Displaying reports 741-760 of 82953.Go to page Start 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 End
Reports until 23:34, Wednesday 28 May 2025
LHO General (OpsInfo)
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 23:34, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84648)
Ops Eve Shift Summary

TITLE: 05/29 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
INCOMING OPERATOR: None
SHIFT SUMMARY: This evening was mostly focused on trying to gradually engage full IFO ASC. We've been able to consistently get relocked up to PREP_ASC_FOR_FULL_IFO as long as (mostly) PRM alignment is touched up every so often, but work is still ongoing to close ASC loops once there. See primarily alog84646 and comments for details.

For the night, we're leaving H1 locked at PREP_ASC_FOR_FULL_IFO with a few ASC loops closed, but 'DOWN' is requested so that it won't try to relock if it drops out. [Tagging OpsInfo] In the morning, if H1 is still locked here, hang tight until more commissioning of the ASC loops can happen. If unlocked, run an initial alignment skipping PRC steps (as we have been this week).

LOG:

Start Time System Name Location Lazer_Haz Task Time End
15:30 LASER LASER HAZARD LVEA LASER HAZARD LVEA IS LASER HAZARD (\u2310\u25a0_\u25a0) Ongoing
21:40 SQZ Camilla, Kevin LVEA - SQZT0 YES Homodyne alignment (Camilla out early) 01:47
22:26 SQZ Vicky LVEA - SQZT0 YES Helping with SQZ work 01:47
23:59 SQZ Camilla LVEA - Checking on SQZ team 00:09
00:19 ISC Sheila, Matt, Caroline, Julia LVEA - Plugging in CARM cable 00:33
H1 AOS
georgia.mansell@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:32, Wednesday 28 May 2025 - last comment - 23:38, Wednesday 28 May 2025(84646)
DRMI to POP worked; ASC-REFL phasing attempt

Ryan S, Sheila, Syracuse Squad

After Sheila and Ryan turned up the BS oplev laser current more (and no one is climbing on HAM1), we seem to be requiring more successfully.

We got through DRMI_to_POP. To check it was safe, Sheila loaded the LSC POP_A input matrices into the unused XARM filter, and we checked the transfer function from PRCL, MICH, SRCL to the XARM for each input matrix. The PRCL TF looked flat and had 0 phase: good! The other DOFs had a bit of slope and phase but were close enough to 1 that we powered through, and DRMI_to_POP didn't cause any locklosses. It's on our to do list to check the LSC open loop transfer functions.

Then we sat at PREP_ASC_FOR_FULL_IFO and tried checking the phase of the ASC REFL diodes. Sheila++ plugged the LSC AO 2 into the refl servo so we could drive a line in frequency noise, which we want to tune the phasing so it shows up in the I quadrature for each QPD quadrant. I found some handy templates in /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/asc/h1/templates/phasing, complete with excitation. I turned the excitation down to 0.1 and that seemed good. The line was predominatnly in I for each quadrant in REFL_A_RF9 and REFL_B_RF9 EXCEPT Q3 of REFL_B. I imagined I would just tune the phase and see the line go down in Q, but this wasn't the case. It bounced around a bit and was hard to tell if I made progress. Attached screenshot (#1) is with the new phasing.

I accepted the changed phase in SDF, screenshot attached (#2) in case this was a bad move that needs to be reverted.

It seems like we have a 15 minute death (lockloss) timer while we sit at PREP_ASC_FOR_FULL_IFO right now, which is making it hard to get the ASC working, but we'll keep trying...

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
georgia.mansell@LIGO.ORG - 20:11, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84647)
  • We're able to consistently get to PREP_ASC_FOR_FULL_IFO - yay!
  • Since we're not using DRMI ASC (except MICH) Ryan was touching up the PRM alignment between locks.
  • We had one longer lock
    • Ryan and Craig tried walking PRC2_P, INP1_P, CHARD_P trying to zero the error signals and get the buildups better. Zeroing the error signals tended to make the buildups worse
    • They closed PRC2_P
    • We saw a big glitch in the PRG and lost lock a few seconds later
    • After lockloss we reverted the ETM and ITM sliders, but kept IM4 and PR2 where they were.
  • In another lock I moved SRM to get the SRC2 error signal close to 0
    • This made the buildups quieter
    • INP1_P seemed close to zero so we close the loop
    • The error signal and control signals went off to lala land and we lost lock
  • We're thinking back to similar situations in the past and wondering if we should just temporarily not close INP1...
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 23:38, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84650)

Ryan S, Sheila

Ryan stepped aligments using move_arm_dev and IM4 and PR2 to improve the build ups.  This did not bring the error signals close to zero, and the x arm lost the green lock as he stepped it.  Next time we would like to run the servo that updates the QPD offsets to keep the green locked to the arm as we move things, so we can capture the alignment with the green references.

