Fri CP1 Fill

Fri Aug 08 10:07:45 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 7min 41secs

 

Friday Morning Ops Day shift

TITLE: 08/08 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 156Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan C
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 1mph Gusts, 0mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.07 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
H1 Has been locked for 19 hours and is currently Observing. 

CDS Overview screen has the same VAC channel alarm on that was listed in an alog 86186 from Monday. 
All other systems look good.

Ops Eve Shift Summary

TITLE: 08/08 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 147Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan C
SHIFT SUMMARY: Extremely quiet shift with H1 observing throughout; current lock stretch is at 9.5 hours. The wind picked up a couple hours ago and gusts have been peaking at around 30mph, but this hasn't appeared to have much of an impact.

20-40 Hz HVAC Noise

Samantha Callos, Robert Schofield

There is a persistent peak at 20 Hz that has been appearing and disappearing intermittently for several months. I have found the times it existed corresponded to work hours during week days. Robert and I looked at the summary pages and DTT for the floor accelerometers and noted that the noise was most present in the area around YCRYO, we ruled out other locations around site and determined the source of the noise was coming from the Vacuum Prep Warehouse. We tested seismic isolation of the various HVAC units around the warehouse and found the Liebert AC unit inside the VPW which can manually be turned on and off and was moved there sometime in the last year.

I cycled through intervals of turning the Liebert unit off and on and checked the CS floor accelerometers for those times (see times below, Fig. 1, and blue arrows in Fig. 4). When the unit is off, the spike at 20 Hz in the accelerometers disappears. I then checked coupling to DARM and noted the noise at 20 Hz was present and that there was a harmonic at 40 Hz as well (see Fig. 2).

Additionally, for the external AC (Daikin), we noted that the springs it is mounted on are entirely compressed, so there is little to no seismic isolation for the entire unit. Noise from the previous unit has been found in DARM before (see alog 77477). The closest accelerometer to this HVAC unit is the YCRYO floor accelerometer and the shut down period can be seen in the spectrogram for it (see Fig. 3). It can also be seen automatically turning off and on the summary page 24-hour spectrogram (see Fig. 4). Comparing this shut down period to when it is on, it does not look like the noise is making its way into DARM for now, however, we recommend seismically isolating the Daikin as we have seen it couple to DARM before. 

Liebert AC on/off times for 08-05-2025:

• On 19:15 UTC
• Off 19:20 UTC
• On 19:25 UTC
• Off 19:30 UTC
• On 19:35 UTC
• Off 19:40 UTC
• On 19:45 UTC

Liebert AC on/off times for 08-06-2025:

• On 17:00:00 UTC
• Off 17:05:00 UTC
• On 17:10:00 UTC
• Off 17:15:00 UTC
• On 17:20:00 UTC
• Off 17:25:00 UTC
• On 17:30:00 UTC
• Off 17:35:00 UTC

Liebert/Daikin on/off times 08-06-2025:

• Liebert and Daikin ON: 20:50:00 UTC
  • Both on for 20 minutes
• Liebert OFF and Daikin ON: 21:10:00 UTC
  • Daikin on for 20 minutes
• Liebert and Daikin OFF: 21:30:00 UTC
  • Both off for 20 minutes
• Liebert ON and Daikin OFF: 21:50:00 UTC (technically 21:49)
  • Liebert on for 20 minutes
• Liebert and Daikin OFF: 22:10:00 UTC
  • Both off for 20 minutes
• Liebert OFF Daikin switch FLIPPED TO ON (it has a warm-up period): 22:23:50
• Liebert OFF and Daikin ON: 22:29:00 (ish)

Broken 3T Seismometer

Carlos Campos, Robert Schofield.

We had a faulty Guralp 3T seismometer that would not unlock the pendula. When we contacted the supplier, we were told we could send it back to be diagnosed and fixed, or we could open it up on site. We choice to ladder, as we thought it was a simply mechanical issue.

fig 1  fig 2  fig 3 

The seismometer is protected by a metal outer layer as well as two layers of shielding, to reduce noise affecting the system. Additionally, the internal components are made of brass to further limit noise.

