TITLE: 06/03 Eve Shift: 2300-0800 UTC (1600-0100 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Wind
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Oli
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 29mph Gusts, 21mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.06 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.21 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
With the difficulties locking, I tried changing some of the CPS diff filters to get the end station ISI to follow the corner ISI. The CPS diff uses a band pass filter to reduce the differential motion between the ISI, but this filter can inject motion at the microseism. Microseism is low, I'm guessing the arms are struggling more with the below .1hz motion. In the attached image the filters we had been using, are the red trace, blue is what I switched to. It kind of seemed to help, but I think we lost lock after I left the room. I'll leave this running for now, going to try a couple other things.
These changes were reverted today, in case they were causing issues with locking. ASC was engaged at the time, I didn't see any effect reverting to the old configuration, so I think they were probably benign.
Sheila, Jennie W
Sheila and Annamaria realised we have a noise bump around 17.75 Hz and hypothesised it could be the bounce mode of the beamsplitter which we have not retuned since adding the BRD (bounce-roll mode dampers) on the beamsplitter.
The LSC-MICH loop feeds back to the beamsplitter.
The measurement of the MICH loop is shown in this plot where it has a UGP 5.87Hz and phase margin of 35.5 degrees.
Code was adapted from Sheila's in this alog and is saved in /ligo/home/jennifer.wright/Documents/Filter_Design/plot_noise_OLG.py - although we are not sure if uncertainty estimates are accurate and the measurement is low coherence below 6Hz (near the UGP).
Sheila looked through the guardian and realised that we don't use FM8 in locking so we will overwrite the 15Hz notch here. Therte is an existing BRD bandpass in FM10 with this shape, which is used in locking, we don't want to overwrite this at the moment but we might once we test the new filter.
I copied over the FM10 filter to FM8 and then made it a bit wider to match the width of the bounce mode in the DARM spectrum found in this measurement from the 8th May.
The new filter is here and has this shape. We made it always on with a ramp of 4s and it is called BR0604.
I reloaded the LSC model coefficients (twice because I forgot to change the filter name the first time).
We will not test it till our next commissioning period.
Wind is above 40mph and we are trying to relock. We were able to make it up to POWER_10W a bit ago but then lost lock.
R. Short, J. Oberling
While H1 was down this morning from wind, we took the opportunity to touch up PMC alignment and recalibrate the rotation stage. With the ISS off, we used the two picomotor-controlled mirrors to increase PMC TRANS from 106.0W to 106.2W and decrease PMC REFL from 21.4W to 20.9W. Not much of an improvement here, unfortunately, so we think this lines up with our theory of increased loss in the PMC cavity (discussed in alog78093). We're now starting to think about swapping the PMC with our fresh spare during a future maintenance period, especially if we see this loss getting worse, but no plan is currently set for that just yet.
After turning the ISS back on, I proceeded to recalibrate the rotation stage since the output from the PMC has changed a couple of times in the past week with our alignment changes. Calibration curve, SDF screenshot accepting new values, and text file from the process are attached.
Power in (W) | D | B (Minimum power angle) | C (Minimum power) | |
Old Values | 102.287 | 1.990 | -24.825 | 0.000 |
New Values | 99.253 | 1.990 | -24.830 |
0.000 |
Mon Jun 03 10:09:43 2024 INFO: Fill completed in 9min 39secs
Gerardo confirmed a good fill curbside.
We aren't able to get back up right now due to high winds that are supposed to continue all day (currently >35mph but has already gone up to ~45mph). So we're going to be holding in DOWN until the wind calms down (windy.com says 3:00 UTC but we'll hope for earlier).
We're taking this as an opportunity to do some tasks that require the ifo to be down that would otherwise be done during tomorrow's maintainance.
FAMIS 20031
The main event from this past week was our incursion to investigate PMC losses (alog78093). PMC REFL is still high, but after our work it seems there was a jump up of about 1.3W. We believe this is due to some alignment shift into the PMC (likely from drag wiping M11 and having the environmental controls on for a couple of hours) evidenced by the change in the PMC REFL spot on the camera. Tomorrow during maintenance I plan on tweaking the alignment with the picos to hopefully bring it back to a more reasonable level.
