.411215+00:00 UTC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
EXTRA INFORMATION
The H1:SUS-PR3_M1_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) T1: 1.161
(old) T2: 0.998
(old) T3: 1.047
(old) LF: 1.171
(old) RT: 1.163
(old) SD: 1.062
The matrix to convert from the old Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+1.682 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.007
+0.0 +1.543 +0.0 -0.0 -0.0 +0.0
+0.0 +0.0 +1.633 +0.01 -0.001 -0.0
+0.0 -0.0 +1.964 +1.633 +0.017 +0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -1.154 +0.081 +1.495 +0.0
+1.148 -0.0 -0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +1.682
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'T', 'V', 'R', 'P', 'Y')
STATE of H1: Observing at 152Mpc
Fri Sep 26 10:09:31 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 9min 27secs
Gerardo confirmed a good fill curbside.
Closes FAMIS26663, last checked in alog87026
Laser Status:
NPRO output power is 1.858W
AMP1 output power is 70.03W
AMP2 output power is 139.0W
NPRO watchdog is GREEN
AMP1 watchdog is GREEN
AMP2 watchdog is GREEN
PDWD watchdog is GREEN
PMC:
It has been locked 2 days, 20 hr 56 minutes
Reflected power = 24.91W
Transmitted power = 104.2W
PowerSum = 129.2W
FSS:
It has been locked for 0 days 2 hr and 13 min
TPD[V] = 0.5372V
ISS:
The diffracted power is around 4.2%
Last saturation event was 0 days 2 hours and 13 minutes ago
Possible Issues:
PMC reflected power is high
TITLE: 09/26 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 148Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 9mph Gusts, 6mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.21 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Got notified again and since I hadn't slept yet, was still logged in with some ideas of what was causing issues.
H1 got stuck at input align and a quick looksy through the alog found this parcel of frustration from TJ's alog 86095. Using the wiki and following this, I found that indeed:
IM's did not quite restore to an aligned state post EQ so I trended back OSEMs and moved sliders:
This worked!
But as then I couldn't lock SRY, so I moved SRM a bit in order to maximize AS_A centering peaks!
This also worked!
Back to LOCKING
A 5.9 EQ from Oregon hit H1 quite violently and tripped:
HAM1 ISI, HAM2 ISI, HAM2
IM1 (M1), IM2 (M1), IM3 (M1), IM4 (M1)
MC1 (M1), MC2 (M1), MC3 (M1)
PRM (M1,2,3), PR2 (M1), SRM (M1,2,3), SR2 (M1), SR3 (M1)
FC1 (M1,2,3), FC2 (M1,3)
Along with their respective ISIs (ST1) and the QUAD ISIs (though I untripped a bit too quickly to note the exact ISIs I untripped so will append this tomorrow when I can trend without lag).
A few guardians also stalled so I unstalled them. I attached an overview of verbal trips and overview screen.
IFO is back to LOCKING and EQ is mostly passed. I've reset myself as the OWL.
TITLE: 09/26 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Wind
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
SHIFT SUMMARY: Currently relocking and in LASER_NOISE_SUPPRESSION. One lockloss today due to the wind, and relocking has been taking a while because of the wind. We were worried about the ETMY Roll mode earlier, but it ended up coming back down on its own. Maybe we should keep an eye on it over the weekend, but it seemed like the current setting are doing okay. The ion pump is still running in the LVEA - since the lockloss was so late in the evening, there were no vacuum people on site to turn it off, but that's okay.
