TITLE: 09/05 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 147Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
SHIFT SUMMARY:

The first half of the shift was devoted to calibration measurements + a little over 3hrs of commissioning time.  H1 then had a lockloss (after 16hrs & almost reaching 160Mpc).  45min into the next lock and have had range data point just under 158Mpc.
LOG:

• 1530 OUT of Observing for:
  • Quick OFFSET change to SRCL1 offset (from -175 to -400 for H1:LSC-SRCL1_OFFSET)
  • 1530-1559Thurs Morning Calibration
  • 1559-1917 Tranisition to Commissioning (until 1900utc)
• 1529-1557 cleaning (karen)
  • 1559 Heading to woodshop (karen)
  • 1729-1748 H2 Elec Room cleaning (kim)
• 1534 PEM measurements of fan audio (sam)
• 1841-1851 EQ mode activated thru M5.5 Iceland EQ that H1 rode through during a 2nd calibration at end of Commissioning Period.
• 1851-1934 MX measurements (janos)
• 1917 Back to OBSERVING
• 2114 LOCKLOSS (after 16hrs, and almost touching 160Mpc)
  • 2141-2201 INITIAL ALIGNMENT, since PRMI did not look good
• 2203-2218 Vac checks near in X-Beam manifold area (gerardo, jordan)
  • Gerardo noted that the LVEA lights had been left on in the LVEA....since Tues?  He turned them off remotely (and I went out to confirm the LVEA lights were OFF.  (I also turned OFF the Cleaning Room lights---room that leads to CER.)
• 2242 PCal measurement (francisco)
• 2246 Back to OBSERVING

TITLE: 09/05 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 147Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Corey
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 8mph Gusts, 3mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.18 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

IFO is in NLN and OBSERVING as of 22:46 UTC

This is a request from Vlad a long time ago. 

In 73697, Vlad changed the bandpass filter in H1:SUS-ETMX_PI_UPCONV_UC3_SIG to steeply cut off the lower sideband (80kHz-300Hz) for 80.3 kHz PI. The new filters are FM1 and 2 (80to81kHz_a and 80to81kHz_b).

Vlad asked me to implement a similar filter for other PIs. I changed the bandpass filter in H1:SUS-ETMY_PI_UPCONV_UC7_SIG for 10.4kHz PI. The new filters are FM4 and 5 (10to11kHz_a and 10to11kHz_b) and old filter is FM1.

The first and second attachments show the new and old bandpass filters. The new filter has -144dB gain for lower sideband (10kHz-430Hz), while the old filter has -40dB gain. The SDF is accepted.

This is the 3rd calibration of the day.  The one taken post-commissioning was not usable/had error.  So received request to run another Calibration.

Measurement NOTES:

• Following instructions (link)
• H1 at NLN for for over 13.25hrs
• Calibration_Monitor medm screenshot is attached
• 2003utc (1409596056 gps) Out of Observing, ISC LOCK to NLN_CAL_MEAS & Observatory Mode to CALIBRATION
• 2003-2008  Broadband measurement run
  • Measurement at:  /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/PCALY2DARM_BB/
•  2008-2031 Simullines measurement
  • gps START time: 1409602151.842028
  • gps END time:1409603535.426098
  • Files writtten to subfolders here:  /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements

-Mattia, Sheila

We have written a python script to compute the full matrix of power spectral densities and cross-power spectral densities between a given channel, i.e., DARM, and a set of auxiliary channels. The code can be find at this repository https://git.ligo.org/mattia.emma/cross_psd  which includes a README file describing how to run it.

The main arguments the user has to pass are the start time (in GPS time) and length of the data to retrieve from gwpy, a list of channel names and the starting frequency for the strain plots.

The code creates five different types of plots using the coherence and cross-power spectral density matrix. The final result of the code is a coefficient for each frequency value expressing the algebraic sum of the contributions of all the auxiliary channels to DARM considering the cross-power spectral density terms. It also computes the coherence between the single auxiliary channels and the DARM channel, which are the diagonal terms in the cross-power spectral density matrix.

The five kinds of plots are:

1. The cumulative coherence. The sum of the coherence coefficients of the single auxiliary channels with DARM. As we add more and more channels to the sum, one can notice from the plot that the value of the cumulative coherence goes above one, which is unphysical. This motivates the inclusion of the cross-power spectral density terms to account for the correlation between the auxiliary channels.
2. The cumulative strain contribution. Plot of the DARM strain and the iterative contribution of the selected set of channels to the strain. For example 3_<Channel_name> means that the strain contribution was computed using three auxiliary channels and the added channel compared to the previous plot (2_<Channel_name>) is <Channel_name>. This plot has only two lines.
3. Strain_<number>.   Similar to 2 but with as many lines as in <number> plus the DARM strain to show how increasing the number of included channels saturates the DARM strain.
4. Strain_comparison_<channel_name_1>_<channel_name_2>. Similar to 2 but including  the DARM strain and only two lines. One showing the cumulative contribution to the strain until <channel_name_1> and one adding to this <channel_name_2>.
5. Single_coherence_<channel_name>. A plot of the coherence between the DARM channel and the <channel_name>.