One the build ups looked about as good as Ryan could get them with CHARD, IM4 and PR2, he stepped each of those DOFs in yaw, the attached ndscope shows a rough sensing function measurement based on this.  POPX seems to have a nice error signal and zero crossing for PR2, we tried to close this loop with an input matrix of -1 and gain of 0.2, this was too small a gain and we lost lock when I made a typo trying to increase the gain in the input matrix. 

REFL 45 I has clear response to both CHARD and IM4, based on the slope of these it looks like we would want to use the difference of the 45s for CHARD and the sum for IM4, this would not produce a good zero crossing for CHARD however.  In the past we used the sum of the 45s (plus some 9s) for CHARD, which would still produce a zero crossing at the good alignment, but doesn't seems very sensitive. 

REFL 9 signals show up more clearly in Q than in I, which seems strange since Georiga and company just phased them to have the frequency line show up in I. 

Candidate input matrix: PR2 on POPX with a negative sign, CHARD on 3* REFL A 45 I + 2.5 REFL B 45 I and IM4 on REFL B 9I. 

 

Next lock, Ryan made a nicce set of steps that we can use to check the input matrix for IM4, PR2, and CHARD p+ Y from 5:42 UTC until 5:57 UTC, improving the build ups as he went. POP X looks like a nice error signal for PR2 P +Y.  We reset the green references here. 

We closed PRC2 P + Y loops with a gain of 250 and -1 in the input matrix.  We also closed INP1 Y with the suggested input matrix from above, which was fine.  Trying to close CHARD Y with this input matrix misaligned the IFO, so we have left it off.The last screen shot shows some CHARD Y steps while the INP1 + PR2 loops were closed, the time cursor shows where the build ups looked best.

Images attached to this comment
H1 ISC
matthewrichard.todd@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:12, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84644)
CARM OLG Measurement during 2W using SR785

M. Todd, S. Dwyer


Following the same routine layed out in alog 64204, we had the SR785 already plugged in for a CARM OLG measurement using the gpib from the control room.

I adjusted the carm olg template a tiny bit as it didn't have the right gpib number.

Then I ran

cd /ligo/gitcommon/psl_measurements/code
conda activate labutils
python SRMeasure.py ../templates/carm_olg_template.yml

Results:

I measured a 11kHz UGF with a 41 degree phase margin; while this is quite different from previous measurements (2022-07-29) which had something around 27 kHz, I think this is because of the different power states.

Non-image files attached to this report
H1 General
anthony.sanchez@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:38, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84643)
Wednesday Day ops shift End

TITLE: 05/28 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan S
SHIFT SUMMARY:
Epochs of locking:
When I first got in to the control room I ran a full Auto initial alignment.
This lead us to no flashes on DRMI & PRMI.
We then manual initial alignment through a few PRX steps.
Which gave us flashes, but after that we had some noise on the beam splitter oplevs.

Then a REFLAIR phase issue was overcame.
Mean while the SQZrs are turning on the laser and did some aligning on the SQZ tables.
Then unknown 70hz feature was later found out to be ISI in HAM1.

The VAC team checked HAM1 for leeks, and didn't find any.