Interestingly, there also appears to have been a change in the outputs of the NPRO and the diodes in both amplifiers at the time of our work in the enclosure. While the overall power output of the NPRO and amps are largely unchanged, I find this interesting as nothing was done with any of these components (shutters, pump current, etc.) except for the power watchdogs being turned off temporarily. Perhaps this behavior is simply a result of the environmentals being slightly different while working in the enclosure.
Monthly FAMIS Check (#26490)
Note: This is my first time I have run the scripts for these in O4. So I opened up the scripts to make sure there were no excitations to bump H1 out of Observing. Probably complete coincidence, but when I opened the T240 script via gedit, H1 had a lockloss! (I had Verbal running at the time on NoMachine session.) I'm sure it wasn't me, but just making a note. :)
T240 Centering Script Output:
Averaging Mass Centering channels for 10 [sec] ...
2024-06-03 08:44:03.268450
There are 15 T240 proof masses out of range ( > 0.3 [V] )!
ETMX T240 2 DOF X/U = -0.461 [V]
ETMX T240 2 DOF Y/V = -0.33 [V]
ETMX T240 2 DOF Z/W = -0.395 [V]
ITMX T240 1 DOF X/U = -1.271 [V]
ITMX T240 1 DOF Y/V = 0.346 [V]
ITMX T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.453 [V]
ITMX T240 3 DOF X/U = -1.315 [V]
ITMY T240 3 DOF X/U = -0.597 [V]
ITMY T240 3 DOF Z/W = -1.671 [V]
BS T240 1 DOF Y/V = -0.363 [V]
BS T240 3 DOF Y/V = -0.311 [V]
BS T240 3 DOF Z/W = -0.454 [V]
HAM8 1 DOF X/U = -0.332 [V]
HAM8 1 DOF Y/V = -0.427 [V]
HAM8 1 DOF Z/W = -0.706 [V]
All other proof masses are within range ( < 0.3 [V] ):
ETMX T240 1 DOF X/U = -0.113 [V]
ETMX T240 1 DOF Y/V = -0.078 [V]
ETMX T240 1 DOF Z/W = -0.123 [V]
ETMX T240 3 DOF X/U = -0.067 [V]
ETMX T240 3 DOF Y/V = -0.202 [V]
ETMX T240 3 DOF Z/W = -0.065 [V]
ETMY T240 1 DOF X/U = 0.062 [V]
ETMY T240 1 DOF Y/V = 0.094 [V]
ETMY T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.164 [V]
ETMY T240 2 DOF X/U = -0.09 [V]
ETMY T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.165 [V]
ETMY T240 2 DOF Z/W = 0.08 [V]
ETMY T240 3 DOF X/U = 0.178 [V]
ETMY T240 3 DOF Y/V = 0.087 [V]
ETMY T240 3 DOF Z/W = 0.101 [V]
ITMX T240 2 DOF X/U = 0.151 [V]
ITMX T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.256 [V]
ITMX T240 2 DOF Z/W = 0.248 [V]
ITMX T240 3 DOF Y/V = 0.149 [V]
ITMX T240 3 DOF Z/W = 0.136 [V]
ITMY T240 1 DOF X/U = 0.084 [V]
ITMY T240 1 DOF Y/V = 0.1 [V]
ITMY T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.005 [V]
ITMY T240 2 DOF X/U = 0.07 [V]
ITMY T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.237 [V]
ITMY T240 2 DOF Z/W = 0.091 [V]
ITMY T240 3 DOF Y/V = 0.063 [V]
BS T240 1 DOF X/U = -0.165 [V]
BS T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.132 [V]
BS T240 2 DOF X/U = -0.067 [V]
BS T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.05 [V]
BS T240 2 DOF Z/W = -0.113 [V]
BS T240 3 DOF X/U = -0.156 [V]
Assessment complete.
STS Centering Script Output:
Averaging Mass Centering channels for 10 [sec] ...
2024-06-03 09:03:13.267069
There are 2 STS proof masses out of range ( > 2.0 [V] )!