While looking around at the internal structures, we found that a ball bearing had fallen onto the table. We then searched for where it came from, as it was most likely the cause of the failure.

fig 4

The pendula that measure horizontal movement rest on a triangular base of two ball bearing and a drive screw. This drive screw is connected to a motor which can lock, unlock, and center the mass. This screw also sits on a ball bearing. This way, the pendula rock on the two free bearing, while the drive screw can control the movement of the masses.

fig 5

This is a picture of how the mass system should look like. The screw presses on the bearing and will push the mass up or pull it down.

fig 6

This is a picture of the problem pendulum. The ball bearing for the drive screw is missing. Meaning when the seismometer first tried to unlock and balance the mass, the motor drove the screw into the brass. This either caused damage to the screw, the bass, the motor, or all of the above.

The manufacture told us that we would have to ship it back so they could fix it.

 

Master list of LHO satamp swap results

Firstly I am very sorry for the length of this alog

I needed to finish up the comparisons for the satamps that were swapped on Tuesday (86207), as well as rerun almost all of the other comparison damp regression plots for every suspension that has had its satamp swapped out for ECR E2400330, either with different times or with the loop suppression divided out. There were also multiple changes made to the damp_regression_compare.m file. So I've gone and done that, so here are the results in this master post. I will link to the old results when applicable. They are out of order as compared to when their satamps were swapped.

damp_regression_compare.m
Now creates a plot of the ratios, lists important IFO info, and saves some of the variables to a .mat file
found in /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/Common/MatlabTools/damp_regression_compare.m
newest version is r12583

Input
IM1
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM1/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM1_M1_NoiseComparison_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM1/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM1_M1_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM1/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM1_M1_1437330256_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM1/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM1_M1_1438626136_1200.mat
r12561

IM2
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM2_M1_NoiseComparison_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM2_M1_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM2/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM2_M1_1437330256_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM2/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM2_M1_1438626136_1200.mat
r12562

IM3
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM3_M1_NoiseComparison_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM3_M1_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM3/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM3_M1_1437330256_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM3/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM3_M1_1438626136_1200.mat
r12563

IM4
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM4/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM4_M1_NoiseComparison_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM4/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM4_M1_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM4/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM4_M1_1437330256_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM4/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM4_M1_1438626136_1200.mat
r12560

MC1(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC1_M1_NoiseComparison_1437192600vs1437240215-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC1_M1_1437192600vs1437240215-1200.mat
r12557

MC2(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC2_M1_NoiseComparison_1436631330vs1438441235-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC2/SAGM1/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC2_M1_1436631330vs1438441235-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC2/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSMC2_M1_1438441235_1200.mat
r12554

MC3(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC3/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC3_M1_NoiseComparison_1437115850vs1437282002-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC3/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC3_M1_1437115850vs1437282002-1200.mat
r12558

PRM(original results)(added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PRM/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPRM_M1_NoiseComparison_1435154988vs1435435046-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PRM/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPRM_M1_1435154988vs1435435046-1200.mat
r12559

PR2(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PR2/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPR2_M1_NoiseComparison_1435154988vs1436654703-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PR2/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPR2_M1_1435154988vs1436654703-1200.mat
r12556

PR3(original results)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/PR3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPR3_M1_NoiseCompare_H1SUSPR3_M1_NoiseComparison_1435348334vs1435435046-1200.pdf
r12533
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/PR3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPR3_M1_1435348334vs1435435046-1200.mat
r12565

BS(original results)(added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BSFM/H1/BS/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSBS_M1_NoiseComparison_1435062667vs1435435038-1200.pdf
r12535
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BSFM/H1/BS/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSBS_M1_1435062667vs1435435038-1200.mat
r12567
Data (new before time):
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BSFM/H1/BS/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSBS_M1_1435062667_1200.mat
r12535

Output
SRM(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SRM/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSRM_M1_NoiseComparison_1435154988vs1435435046-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SRM/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSRM_M1_1435154988vs1435435046-1200.mat
r12568

SR2(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SR2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSR2_M1_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SR2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSR2_M1_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.mat
r12569

SR3(original results)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/SR3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSR3_M1_NoiseComparison_1435348334vs1435435046-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/SR3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSR3_M1_1435348334vs1435435046-1200.mat
r12570

