Looks like H1 went down due to an EQ (probably M6.8 Russia EQ) 4+hrs ago, and was at NLN but having SQZ Issues:

• SQZ FC was having trouble getting past FC ASC ON.
• Took MAnager to DOWN & started following SQZ Wiki.
• OPO_LR needed to be taken to Nominal state.
• CLF_LR taken to Nominal state
• FC taken to GR LOCKED, but trans_c_lf_output was only at about 75 (less than nominal 100), so worked on FC Alignment.
  • Took me a while to find the "FC Servo" button on the SQZ Overview---my display has everything reall small, and I don't have my glasses on...still waking up).
  • Once I got things set up, I was only able to maximize the trans c lf output up to about 80.  Didn't feel like I improved it much.  And while doing this I was looking at the FC Trans GR camera, but that just looked like a 00 spot, so not really giving me an idea of if pitch or yaw needed.  (I'm guessing the camera is useful if you are not on a 00 mode.)
  • Moved on
• Took Manager to FDS, but FC was not able to get GR LOCKED, so went back to wiki since "everything was not fine" yet.
• Started trending FC1/2 pointing.....but also looked alog for any recent FC issues
• FC's trans has not been at 100 for almost 2-weeks.  :(
  • Because of this, this is why I'm hesitant to move FC1 in yaw (that is the only thing which is currently a little off since the last lock.....but maybe I should at this point?  Because for FC alignment, I was only moving FC2 for alignment touch up. 
  • Moved FC1's Yaw to get it from a witness value of -199 back to -206 (where it was for the last lock).
• In the alogs, soundsing like TJ had the same exact situation I'm having on 7/31(alog), but it looks like SQZ randomly came back for him.
  • For my 2nd go around with touching up FC alignment, I was only getting up to about 50 (vs 80 my first time).  :(
  • Going to try going to FDS....but still had FC issues. 
  • But did happen to get the FC trans relock to a better value back to just under 80 (but only for a few seconds and then it lost lock, and then relocked at this higher value.....these locks stopped me from restoring FC1 yaw from the move I made to get it to where it was before the EQ.
• At this point, I feel like I have not progressed anywhere with FC (still loses lock at the ASC_ON step.
• The last thing I was considering, was trying the OPO temperature adjustment (which TJ mentions from an Oli alog).....but at this point, H1 has been waiting for SQZ for 2hrs & I have been up that long, too (at 535am).  So I'm also considering just not Squeezing....
  • Also was hoping SQZ would just come back on its own as it did for TJ on 7/31 while he was troubleshooting, but no luck on that so far.
  • NOTE:  For this OPO Temperature adustment, Oli did have a much better trans output (of 115! vs our sub-80).  So not really going to be surprised if this does anything in this case.
• Did optimize the OPO Temperature a bit, but this had no improvement for the FC locking (this is even after a few more rounds of FC2 alignment touch-ups....where it would sort of get a little over 80.....but still no luck).
• Running the RyanS script to go to Observing WITHOUT Squeezing  (this automatically took H1 to Observing as soon as I took 3 Sqz nodes to their No Squeezing NOMINAL states.
• And after about 2.5hrs (1024-1255utc) of trying, H1 is back to Observing (without Squeezing) at 555am PDT.  Now to see if I should stay up or try to get sleep (as the sun is now in my eyes as I click "POST TO LOGBOOK").
• I'm attaching screenshots of FC1 & FC2 alignment and also the OPO Temperature change.

Frustration NOTES: 

• My NoMachine is not as fast as working in the Control Room.  So everything was a pain while trying to wake up
• Making ndscopes for restoring FC1 & 2 took me time (still not sure if that was even going to be worth the trouble since the FC output hasn't been much above 80 anyways (vs the desired 100+ in the wiki).
  • Really the only FC pointing which looks like it took a big step since the last time the SQZ was locking was FC1 yaw.
  • BUT.....is this really a thing since the Trans has only been at about 80 lately (last 12 days)??
• In the wiki for FC, I don't know what this lines means:
  • "FC ASC "gracefully clear history" is this correct?"
• Only having one screen to work with also makes it tough.  For this particular squeezer issue, I have tons of scopes, guardians and medms open and its hard to keep track of all my windows. 

TITLE: 08/03 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 151Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Corey
SHIFT SUMMARY:
H1 has reached 24 Hours of continuous lock!
All systems lookin good.
No issues all night.
Passing Corey a locked IFO for his OWL shift.
 
LOG:                                                                                                           

TITLE: 08/02 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 152Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Oli
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 16mph Gusts, 10mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.04 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.06 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
H1 has been Locked for 19 Hours now with decent range.
No issues to report.

 

TITLE: 08/02 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 154Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Tony
SHIFT SUMMARY:We are Observing at 149 Mpc and have been Locked for almost 19 hours. Besides the calibration measurement today, we've been Observing the rest of my shift.
LOG:

14:30UTC Observing and have been Locked for 9:44 hours
    14:30 Earthquake mode activated
    15:25 Back to CALM
    18:18 Earthquake mode
    18:31 Left Observing to run calibration suite
    18:31 NLN_CAL_MEAS
    19:03 NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE
    19:03 Observing
    20:25 Superevent S250802dn

On July 22nd, Fil swapped the satamps for MC1, MC3, ETMY M0/R0, and TMSY (85922). Here are the differences in the noise performance for each before and after the swap.