LOG:
23:30 UTC Observing and Locked for over 11 hours
00:22 GRB-Short E603710
02:27 Lockloss
- ALSY needed help
- Constant ALS locklosses because of high wind, so sitting in DOWN for a while
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16:48 | VAC | Pump | LVEA | N | AIP pumping on HAM6 | 23:43 |
| 02:26 | PCAL | Tony | PCAL Lab | y(local) | Setting up measurement | 02:41 |
Lockloss at 2025-09-26 02:37 UTC after 14.5 locked due to high wind :( We were riding it out really well up until now
Here is a summary of some results from the open loop gain measurements of DHARD Y and CHARD Y, and the implementation of a new CHARD P low pass:
DHARD Y
I measured the DHARD Y open loop gain, results shown here. The dark blue trace shows the original measurement, showing 17 degrees of phase margin and gain peaking of 10 dB. Looking at the loop design, there are three different boost filters applied to DHARD Y, compared here. These boosts in combination seem to be destroying all the phase of the loop. I took a measurement with the 0.9 Hz boost disengaged (FM3), which is shown in the green trace. Then, I disengaged the 0.5 Hz boost (FM4) and remeasured, shown in the red trace. This improved the phase margin to 32 degrees. This obviously resulted in less microseismic suppression. I adjusted the 0.5 Hz boost (FM4) and decided we should operate without the boost in FM3. This plot compares the original loop error signal and RMS with all three boosts (gold), the error signal and RMS without FM3 and FM4 boosts (green) and then error signal and RMS with the updated FM4 boost (red). The RMS increased 50% without both boosts on, the improved boost returns the RMS to that value. There is now more phase margin in the loop. Updated in guardian and ASC high gain script, SDFed (1,2).
CHARD Y
I measured the CHARD Y open loop gain, results shown here. The file had an old reference trace from 2023, shown in bluegreen in the reference. The gray trace shows the first measurement I made today of CHARD Y. The gain appeared to be way too low. I raised the gain to match the old reference, which was a gain increase of 6 dB. Here is a comparison of the RMS of CHARD Y from 14 hours ago (bluegreen reference) and now (red live). The microseism level is the same between these two measurements. Overall, this reduces the RMS of the loop, so I think this is a good adjustment. This is updated in the guardian and ASC high gain script, also SDFed.
CHARD P
I implemented a new CHARD P low pass filter to reduce CHARD P coupling that is apparent in coherence measurements (example).
Here is a comparison of the old controller (red) with the new controller (blue). This replaces the lowpass filter in FM8 with the filter in FM9. I also disengaged the old 200 Hz lowpass that was previously in FM10, as it wasn't doing much. SDFs (1,2). Guardian code and ASC high gain script updated.
The coherence of DARM with CHARD P has reduced, as expected, and increased for CHARD Y, also as expected. I have since created a new lowpass for CHARD Y that should reduce the coherence and is ready for testing at the next opportunity (comparison).
Here is an improved CHARD Y lowpass at 10 Hz. Saved in FM6. The sacrifice is about 7 degrees, my previous measurement showed that there is 37 degrees at the UGF.
I don't see a difference in DARM, but the DARM coherence with CHARD Y has dropped. There is no change in the loop RMS either (comparing two times with similar microseism levels).
I updated the guardian to use this filter, and I also edited the ASC higain script.
TITLE: 09/25 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 147Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Oli
SHIFT SUMMARY: H1 has been locked the whole day so far; current lock stretch is up to almost 11.5 hours. The ETMY roll mode is slightly more rung up than it has been in the past few days, but maybe not egregiously so; Oli will keep an eye on it this evening. Other than commissioning time this morning, it's been a quiet shift.
LOG:
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16:48 | VAC | Pump | LVEA | N | AIP pumping on HAM6 | Ongoing |
| 17:52 | SEI | Jim, Mitchell | MX | N | Looking at 3IFO HEPI parts | 18:36 |
| 21:29 | FIT | Matt | Y-arm | N | On a run | 22:12 |
Today I adjusted the DHARD gain and asked Ryan to rerun the simulines measurements to see if changing the DHARD gain has any measureable effect on the sensing function. This tests possible L2A2L coupling present in the sensing function.
Based on recent OLGs of the HARD loops, I decided we could probably lower each gain by 3 dB. For DHARD P, this takes the gain from -30 to -18 and DHARD Y from -40 to -24.
We ran one simulines with DHARD P gain lowered and one with DHARD Y gain lowered. These measurements can be compared with this morning usual calibration measurement.
The results seem a bit inconclusive to me. There might be some change in the phase below 10 Hz. First I compare the three sensing measurements, then I take the ratio of each measurement with the "nominal settings" measurement.