LOG:

Start Time System Name Location Lazer_Haz Task Time End
15:30 LASER LASER HAZARD LVEA LASER HAZARD LVEA IS LASER HAZARD (\u2310\u25a0_\u25a0) 07:26
14:43 FAC Kim Optics Lab N Technical cleaning 16:21
15:24 VAC Travis & 3 Rogers co Mechanical room N Working purge air system, replacing pump. 20:22
15:34 ISC Sheila & Camilla LVEA Yes touching the Beam splitter Opical lever 16:54
15:41 ISC Betsy LVEA Yes helping Sheila & Camilla 16:54
16:19 VAC Gerardo & Jordan LVEA HAM1 yes Annulus check and spinning valve, May trip HAM1 18:19
16:20 FAC Kim MX & MY N Cleaning Busy Bees 18:17
16:50 SQZ Camilla, Julia, Gorgia, Kevin, Carline LVEA SQZt7 Yes SQZ Tour & work caroline out early 19:14
16:51 ISC ELenna Control Rm N Centering loops on RMs 18:46
17:16 EE Fil LVEA n Swapping chassis. 17:16
17:17 EE Marc LVEA N Visual inspection of sensors. 17:27
18:01 VAC Gerardo LVEA Y Talking to SQZrs 18:41
18:02 FAC Kim HAM Shaq N Technical cleaning 18:46
19:12 SUS Betsy Optics Lab n Getting parts. 19:34
19:22 PCAL Tony, Caroline PCAL Lab Local Setting up K1 meajurement 19:58
19:31 PSL Sheila LVEA Y Plug in 785 20:05
20:23 EE Daniel LVEA HAM1 Y checking on things 20:49
20:40 VAC Gerardo & Jordan & Travis LVEA HAM1 y Jumping on HAM 1 checking for leaks. Travis out early 22:29
20:51 ISC Sheila & Ryam Short LVEA y Pluggin in an SR 785 & adjusting the BS Oplev 22:17
21:40 SQZ Camilla Kevin LVEA SQZTs Y Working on homodyne system, Camilla Out early 23:40
22:26 SQZ Vickie LVEA SQZts y Helping with SQZ work 23:56

 

LHO General
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:28, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84642)
Ops Eve Shift Start

TITLE: 05/28 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Tony
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 14mph Gusts, 3mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.11 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: H1 locking continues this evening; currently have made it up to CARM_TO_ANALOG and have paused to measure CARM OLG. More SQZ table work also going on.

H1 SEI (INJ, ISC, SUS)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:48, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84640)
HAM1 ISI Instability at 70.0 Hz during ISI Commissioning Confuses IFO Commissioning
J. Kissel, J. Warner, S. Dwyer, O. Patane, E. Capote, T. Sanchez

After finally making progress past Beam Splitter optical lever glitching (LHO:84631), a poorly phase REFLAIR sensor set for PRMI (LHO:84630), and adding loop gain to the REFL DC centering loops (LHO:84623), we were just about to see some success and made it ISC_LOCK's RESONANCE state.

Alas, Jim started commissioning/debugging the HAM1 ISI loops (in a different room), trying to carve out some time to deal with a ~70 Hz feature in some DOFs of the plant. In doing so he made sure to turn off the DOFs he thought were problematic (RX / RY). LHO:84638

We (including Jim) now know that even only having the X, Y, Z, and RZ loops closed, the ISI HAM1 X loop slowing goes into oscillation slowly, on the order of 5 to 10 minutes after the ISI is isolated.

This manifested in IFO commissioning in very confusing ways mostly because of the timing of events (and the "front row" didn't know that Jim had started commissioning the ISI). The first attachment "shows" this story.
    - The first re-acquisition after an unrelated lock loss started with the ALS COMM's out-of-loop sensor (H1:LSC-TR_X_NORM_INMON) oscillating at 70 Hz, i.e. "looking fuzzy" on the wall "DRMI buildups" screen.
        (See bottom, 5th panel.)
    - It started to dissipate in the middle of this acquisition (we now know because Jim was independently cycling the ISI Isolation loops)
        (See 4th panel)
    - But by the time that DRMI was locked, the "fuzziness" oscillations started to reappear.
        (again, see 5th panel)
    - All the while we notice that MC2's M2 stage -- feedback for the IMC -- is saturating. This in itself is confusing because our impression is that the IMC F / IMC L cross-over is at ~15 Hz, so "there shouldn't be any drive from the IMC common mode board to MC2 up there, especially not offloaded to the M2 stage."
        (see 2nd and 3rd panels)
    - But also, "why is the IMC seeing any HAM1 motion?"

I also attach an ASD of IMC F, the middle stage of MC2's DAC drive, and the HAM1 and HAM2 ISI motion. These clearly show the 70 Hz feature, and show nothing in HAM2.
I call out the "nothing in HAM2" to dispel the suspicions that vacuum equipment that's still vibrating and moving the HAM1 / HAM2 chambers is causing this noise. It's not. It's the oscillation in the ISI HAM1 loops.