OMC
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/OMCS/H1/OMC/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSOMC_M1_NoiseComparison_1437330259vs1438454240-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/OMCS/H1/OMC/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSOMC_M1_1437330259vs1438454240-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/OMCS/H1/OMC/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSOMC_M1_1438454240_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/OMCS/H1/OMC/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSOMC_M1_1437330259_1200.mat
r12582

SQZ
FC1
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC1/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSFC1_M1_NoiseComparison_1437766177vs1438449277-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC1/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSFC1_M1_1437766177vs1438449277-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC1/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSFC1_M1_1437766177_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC1/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSFC1_M1_1438449277_1200.mat
r12572

FC2
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSFC2_M1_NoiseComparison_1437766177vs1438449277-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSFC2_M1_1437766177vs1438449277-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC2/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSFC2_M1_1437766177_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC2/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSFC2_M1_1438449277_1200.mat
r12573

ITMs
ITMX M0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMX_M0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMX_M0_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.mat
r12574

ITMX R0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMX_R0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMX_R0_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.mat
r12575

ITMY M0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMY_M0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMY_M0_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.mat
r12576

ITMY R0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMY_R0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMY_R0_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.mat
r12577

ETMs
ETMX M0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_M0_NoiseComparison_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_M0_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.mat
r12578

ETMX R0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_R0_NoiseComparison_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_R0_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.mat
r12578

ETMX L1(original results)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGL1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_L1_NoiseComparison_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGL1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_L1_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.mat
r12579

ETMY M0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMY_M0_NoiseComparison_1436521059vs1438453617-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMY_M0_1436521059vs1438453617-1200.mat
r12580
Data (new after time):
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGM0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSETMY_M0_1438453617_1200.mat
r12548

ETMY R0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMY_R0_NoiseComparison_1436521059vs1438453617-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMY_R0_1436521059vs1438453617-1200.mat
r12580
Data (new before and after time):
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGR0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSETMY_R0_1436521059_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGR0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSETMY_R0_1438453617_1200.mat
r12550

TMSs
TMSX(original results)(added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/TMTS/H1/TMSX/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSTMSX_M1_NoiseComparison_1435150628vs1437199319-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/TMTS/H1/TMSX/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSTMSX_M1_1435150628vs1437199319-1200.mat
r12553

TMSY(original results)(added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/TMTS/H1/TMSY/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSTMSY_M1_NoiseComparison_1437213557vs1437257352-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/TMTS/H1/TMSY/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSTMSY_M1_1437213557vs1437257352-1200.mat
r12581

Ops Day Shift End

TITLE: 08/07 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 151Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan S
SHIFT SUMMARY: Locked for 4 hours, observing for 35min. Had a bit of a pivot today since we needed to clear some tumbleweeds from the overpass. This took up much of our commissoining time, as well as an earthquake delaying lock reacquistion, so we were approved for some afternoon commissioning.
LOG:

• 1530 Calibration
• 1615 Lock loss - alog86240
  • While relocking an earthquake rolled through and delayed relocking a bit
  • I needed to run a check MICH, then PRMI where I touched up PRM, then it locked fully.
• 1936 Recovered back to low noise, time for commissoining
• 2255 Observing

Start Time	System	Name	Location	Lazer_Haz	Task	Time End
19:33	SAF	Laser HAZARD	LVEA	YES	LVEA is Laser HAZARD	11:33
15:02	SPI	Jeff	Opt Lab	YES	Fiber collimation	18:41
15:35	PEM	Robert	LVEA	YES	Measurement setup and peeking through viewports	18:34
15:42	FAC	Chris, Randy	Overpass	n	Tumbleweed clearing	18:35
16:09	VAC	Janos, Anna	MX, MY	n	Taking a look	16:37
16:13	FAC	Kim, Nelly	OSB rec.	n	Opening rollup door and driving out stuffs	16:53
18:05	ISC	Jennie, Francisco	Opt Lab	YES	Using laser and oscilliscope	18:05
18:48	VAC	Gerardo	LVEA	yes	Checking on turbo pumps	18:58
19:34	PEM	Robert	LVEA	YES	Pictures at view ports	21:34
20:38	ISC	Elenna	LVEA	YES	Plugging in cable at PSL racks	20:58
20:58	FAC	Tyler	EY	n	Chiller yard check	21:28
22:00	ISC	Elenna	LVEA	YES	Unplugging cable at PSL racks	22:05
22:27	PEM	Robert	LVEA	YES	Shutting measurements down	22:33
22:28	PCAL	Francisco	PCAL lab	Yes	PCAL or SPI	22:31
23:05	ISC	Jennie	Opt Lab	YES	ISS array work	23:24

Ops Eve Shift Start

TITLE: 08/07 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 147Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: TJ
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 13mph Gusts, 5mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.07 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: H1 just returned to observing after commissioning for most of the day and has been locked for over 3 hours.