TITLE: 09/25 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 150Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan S
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 19mph Gusts, 14mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.06 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.16 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Observing at 150 Mpc and have been Locked for almost 11 hours. Wind has increased recently, but shouldn't get too bad. ETMY roll mode has been slowly increasing over the past ~few hours, so I'll be keeping an eye on it.
J. Kissel
In prep for measuring the absolute calibration PRM and SRM OSEMs, I've changed the ISI HAM2 / HAM5 suspension point drive matrices to project from the PRM and SRM suspension points rather than PR3 and SR3 what we used when calibrating those top mass OSEMs.
Here's the method for installing these matrices:
>> addpath /ligo/svncommon/SeiSVN/seismic/Common/MatlabTools/
>> load /opt/rtcds/userapps/trunk/isc/common/projections/ISI2SUS_projection_file.mat;
>> ham2 = ISI2SUSprojections.h1.prm.EUL2CART;
>> fill_matrix_values('H1:ISI-HAM2_SUSPOINT_EUL2CART',ham2)
>> ham5 = ISI2SUSprojections.h1.srm.EUL2CART;
>> fill_matrix_values('H1:ISI-HAM5_SUSPOINT_EUL2CART',ham5)
Attached are screenshots of the matrix MEDM screens themselves and the SDF accept in the OBSERVE .snap files.
Since these are used and moved around to calibrate each of the SUS in the chamber, and it's so simple to restore if lost, I'm not bothering to save the values in the ISI's safe.snap.
WARNING: We need to check this before we use it again. These projections were done for the sensors, not the actuators.
The EUL basis -> ISI drives actuator matrix needs to be calculated and added to the suspoint projections script and data in the repo. Edgard says this should be the transpose of the sensor matrix, not the inverse. Documentation is in progress.
(EUL2CART and CART2EUL are both for the sensor projection, and are inverses of each other)
Ohp. I made a mistake here.
The drive matrix calculation bit is true about applied drives. However, because the ISI drive requests here are made at the error point of the ISO loops, the inverse is actually correct. Nevermind what I said before.
Apologies for the confusion.
Oli, Ivey, Edgard.
We used Oli's measurements from [LHO: 86204] to do an OSEM calibration for the PR3 M1 OSEMs. Here are the outputs of the calibration script.
_______________________________________
OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-PR3
Stage: M1
2025-08-05_1700 (UTC).
The suggested (calibrated) M1 OSEMINF gains are
(new T1) = 1.770 * (old T1) = 2.055
(new T2) = 1.547 * (old T2) = 1.544
(new T3) = 1.443 * (old T3) = 1.511
(new LF) = 1.590 * (old LF) = 1.862
(new RT) = 1.774 * (old RT) = 2.063
(new SD) = 1.543 * (old SD) = 1.639
To compensate for the OSEM gain changes, we estimate that the H1:SUS-PR3_M1_DAMP loops must be changed by factors of:
L gain = 0.596 * (old L gain)
T gain = 0.648 * (old T gain)
V gain = 0.617 * (old V gain)
R gain = 0.617 * (old R gain)
P gain = 0.670 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.596 * (old Y gain)
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the at the M1 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process
The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * inv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-08-05_1700 (UTC) as a reference, the new apparent alingments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L -57.1 um -33.6 um +23.5 um
T -101.3 um -65.6 um +35.7 um
V 62.4 um 36.6 um -25.8 um
R 433.5 urad 225.7 urad -207.8 urad
P -631.8 urad -406.5 urad +225.2 urad
Y -166.7 urad -76.1 urad +90.5 urad
We have estimated a OSEM calibration of H1 PR3 M1 using HAM2 ST1 drives from 2025-05-21_0000 (UTC).