Here's why "the IMC is seeing HAM1 motion:" at this point in the lock acquisition, ALS COMM is inserted as an additive offset to the IMC's Common Mode board, which drives MC2 length and the PSL frequency (see e.g. the difference between pg 12 and 13 of G1400519). This is why the MC2 M2 DAC request is peanuts when the IMC is locked alone, but then is gigantic once the ALS COMM signal is ramped in to push the laser frequency around to find the X arm resonance in IR. The ALS beam is "caught" in HAM1 with a periscope and steered around the table before being sent on to ISCT1. So the unstable 70 Hz motion in the new HAM1 ISI is imprinted there on the beam, which is then used to inform ALS COMM, which is then fed to the IMC.

For now, we're going to leave the HAM1 ISI loops off and carry on with ISI commissioning, and give Jim some dedicated time to figure out the issues with the ISI.
Images attached to this report
X1 DTS
joshua.freed@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:55, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84635)
Double Mixer Component Characterization (Finalization Part 2)

J. Freed

Contiuning the work from 84198 this alog is about characterizing the other components of the Double Mixer. D2400315


D2400296 PCB Board transimpedance amp

According to oscilloscope, the signals coming from PCB board are from J2 being cos and J3 being sin. The Vpp are 1.199V on J2 and 1.195V on J3. As before the phase measures are hard to get a read on as the phase measuremnt on the osciloscope says 90deg when I put J3 in the channel 1 position and 91deg when I put J2 in the channel 1 position. Instead I put a 4096 Hz signal generator on Channel 2 then put the of the sin and cos signals on channel 1.

D2400296 PCB Board transimpedance amp With a 1V from DAC

Relative Phase (deg)(+- 0.5) Amplitude (dBm) (+- 0.1)  
Cos(J2) 152.7 -30.6  
Sin(J3) -117.7 -30.6  
Difference 89.6 +- 0.7  

ZLW-1BR Mixer

The mixer data was collected at a range of values incase LO input power needed to be changed, however I would not recomened going below 4dBm LO as the isolation of all the ports falls gets worse the lower the power. The indivitual signals were colected on the Agilent 4396B with a BW of 10 Hz (best one the spectrum analizer allowed without giving an overload notification). While the Total power was given on the E4418A power meter. SRS SG382 was used for the LO power.

ZLW-1BR RF out power with a 1V IF input 3dBm LO power 4dBm LO power -4dBm LO power -7dBm LO power
At 80 MHz +- 4096Hz (dBm)(+- 0.1dBm) -4.0 -3.4 -10.8 -13.8
At 80 MHz (dBm)(+- 0.1dBm) -39.5 -38.0 -46.2 -49.2
Total (dBm)(+- 0.01dBm) -0.89 0.25 -7.52 -10.51

ZMSC-2-1BR Combiner

The combiner values were colected by using the Agilent 4396B to apply a sweep of values around 80 MHz. All values were the same in about a 10kHz span that was measured

ZMSC-2-1BR Combiner with -1 dBm on the port Relative Phase (deg)(+- 0.05) Power Drop (dB) (+ 0.01)
Port 1  -18.71 -3.12
Port 2 -18.65 -3.11
Difference 0.06 0.01

ZMDC-10-1+ Couplier

The couplier was characterized by applying a -1dBm from a SRS SG382 signal generator signal at 80MHz on the input port and reading off from the E4418A power meter. The other port not being measured was terminated. We do not care about relative phase so it was not collected

ZMDC-10-1+ Couplier Powers at 80MHz Power with -1dBm on Input (dBm)(+- 0.01)
Out -1.61
 Couple -12.50

 

H1 SQZ
victoriaa.xu@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:47, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84639)
Reset railed PSAMS servo

Camilla, Vicky

We found the PSAMS servos on ZM2/4/5 were railing (initially set up in 80685), so we reset them and tried to make it more robust for next time. What we did:

Then all PSAMS servos were fine. Camilla re-adjusted the ZM2,4,5 osems alignments to set alignment back to yesterday 84593.