STS EY DOF X/U = -4.047 [V]
STS EY DOF Z/W = 2.792 [V]
All other proof masses are within range ( < 2.0 [V] ):
STS A DOF X/U = -0.496 [V]
STS A DOF Y/V = -0.709 [V]
STS A DOF Z/W = -0.681 [V]
STS B DOF X/U = 0.376 [V]
STS B DOF Y/V = 0.958 [V]
STS B DOF Z/W = -0.456 [V]
STS C DOF X/U = -0.655 [V]
STS C DOF Y/V = 0.886 [V]
STS C DOF Z/W = 0.356 [V]
STS EX DOF X/U = -0.06 [V]
STS EX DOF Y/V = 0.011 [V]
STS EX DOF Z/W = 0.051 [V]
STS EY DOF Y/V = 0.048 [V]
STS FC DOF X/U = 0.244 [V]
STS FC DOF Y/V = -1.03 [V]
STS FC DOF Z/W = 0.667 [V]
Assessment complete.
Lockloss @ 06/03 15:29 UTC, probably due to wind or a small local earthquake (or both)
16:35 UTC We're going to be holding in DOWN until the wind calms down (windy.com says 3:00 UTC but we'll hope for earlier)
We're taking this opportunity to do some tasks that require the ifo to be down that would otherwise be done during tomorrow's maintanance.
TITLE: 06/03 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 149Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Tony
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 16mph Gusts, 12mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.13 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Detector Observing and Locked for almost 6 hours. Highest winds are currently just above 20mph, but are supposed to get a lot higher today.
TITLE: 06/03 Eve Shift: 2300-0800 UTC (1600-0100 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Earthquake
INCOMING OPERATOR: Tony
SHIFT SUMMARY: Wind and microseism have been increasing over the past few hours which is giving ALS some trouble on the relock. We're still relocking following the LL
Started locking with an IA, which ended up tripping SRM M3
01:02 UTC lockloss
02:03 back into Observing
07:17 lockloss from a 5.9 in the Atlantic
Lockloss from an earthquake, https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~lockloss/index.cgi?event=1401434227
https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~lockloss/index.cgi?event=1401411781
Back into Observing at 02:03
It looks like since this lock started, LSC MICH had been slowly getting louder (attachment1). Ground movement was low and wind was below 20 mph. On the test mass glitch/saturation side, the lockloss was seen by ETMX L3 first (attachment2).
Andrei, Sheila
We've analyzed the time-traces of the effective range (H1:CDS-SENSMON_CAL_SNSW_EFFECTIVE_RANGE_MPC
) along with the alignment channels FC_WFC_A(B)
and AS_A(B)_RF42
(see attached figures). We found no observable dependance between those.
During the time period being investigated in this alog on May 27, LASSO flags H1:TCS-ITMX_CO2_ISS_CTRL2_OUT_DQ as strongly correlated with the range. This channel and other related channels have been flagged as highly correlated to the range in recent days, but this time period shows the strongest correlation.
Jumps in this TCS channel correlate with range jumps, as shown in the attached comparison of the TCS and range trends on May 27.
Tagging TCS
This TCSX ISS correlation is a bit odd since we aren't using the ISS and the AOM, I believe, is completely unplugged. That said, I looked at some of the channels in that system and there is some extra noise seen around the times Derek posted (see May 16th example). I wonder if this points to a larger grounding issue or some other electrical problem that is seen more broadly.
These range fluctuations that we think are related to the squeezer started (I think) on May 16th: 77869
The first time cursor in the attached screeshot shows that range drip which I thought was traffic related at the time. Looking at the long term trend of this CO2 ISS control signal, there is a chance in charachter at this time, with more drifts in the signal level since. The second screenshot shows that this channel had a large jump on May 17th around 20:04-22:33 UTC.
There is a DARM BLRMS that may be more useful for tracking this noise than just looking at range, H1:OAF-RANGE_RLP_3_OUTPUT. (third screenshot shows this also had a change point and drifts more since May 16th.)
Minhyo
Tried move the beam on OMC QPD using single bounce beam (ITMX misaligned). Changed OM3 PIT & YAW from 18:04:45 UTC (gps: 1398534729).
- Tried same task with OM3, with turning off ASC centering, OMC centering, started new from 18:21:00 UTC (gps: 1398536470).
After finishing with OMC QPD, reverted all settings with OM3 and then moved to OM2.