• Wind coming down and ground motion low
• All other systems nominal

OPO trans power reduced

Camilla noted that the Opo pump iss was close to saturating, because our launched power has increased quickly at this new crystal position. 

I've reduced the OPO trans set point to 75 uW from 80uW, which brought the control signal back to 2.5 V.

SATMON updated

I've updated some of the thresholds on SATMON.adl for suspensions that have had their DAC cards upgraded in recent months, alog84509. The 18 bit thresholds have been updated to 20 bit for the following

BS M1 F1F2F3LF RTSD

ITMY M0 F1F2F3SD LFRT

ITMY L1 ULLLURLR

ITMX M0 F1F2F3SD LFRT

ITMX L1 ULLLURLR

TCS Chiller Water Level Top-Off - Biweekly

FAMIS 27821

No water was added to either chiller as levels are still good, although slowly dropping over the past several weeks. Updated T2200289 tracking sheet.

Filters and steel mesh in both chillers looked good. No water in leak checking cup.

Frequency injection cable has been plugged in

I went out to plug in the frequency noise injection cable at the PSL racks and found it was already plugged it. This is probably my fault- a quick alog search turned up this alog, written by me: 85363. So it maybe have been plugged in for over a month while we were in observing.

Thu CP1 Fill

Thu Aug 07 10:07:03 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 6min 59secs

 

Lockloss

Lockloss at 2025-08-07 16:15UTC after 5.5 hours Locked due to some fast tractoring it's looking like an ETMX glitch :(

ISC vs. DAMP Pitch and Yaw Control Request for H1SUSMC1 Top Mass (M1)

J. Kissel

I'm are trying to figure out the best metrics for showing off the improvements to the OSEM PD's satellite amplifier's whitening improvements.
Thus far, Oli's been using the input to the damping loops as the metric, using a regression of the corresponding ISI's GS13s to subract out a fit of how much of that sensor signal is seismic noise, and dividing out the loop suppression -- see LHO:86149 for the most recent examples comparing before vs. after the sat amp upgrade. 
Without the presence of any other noise or control signals, that should be a fair comparison of the OSEM PD's sensor noise improvement.
However, for a lot of these comparisons ISC control signals are complicating the comparison -- usually at low frequency where ISC control is typically distributed to the top masses.

I use this aLOG as an example of how to better understand this contribution breakdown for a relatively simple suspension -- H1SUSMC1 -- which only has P and Y ISC control from the IMC WFS. (Longitudinal control for IMC L is fed to MC2). This will also be interesting in the future 
    :: in the context of how SPI and other sensors may improve the cavity motion, 
    :: in terms of what DOFs and loop's worth of control drive at which frequencies -- important for discussions along the lines of "DOF [blah] is dominating the control signal, and the actuator cross-coupling for M1 drive of DOF [blah] to M3 optic DOF [blorp] is large, so let's reduce the DOF [blah] drive," and
    :: in terms of whether/where implementing ISI GS13 estimator feedforward will improve things.

To understand how much of the damping loop *error* signal is composed of ISC *control* signal, I look compare the 
    - the ISC control signal,
    - the DAMP *control* signal, against the
    - the MASTER total control request,
all calibrated to the same point in the control system -- where the control output is summed and in the OSEM basis; just down-stream of the EUL2OSEM matrix, and just upstream of the COILOUTF filters which compensate for the coil driver frequency response (uninteresting for this study).