Images attached to this report
H1 SEI
jim.warner@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:26, Wednesday 28 May 2025 - last comment - 09:59, Friday 06 June 2025(84638)
HAM1 ISI commissioning not complete, loops not stable because of some 70hz feature

I haven't had time to post this because of the wind fence work, but I haven't been able to finish the commissioning of the HAM1 ISI because of a 70-ish hz feature in mostly the X and RZ plants. I didn't see or appreciate how large this 70hz feature was in my close out measurements before doors went on, and it's making the loop design very difficult. I was trying to notch the loops to make the ISI work, but 70hz is very close to the nominal 30hz loop ugf. The X,Y,RZ and Z loops are marginally stable right now, and the  70hz feature gets injected into the IMC when ALS is locked. I think that I can get the loops working, but probably with less gain than we would otherwise get.

Attached PDFs are the loops currently installed, the ISI is set to not use the RX and RY loops, but the X loop is probably ringing at 70hz when the ISI is isolated. We are currently running with just the damping loops though.

Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jim.warner@LIGO.ORG - 09:59, Friday 06 June 2025 (84855)

I was able to get the ISI running yesterday, by adding notches to the loops at ~72hz, reducing the boost gain and reducing the ugf of the loops to generally around 22-25hz. The ISI was running most of yesterday and through the night, until I shut it off for the HAM1 vent this morning. Attached are the loop design plots for the loops that are running now.

Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 SQZ
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:52, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84593)
SQZ Laser turned back on, Started Realigning SQZ HD

Georgia, Kevin, Camilla

Julia and I turned on the SQZ laser, PMC locked fine but the SHG PZT was railed high, Daniel needed to reduce H1:SQZ-SHG_SERVO_SLOWMON offset from 10V to 0V, it then locked fine too. I touched SHG polarizations to reduce SHG fiber rejected power.

Trended ZMs and FC1 top mass alignment. Adjusted ZM2P, ZM4P, ZM5P, FC1P and FC1Y as these were more than ~10urad from the last time in NLN. 

Started following last time we aligned Homodyne in 82153

Turned up SEED injected power from 0.7mW to 70mW.

We went out to SQZT7 and the beam was on the diodes adn there was fringing, we increased LO power to match SEED power using pico-waveplate. WE then adjusted the LO beam with SEED beam blocked to improve the subtraction: Checked we were centered on PDA/B using the steering mirrors downstream of the HD BS and then measured the HD DIFF spectrum. Adjusted BS, re centered on HD PDs and re-checked DIFF ndscope (spectrum of shot noise was noisy at low frequency, then repeated until we were close to zero on the DIFF channel.

Images attached to this report
H1 ISC
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:38, Wednesday 28 May 2025 - last comment - 14:15, Wednesday 28 May 2025(84629)
POP centering commissioned

Sheila, Elenna

I have commissioned the DC centering on the POP X WFS. This uses DC6 pitch and yaw. I made OLG measurements of both loops, setting them to have a UGF around 0.5 Hz. I had to add additional loop gain to get this UGF, similar to the REFL WFS centering.

Measurements saved in [userapps]/asc/h1/templates/DC_centering

Sheila is adding this centering loop to the ISC_DRMI guardian to engage when we lock DRMI.

We should probably also add "PM1 [P/Y] clear" buttons to the DC centering page.

I also edited the ISC_DRMI guardian to clear teh PM1 suspension when it goes to Down.

These alogs also contain relevant information regarding the PM1/DC6 control:84610, 8462384579

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 14:15, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84637)

History clear buttons added to DC Centering medm screen.

H1 SQZ (SQZ)
julia.rice@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:05, Wednesday 28 May 2025 - last comment - 13:48, Wednesday 28 May 2025(84632)
Recommissioned SQZ Laser LO Path

Georgia, Camilla, Kevin, Caroline, Julia

 

We did a few things to prepare for Kevin's ADF measurements. 

Refrencing the SQZT0 March 2024 Layout...

On SQZT0, we moved SHG Trans. camera back a few inches, we also noticed weird behavior with the camera: when the beam was on the camera it was black, but saturated when the beam wasn't on. 

We unblocked the LO path and aligned BS5 to get the beam on PD 1611. 

Camilla aligned the beam on on PZT 2 (used to control LO phase). 

We walked the beam with MR11 and XMR8 to maximize the power through the LO fiber. Going into the collimator, we had 7.3 mW. Coming out of the fiber after the collimator, we had 3.0 mW of power, then 1.9 mW out of the fiber going into the SQZT7 fiber patch. 