- Moved OM2 PIT&YAW to check ASC-AS_A & B. Finished at 18:35:00 UTC (gps: 1398537318)
Same job was done (moving OM3 -> OM2) with SQZ beam on OMC (from 20:12:05 UTC to 20:24:00 UTC, gps:1398543158-1398543858)
Screenshots (ndscope) are: 1) Measurement with single bounce beam, 2) Measurement with SQZ beam
Summary of OMC-QPD profile measurement
Qualitative comparison of beam profile between single bounce (SB) beam and squeezer (SQZ) beam, arriving at the OMC-QPD. These measurement are done by comparing PIT and YAW response with OM3 movements. PIT and YAW response at around the center is expected to be inversely proportional to the beam diameter.
The valid data of each beam can be obtained
1) SB: 18:08:00 ~ 18:19:48 (UTC) -- with WFS centering on
2) SQZ: 20:12:00 ~ 20:18:00 (UTC) -- w/o WFS centering (mistake)
Since AS_C centering was off, it would be not perfect data, but judging from those measurement, SQZ beam is smaller than the SB beam. The
Below table is showing the relative ratio between SB and SQZ, with PIT and YAW individually.
QPD A | QPD B | |
PIT | 14.4% | 25.3% |
YAW | 30% | 31% |
Added screenshots of comparison: 1) PIT comparison, 2) YAW comparison
Red lines are the plots that applied with the low-pass filter, and dashed lines are linear fitted lines in the range of (-1, 1) for both PIT and YAW.
Minhyo, Keita
As the PIT response on both QPD A and B are noisy, Keita and I checked for the source of that noise. By looking at multiple channel (1st screenshot), we found that ASC-AS_C PIT is also showing large noises.
Keita checked on the witness sensors of the mirrors before ASC-AS_C, and found out that beam splitter (BS) mirror is also showing large oscillation at around the SB measurement time (2nd screenshot). Checking with the ITMX(Y) status, it seems that BS is noisy after making single bounce (SB) beam condition.
After checking with the power spectrum data of SUS-BS_OPLEV_PIT_OUT_DQ (3rd screenshot), we noticed that the noise is higher during the SB measurement under 10 Hz, which is also showing large coherence with ASC-AS_C_PIT. We still don't know the exact origin of this noise, but it have definitely affected the beam's PIT movement beyond BS.
Minhyo, Keita
(Accidently didn't write alog about this, so I'm posting this in the comment)
We tried to measure the beam diameter that falls onto OMC-QPD (T1000276). The theory is to use the center gap of QPD as a calibration source, measuring the QPD SUM output data can give the information about the beam radius, since the power loss will occur due to the center gap in the QPD. It is expected that the SUM output will be minimum at the center, and gradually increase in respect to the offset from the center of QPD.
The measurement was done with single-bounce (SB) beam condition, during 2024-03-19, 18:30:00 ~ 19:30:00 (UTC). At first, we tried to center the beam by using SR2, AS_C centering loop and WFS centering. After that, tried to center the beam with using OMC servo with mastergain=0.1. The actual measurement time is in between 19:04:30 ~ 19:22:00 (UTC), and moved OM1 and OM2 manually, to move the beam off from the center (1st figure).
However, by checking on H1:ASC-OMC_A(B)_SUM_OUT16 channels, it didn't show the trend what we were expected. In almost all times, the power output showed consistent trend, and QPD A even showed highest value around the center of QPD (2nd, 3rd figure). Whereas, WFS sensor (AS_A and B) showed the expected increasing trend of power in respect to the offset from the center (4th figure), even though they are using same photo diode model.
From discussion, we suspect two origin for the descrepancy from the expected trend; 1) The center gap of QPD model (InGaAs-Q3000) is different from the cataloue (0.045 mm), 2) Quantum efficiency of QPD is not consistent in near the edge of each quadrant diode.
In conclusion, the quatitative measurement of beam profile of OMC using the center is limited due to the uncertainty of the QPD.
Attached figures are: 1) Visualization of the beam movement and power in each OMC-QPD, 2) Time series data of QPD channels, 3) OMC-QPD SUM_OUTPUT data in respect to the offset from the center, 4) WFS (AS_A and B), and AS_C OUTPUT data in respect to the offset from the center
03: 09 UTC back to Observing