Pitch -- the T1T2T3 actuators
    (3) Attachment 3 Pitch Noise Comparison excerpt from Oli's LHO:86149. These are times when the IMC was LOCKED, so there should be ISC control. But, see the expected factors of 2x-to3x improvement in the OSEM noise below ~5 Hz. So, maybe the ISC control is so low in bandwidth that its affect isn't impacting this study. But, we can see that there's clearly some other loop suppression that has not been accounted for, so maybe it *is* high bandwidth? Let's find out.
    (1) Attachment 1 Comparison of ISC pitch, DAMP pitch, as well as the other DAMP DOFs that use the T1, T2, and T3 actuators -- Vertical and Roll -- control signals.
    Here, we can clearly see that the damping loops are dominating the T2 (and thus T3) control signal above ~ 0.5 Hz, or conversely, the IMC WFS DC coupled control is dominating below 0.5 Hz.
    (2) Attachment 2 shows that the T2 and T3 sensors receive identical request (mostly an out-of-phase combination of Pitch and Roll damping request, as expected from the EUL2OSEM matrix), and T1 drives mostly Roll damping request. The vertical drive request is subdominant at all frequencies.
    (3) Attachment 4 shows the open loop gain and loop suppression TF magnitudes for pitch. The loop suppression here looks very much like the inverse of the shape of the ASD left in the pitch regression, making me worried that Oli's automated regime for removing the loop suppression isn't perfect... I'll ask.

Yaw -- the LFRT actuators
    (7) Attachment 7 The before vs. after comparison of OSEM noise
    (5) Attachment 5 Similar comparison of ISC vs. relevant DAMP control -- showing IMC WFS control dominating only below ~0.2 Hz.
    (6) Attachment 6 As expected from the EUL2OSEM matrix, the LF and RT actuators receive the same control.
    (8) Attachment 8 Shows the open loop gain and loop suppression TF magnitudes for the Yaw damping loop.

"[...] Attachment 4 shows the open loop gain and loop suppression TF magnitudes for pitch. The loop suppression here looks very much like the inverse of the shape of the ASD left in the pitch regression, making me worried that Oli's automated regime for removing the loop suppression isn't perfect... I'll ask.

Followed up wth Oli on this, and indeed there was a bug in the application of the loop suppression -- a blind python "dir" of the optic's directory for exported loop suppression text files returned the list of files alphabetically (L,P,R,T,V,Y) rather than in the canonical order of (L,T,V,R,P,Y) so that means the P suppression was taken out of the T ASD, etc. 

They've fixed that now (and added the loop suppression itself to the ASD plot as a visual aide) -- here's a sample of the improved MC1 P and Y, before vs. after plot.

Filter Cavity Tube Gets One More Gauge PT-CC7

(Jordan V., Tony S., Gerardo M.)

Changing ETMX bias

Today, Sheila and I decided to increase the ETMX ESD bias voltage. We would like to operate at a higher bias for a short period to see if the extra actuation range allows us to survive the ETMX glitch locklosses. However, we also wanted to understand what effect this has on our range.

Sheila made small steps to increase the ETMX bias voltage and adjusted the L3 drivealign gain accordingly. After every step, I measured the DARM open loop gain and we adjusted the drivealign gain further to maintain the DARM UGF. Once we doubled the voltage, we further adjusted the drivealign gain to bring kappa TST to one. It's important to note that we saw that the correction factor required to maintain the UGF (at 70 Hz) was slightly different than the correction factor required to bring kappa TST back to 1 (measured at 17.6 Hz).

We took a PCAL broadband measurement at the regular and double bias configurations (documented here). Even with kappa TST near 1, there was a small frequency-dependent difference between the two measurements.

Sheila then took us back and forth from the double bias to regular bias states so we could get some noise comparison times to determine if the noise is worse with double bias.

Times in UTC	Start	End
double bias	17:41:58	18:03:37
single bias	18:08:20	18:17:30
double bias	18:18:37	18:26:37
single bias	18:27:40	18:35:40

I exported the PCAL broadband injections and used them to calibration GDS strain for the four times above into PCAL meters. The noise from 15-400 Hz looks to be the same for each time, so I don't think there will be a significant impact to the sensitivity if we double the bias.

I ran a linear regression fit on the voltage and drivealign data from our steps, using this document as reference. I was able to fit alpha - gamma (slope) and the beta values (y-intercept). I calculate alpha - gamma = 9.14e-10 N/V^2 and beta - beta2 = -4.08e-8 N/V

We are planning to go to this double bias for some time to see if reduces the number of ETMX glitch locklosses.