We then decided to clean the fiber tips, including those going into and out of the SQZT0 patch, and the fiber going into the SQZT7 patch, which didn't make a difference in the power. 

After adjusting the strain on the fiber, we had 1.45 mW of power out on SQT7.

We're now ready to set up the balanced homodyne using the SQZ LO independent of the PSL. 

 

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - 13:48, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84633)

Attached photo of SHG TRANS camera before it was moved back. 

Images attached to this comment
H1 SUS (ISC)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:59, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84631)
More PRMI Glitches, This Time More Obviously Optical Lever Glitches
J. Kissel, S. Dwyer

As opposed to the ''glitch'' I reported this morning (LHO:84622) which was while the IFO was configured in PRX and ISC loops created a large pitch excursion with M1 drive of the H1SUSBS. We're now seeing stuff that is much more "classic optical lever glitching" with the IFO configured in PRMI, with MICH ASC engaged. See attached. This is after Sheila/Camilla increased the current in the BS oplev laser this morning (LHO:84616)

As a reminder, Beam Splitter optical lever loops are only used in PRMI / DRMI until MICH ASC is turned on. The transition happens in the ISC_DRMI guardian, in the "ENGAGE_DRMI_ASC" (index 80) state; the gain in the ASC-MICH banks are ramped ON in 2 seconds, and the gain in SUS-BS_M2_OLDAMP banks are ramped off with a 20 sec ramp (i.e. it's not that the inputs or outputs are switched on or off).

So, beam splitter optical lever glitching had been particularly painful in the past few days when working in PRMI and/or DRMI without the corner ASC loops on. But, now that we've found a good alignment, and fixed the REFLAIR phase (LHO:84630) we're able to quickly transition to using DRMI ASC, and become insensitive to the optical lever performance -- which continues to glitch.
Images attached to this report
H1 ISC
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:48, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84630)
phasing REFLAIR 45 changes PRCL loop gain in PRMI

Following up on Jennie's PRCL OLG measurements yesterday, 84604, I checked the phasing of REFLAIR 45 (the MICH sensor) while PRMI was locked. I used a template in userapps/lsc/h1/templates/phase_REFLAIR.xml, but had to turn the PRM excitation down to 300 counts. 

THe first attachment shows that improving this phase improved the shape of the PRCL loop.  This has probably been not phased well for a while, not as a result of the vent. 

I also adjusted the phase of REFLAIR 9, SDFs attached.

 

Images attached to this report
H1 ISC
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:32, Tuesday 27 May 2025 - last comment - 14:10, Wednesday 28 May 2025(84610)
CARM on Resonance, green camera refs set

Ryan S., Sheila, Elenna

First thing Wednesday morning: run full initial alignment with green cameras

Ryan and I were able to lock the IFO on DRMI after many hours struggling down rabbit holes. In short: we were able to finally lock DRMI after reverting the ITMX and ITMY alignment to the alignment on Friday, and running manual initial alignment.

Sheila came online while we were in DRMI checking various things, and together we made it to CARM on Resonance. The alignment was very good (mostly hand tuned except for MICH ASC and DHARD). Sheila and I did our usual check of the PRG following alog 62110 and confirmed that everything looks great.

From there, Ryan and I ran the green camera offset scripts, watched them converge, and set the camera values. These are all SDFed- Ryan will add screenshots. To reiterate: run full initial alignment!

Sheila will add comments about checking and fixing the REFL phases.

While Sheila was adjusting the REFL phases so we could go to CARM on analog, I tried setting up the POP X centering using PM1 (so we could do DRMI on POP). I confirmed that moving PM1 moves the beam on POPX in reasonable ways. I had to flip the DC centering sign to positive when I engaged the loop, DC6, so the centering would converge. I was trying to check the UGF of the DC6 pitch loop by adding an offset to the loop, and accidentally added a massive offset, which tripped a lockloss since the beam went crazy on POPX and therefore LSC POP and that's a lockloss trigger diode.