All of these plots can also be created using as a main channel any auxiliary channel instead of DARM, e.g., if one would like to study the correlation between auxiliary channels. Each plot name also includes the start and end GPS time of the data used for them.

Comments are welcome. As a next step we would like to implement interactive plots to allow the user to include/exclude lines from the plots.

Ryan C, Rahul

We have finished the assembly of the 10^th Ham Relay Triple Suspension (HRTS) for O5, which is being assembled and characterized in the stagings clean room lab upstairs. In June we reported the assembly and testing of first five Freestanding HRTS suspension (see LHO alog 78574 and 78711), since then we have built an additional five of them, thus bringing the total count to ten for both the sites (with two more to go, total twelve required between LHO & LLO which includes one spare at each site).

I have attached several pictures (attachment01, attachment02, attachment03, attachment04) below which shows the assembled & locked HRTS stored in the lab on the flow bench in the clean room. Picture01 shows an HRTS with BOSEMs and cables attached, ready to be characterized on test stand (reference pic is shown here).

In this round of HRTS assembly work we have assembled three Freestanding configuration, one Suspended version (shown in the attachment05 below) and one OM0 (attachment06). The Suspended version of HRTS will be attached to the new BBSS (beam splitter) in O5 and Om0 will have bottom mass (optic) actuation using AOSEMS.The top mass will be controlled by 6 BOSEMs which is common for all types of HRTS.

After finishing the assembly work, we balanced all three stages of the suspensions for all six degrees of freedom. This involved lowering and matching  blade tip height and angle on the top stage (2 blade springs) and on the top mass (4 blade springs). In all the cases, optic's lowest edge was lowered to a height of 40.5mm (+-0.5mm) from the bottom of the cage. The PUM and Top Mass height was adjusted based on the scribe lines on the structure.

Given blow are the details (OLV, offsets and Gain) of the six BOSEMs attached the HRTS.

1. Structure no. 07, Configuration: Suspended

Suspended masses: Top Mass = 755gm, Penultimate mass = 802gm, Dummy optic = 300gm

BOSEMs s/n D060108-E. S1900741, S1900749, S1900622, S1900662, S1900637, S1900613.

2. Structure no. 06, Configuration: OM0

Suspended masses: Top Mass = 755gm, Penultimate mass = 802gm, Dummy optic = 301gm

BOSEMs s/n D060108-E. S1900726, S1900723, S1900746, S1900732, S1900742, S1900747

3. Structure no. 04, Configuration: Freestanding

Suspended masses: Top Mass = 758gm, Penultimate mass = 802gm, Dummy optic = 301gm

BOSEMs s/n D060108-E. S1900749, S1900722, S1900724, S1900735, S1900740, S1900744

4. Structure no. 05, Configuration: Freestanding

Suspended masses: Top Mass = 755gm, Penultimate mass = 803gm, Dummy optic = 300gm

BOSEMs s/n D060108-E. S1900730, S1900727, S1900750, S1900738, S1900743, S1900734

5. Structure no. 09, Configuration: Freestanding

Suspended masses: Top Mass = 758gm, Penultimate mass = 800gm, Dummy optic = 300gm

BOSEMs s/n D060108-E. S19007309 S1900725, S1900733, S1900736, S1900803, S1900728

********************************************

Note- The test results of the suspension will be posted below as comments.

Betsy asked me to take a look at doing B&K measurements of the BBSS being assembled in the staging building, so I reminded myself how to use the B&K and took measurements this morning. I'll attach a photo shortly, but I put the accel on the very bottom of the cage, with +X axis aligned with optic longitudinal, Z aligned with is optic vertical, Y is optic transverse. Plots are titled with the accel axis that I hit on the suspension cage, while the legends are labeled with the accel axis response, so "BBSS X Meas" shows the X,Y,Z tf from hitting the cage along the accel X axis. These measurements are a kind of a mid point of the assembly, looks like most of the parts were there, but the bottom stage osems didn't have flags, I didn't see any vibration absorbers.

I think the most concerning thing I see is this 65-ish hz X mode on the first plot. It's the biggest peak and is in a band that could potentially really limit some of the ISI loop gains, if it's not well damped on the table.

A while ago I made a script to plot these measurements, but didn't explicitly say how to run it. Script is quick_plot.py is userapps/sys/h1/scripts/bruel_and_kjaer:

jim.warner@cdsws22:~ 0$ userapps
jim.warner@cdsws22:release 0$ cd sys/h1/scripts/bruel_and_kjaer/
jim.warner@cdsws22:bruel_and_kjaer 148$ ./quick_plot.py -t "BBSS Z Meas" -f "/path/to/data/BBSS_Z_meas.csv"
 

Vicky, Sheila, Naoki

First we tried SRCL offset of -400, which looked good in yesterday's FIS SRCL offset measurement 79903. We took the calibration measurement with SRCL offset of -400 in 79911, but Louis reported in the mattermost that there is a large optical spring in the sensing function. Also, FDS with SRCL offset of -400 is worse than nominal. Vicky will add more plots for this.