We fit the response M1_DAMP/HAM2_SUSPOINT between 5 and 15 Hz to get a calibration in [OSEM m]/[GS13 m]
This message was generated automatically by OSEM_calibration_SR3.py on 2025-08-06 01:07:57.985744+00:00 UTC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
EXTRA INFORMATION
The H1:SUS-PR3_M1_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) T1: 1.161
(old) T2: 0.998
(old) T3: 1.047
(old) LF: 1.171
(old) RT: 1.163
(old) SD: 1.062
The matrix to convert from the old Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+0.596 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.003
+0.0 +0.648 -0.0 +0.0 +0.0 -0.0
-0.0 +0.0 +0.617 -0.004 +0.001 +0.0
+0.0 +0.0 -0.748 +0.617 -0.007 -0.0
+0.0 +0.0 +0.517 -0.036 +0.67 -0.0
-0.407 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.596
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'T', 'V', 'R', 'P', 'Y')
The calibration values posted here are correct, but the theoretical alignment values are incorrect. See the corrected post from Sep 26th, 2025.
[CORRECTED LOGPOST LHO: 87160]
OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-SR3
Stage: M1
2025-07-22_1530 (UTC).
The suggested (calibrated) M1 OSEMINF gains are
(new T1) = 2.174 * (old T1) = 3.213
(new T2) = 1.610 * (old T2) = 1.517
(new T3) = 1.569 * (old T3) = 1.494
(new LF) = 1.331 * (old LF) = 1.733
(new RT) = 1.374 * (old RT) = 1.494
(new SD) = 1.390 * (old SD) = 1.793
To compensate for the OSEM gain changes, we estimate that the H1:SUS-SR3_M1_DAMP loops must be changed by factors of:
L gain = 0.740 * (old L gain)
T gain = 0.719 * (old T gain)
V gain = 0.545 * (old V gain)
R gain = 0.545 * (old R gain)
P gain = 0.629 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.740 * (old Y gain)
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the at the M1 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process
The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * inv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-07-22_1530 (UTC) as a reference, the new apparent alingments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L -5.0 um -3.1 um +1.8 um
T -21.6 um -15.5 um +6.1 um
V 11.8 um 9.8 um -2.0 um
R -576.3 urad -327.5 urad +248.9 urad
P -266.5 urad -158.3 urad +108.2 urad
Y -585.0 urad -431.9 urad +153.1 urad
We have estimated a OSEM calibration of H1 SR3 M1 using HAM5 ST1 drives from 2025-05-21_0000 (UTC).
We fit the response M1_DAMP/HAM5_SUSPOINT between 5 and 15 Hz to get a calibration in [OSEM m]/[GS13 m]
This message was generated automatically by OSEM_calibration_SR3.py on 2025-07-22 16:24:05.000267+00:00 UTC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
EXTRA INFORMATION
The H1:SUS-SR3_M1_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) T1: 1.478
(old) T2: 0.942
(old) T3: 0.952
(old) LF: 1.302
(old) RT: 1.087
(old) SD: 1.290
The matrix to convert from the old Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+0.74 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.001
+0.0 +0.719 -0.0 +0.0 +0.0 -0.0
-0.0 +0.0 +0.545 -0.006 +0.0 +0.0
+0.0 +0.0 -1.209 +0.545 -0.003 -0.0
+0.0 +0.0 +0.18 -0.013 +0.629 -0.0
-0.148 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.74
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'T', 'V', 'R', 'P', 'Y')
Please see the attached images of before calibrating and after calibrating.
Comparing these new OSEMINF gains to the gains we got last time we did this (84367) (before the satamp swap), they are pretty similar:
| OSEM | Previous Calculated OSEMINF gains (84367) | New Calculated OSEMINF gains (85907) | Percent difference (%) |
| T1 | 3.627 | 3.213 | 12.1 |
| T2 | 1.396 | 1.517 | 8.3 |
| T3 | 1.345 | 1.494 | 10.4 |
| LF | 1.719 | 1.733 | 0.8 |
| RT | 1.490 | 1.494 | 0.2 |
| SD | 1.781 | 1.793 | 0.6 |
So that's another indicator that the sat amp swap did not have much of an effect on the suspension response to suspoint excitations
The calibration values posted here are correct, but the theoretical alignment values are incorrect. See the corrected post from Sep 26th, 2025.
[CORRECTED LOGPOST LHO: 87162]