I also had to turn on the PM1 signal output from the ASC model, which I then SDFed. After lockloss, the PM1 locking output doesn't get cleared, so Sheila will add that to the list of suspensions to clear after lockloss.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - 22:38, Tuesday 27 May 2025 (84611)ISC, OpsInfo

I also made a couple changes in Guardianland to keep ALS locked to set green references (line 6583 in ISC_LOCK.py; change weight from 10 to 1 to keep green locked) and I set the manual_control flag to True to not have DRMI/PRMI automatically jump to PRMI/MICH (line 22 in lscparams.py).

Screenshots of SDF accepting for green references at 'RESONANCE' attached.

Images attached to this comment
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 22:47, Tuesday 27 May 2025 (84612)

I saved a template in userapps/lsc/h1/templates/CARM/check_refl_a_9_phase.xml, that puts a 200 Hz excitation (amplitude 3e-4 counts) on LSC-EXTRA_AO_OUT_2, which needs to be plugged into the CM board excitation and enabled to run this.  We ran this while locked on resonance on REFLAIR, to check the phase of REFL 9.  We adjusted the phase by about 20 degrees from what Jennie Wright did this morning based on the table from Daniel, 84581,. for a phase shifter setting of 24 degrees.  This template also indicates that the sign of REFL9 is now oposite of the sign of REFLAIR, which we have to flip at the summing junction. 

I added a line to ISC LOCK to flip this polarity in CARM_TO_ANALOG, but we lost lock before getting to try this, so we will have to watch it in the next locking attempt. 

I also added PM1 to the list of suspensions that get their lock filters cleared in DOWN of ISC LOCK, and added DC6 to the list of ASC loops that get turned off in the DOWN of ISC_DRMI.  These guardian changes have been added but not tested. 

I also went to ISC_GEN_STATES, and added arguments to the WFS centering state to allow one to choose POP centering, or AS_REFL_POP.  We can change the DRMI WFS centering to turn on the POP centering, but I haven't done that yet.

 

Images attached to this comment
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 09:05, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84617)

I took some open loop gain measurements of MICH and SRCL in DRMI. I had made small changes to the gains but ended up reverting all of them.

I found these templates in userapps lsc, and I saved the old traces as refs and ran new traces to compare.

Images attached to this comment
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 09:10, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84618)

My mistake last night was because DC6 nominally has an offset of 15000 in the bank because it used to control a PZT for POPX centering. To avoid making this mistake in the future, I have SDFed that offset to 0 (it's already set to be off all the time). Also, when I was setting up the POP centering, I noticed the loop needed positive gain instead of negative gain, so I flipped the sign of the gain in DC6 P and Y. We still need to tune the overall magnitude of the gain in the loop.

Images attached to this comment
daniel.sigg@LIGO.ORG - 14:10, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84636)

LSC-REFL_B DAQ readbacks were not connected. Now they are. The aanalog whitening filters were also turned on at the demod chassis (no remote control).

H1 CAL (CAL)
joseph.betzwieser@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:33, Tuesday 29 April 2025 - last comment - 15:45, Wednesday 28 May 2025(84181)
O4b uncertainty budget correction TF
Calibration is currently regenerating the O4b uncertainty budgets.

Due to a missed change to the ETMX UIM suspension filters, which was found in LHO alog 82804, and then fixed only on Feb 27, 2025 (see LHO alog 83088), we need to add a correction TF to be included in the uncertainty budgets.

I attach a graph of that correction TF (corrected model / original model) and the text file needed for that correction.

We will be using correction TF in all our uncertainty budgets for O4b, and up to Feb 27, 2025 around 20:00 UTC, or GPS 1424721618 for O4c.
Images attached to this report
Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
ling.sun@LIGO.ORG - 22:05, Wednesday 30 April 2025 (84214)

Since after the July-Aug break, the low frequency response got closer to unity due to other mixed effects, we only apply the TF correction in uncertainty calculation before the break: 

From 1396796418 = Wed Apr 10 15:00:00 UTC 2024 to 1404864018 = Sat Jul 13 00:00:00 UTC 2024

After the break, we leave it to GPflow to take care of the unmodeled residual using monitoring data.

ling.sun@LIGO.ORG - 15:45, Wednesday 28 May 2025 (84641)

Although the low-frequency response got closer to unity at later times, we found that GPflow still could not sufficiently capture the unmodeled residual.

We now determine that the above TF correction should be applied thoughout O4b at LHO.

Displaying reports 741-760 of 82953.Go to page Start 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 End