Then we decided to change the SRCL offset to -290 and optimized FC detuning. This improved the sensitivity below 100 Hz as shown in the first attachment and improved the range by ~5Mpc. The optimal FC detuning changed from -34 Hz to -28 Hz and this could be because of SRCL offset change and arm power change.

After FC detuning improvement, we took the calibration measurement with SRCL offset of -290 in 79922, but the measurement did not make sense according to Louis so we took an another calibration measurement with SRCL offset of -290 in 79928. 

This was a fast test right at the end of the commissioning period. I tried changing the offset on the AS WFS to see if that changes the low frequency sensitivity of DARM. Short answer: no change in sensitivity without the offset, and no improvement in sensitivity with a higher offset, which yesterday's tests suggested would help (79904).

I forgot to save the reference for the higher offset test (it was exactly the same as the others), but here is a comparison of the current offset (-0.15) and zero offset. The April 11 reference trace is also shown. We are very close to our best low frequency sensitivity in April (pre-OFI problems).

I think that if it helps the SQZ ASC to have no offset, we should turn this offset off. DHARD Y coherence is now very low even with the offset off.

Dropped out of OBSERVING at 1530utc (830amPT), for calibration measurements and then went immediately into Thurs COMMISSIONING time.  Commissioning ended 1917utc (1217pmPT).

Sheila, Dave:

On Sheila's request, I have edited the generate_ifo_range_medm.py script to add a new line for the H1:CDS-SENSMON2_BNS_EFF_RANGE_CLEAN_MPC channel (plus its associated GPS channel).

This icalibration was requested by Sheila after today's Commissioning work.

Measurement NOTES:

• Following instructions (link)
• H1 at NLN for for over 13.25hrs
• Calibration_Monitor medm screenshot is attached
• 1827utc (1409596056 gps) Out of Observing, ISC LOCK to NLN_CAL_MEAS & Observatory Mode to CALIBRATION
• 1827-1832  Broadband measurement run
  • Measurement at:  /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/PCALY2DARM_BB/
• 1832-1856 Simullines measurement
  • gps START time:  1409596387.219105
  • gps END time: 1409597812.855494
  • Files writtten to subfolders here:  /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements

I've expanded the use of the new "system" MEDM widget to the CDS section of the oveview. HW_STAT, PICKET_FENCE and CDS_SDF are now color coded blocks, replacing the related-display+LED pairs.

These blocks will turn RED in non-nominal conditions. In addition HW and PKT will turn MAGENTA if their respective servers stop updating.

Sheila D, Elenna C, TJ S

Yesterday we ran the a2l_min_multi.py script and then Elenna adjusted the ITM yaw gains by hand to see if the script was actually helping our coupling in a way we would like (alog79904). Today, we did a similar exercise but made some adjustments to the script to see if we could tune it a bit better and get it work properly. The short answer is that the script stills seems to want the ITMY Y gain to be ~0.2 different compared to where Elenna found the best CHARD Y coherence. Other quads and dofs seemed to be ok in this instance though.

This morning we were curious if the script agreed with the changes made yesterday, so we quickly ran it at the start of commissioning. Sheila and Elenna noticed that the script didn't actually have a zero crossing for a few of the dofs, ITMY was particularly far off (seen in <a href="https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/uploads/79921_20240905113858_a2l_demod_3_tries.png">attachment 2</a>). When the script doesn't find a zero crossing within its scan range, it would just return the initial gain and stop. So, Sheila and I made some changes by hand using a pen to screen linear fit, then ran the script again. This was better but ITMY Y didn't change because the magnitude of the gain change was greater than the gain change threshold coded in. We bumped this up from 0.2 to 0.5 and tried one more time. This try had only ITMY Y gain appreciably change, and all other dofs looked much better from a perspective of all of their demod signals had zero crossings in the center of their scan range.

At this point, the script wants ITMY Y at -2.46. Elenna then moved ITM Y gains by hand and found that the previous value (from the second running of the script) of -2.2 for ITMY Y looked best. See attachment 1. The -2.46 gain looked worse <20Hz, see the top right plot in the attached. Elenna also checked DHARD and agreed that it looks good.

We aren't really sure why the script disagrees so much with this one dof right now. This script is based on one that LLO uses, and it seems to work for them. More thought needed.

Initial a2l gains before starting this morning:

            'P2L':{'ITMX':-0.98,
                   'ITMY':-0.36,
                   'ETMX':3.08,
                   'ETMY':4.48},
            'Y2L':{'ITMX':2.90,
                   'ITMY':-1.7,
                   'ETMX':4.85,
                   'ETMY':1.13 },

Final a2l gains:
            'P2L':{'ITMX':-1.0,
                   'ITMY':-0.39,
                   'ETMX':2.98,
                   'ETMY':4.72},
            'Y2L':{'ITMX':2.87,
                   'ITMY':-2.25,
                   'ETMX':4.88,
                   'ETMY':1.49 },