Finding times where ISC control wasn't on and the chambers were in nominal states (not earthquake or maintenance) was hard to do because of all the earthquakes we've been having. ETMY M0 and R0 both were hard to find good times for, so a couple of times chosen are not the best showcase of the new noise floor. For example, ETMY M0 L 'after' still has a lot of lower frequency noise that I wasn't able to regress out, and ETMY R0 L, T, and V 'after' also all clearly all have excess low frequency noise remaining due to an earthquake going through at the time. I think you can still generally get an idea of how much better the noise is though. I can run them again when we get a better comparison time.

MC1
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC1/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC1_M1_NoiseComparison_1437192600vs1437240215-1200.pdf
r12495
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC1/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSMC1_M1_1437192600_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC1/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSMC1_M1_1437240215_1200.mat
r12495

MC3
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC3_M1_NoiseComparison_1437115850vs1437282002-1200.pdf
r12496
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC3/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSMC3_M1_1437115850_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC3/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSMC3_M1_1437282002_1200.mat
r12496

TMSY
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/TMTS/H1/TMSY/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSTMSY_M1_NoiseComparison_1437213557vs1437257352-1200.pdf
r12497
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/TMTS/H1/TMSY/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSTMSY_M1_1437213557_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/TMTS/H1/TMSY/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSTMSY_M1_1437257352_1200.mat
r12497

ETMY
M0
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMY_M0_NoiseComparison_1436521059vs1437280243-1200.pdf
r12498
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGM0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSETMY_M0_1436521059_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGM0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSETMY_M0_1437280243_1200.mat
r12498

R0
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMY_R0_NoiseComparison_1435436097vs1437438025-1200.pdf
r12499
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGR0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSETMY_R0_1435436097_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGR0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSETMY_R0_1437438025_1200.mat
r12499

This set of measurements was taken 13 hours into a lock so we were well thermalized.

Report generated and can be found at /ligo/groups/cal/H1/reports/20250802T183908Z/H1_calibration_report_20250802T183908Z.pdf

Broadband
start: 18:32:06 UTC (1438194744)
end: 18:37:24 UTC (1438195062)
output: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/PCALY2DARM_BB/PCALY2DARM_BB_20250802T183213Z.xml

Simulines
start: 18:39:07 UTC (1438195165)
end: 19:02:14 UTC (1438196552)
output:
/ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/DARMOLG_SS/DARMOLG_SS_20250802T183908Z.hdf5
/ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/PCALY2DARM_SS/PCALY2DARM_SS_20250802T183908Z.hdf5
/ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L1_SS/SUSETMX_L1_SS_20250802T183908Z.hdf5
/ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L2_SS/SUSETMX_L2_SS_20250802T183908Z.hdf5
/ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L3_SS/SUSETMX_L3_SS_20250802T183908Z.hdf5

Sat Aug 02 10:09:10 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 9min 6secs

TITLE: 08/02 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 154Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Corey
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 6mph Gusts, 3mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.07 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.12 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

Currently Observing at 155 Mpc and have been Locked for almost 10 hours. One earthquake just started coming in and now it's really coming in and we just went into earthquake mode

TITLE: 08/02 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 148Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Corey
SHIFT SUMMARY:
Inherited a Locked IFO.
At 02:57:54 UTC H1 lost lock.

I allowed H1 to try to relock itself, ISC_lock ended up in Aquire_PRMI with wonky flashes. So I did an Initial_Alignment.
I reverted the SEI SDF diffs I accepted earlier today.

The Initial_Alignment was mared with a tripped SRM Watchdog, but it seemed to complete and offload well enough.

H1 was relocked at 4:51:05 UTC. 

LOG:
No Log

Lockloss from NLN 2025-08-02 02:57:54
Looks like maybe it's an ASC excursion?

TITLE: 08/01 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 149Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Oli
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 21mph Gusts, 14mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.07 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.05 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

Observing reached at 23:43:12 UTC But only after spending 13 min trying to determine why there is are SEI SDF Diffs.
We, (TJ, Oli, Me) decided to just accept them and hope for the best.

 

TITLE: 08/01 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Earthquake
INCOMING OPERATOR: Tony
SHIFT SUMMARY: Currently in NLN, but waiting to go into Observing after we figure out some weird SDF diffs with ISIHAM2/3/4/5.
LOG:

14:30UTC Relocking and in ACQUIRE_PRMI
15:23 NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE
    15:25 Observing
    18:06 Out of Observing due to SQZ unlock
    18:12 Back into Observing
    18:12 Out of Observing due to SQZ unlock
    18:14 Back into Observing
    18:15 Out of Observing due to SQZ unlock
18:45 Lockloss
    - sat in DOWN for a bit due to high ground motion and wind
    - ALSX was unlocking 10 seconds into LOCKING_ALS
21:59 NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE
    - Needed to INIT HAM 2/3/4/5 ISI guardians to remove SPM (and SDF) differences - caused a lockloss
22:02 Lockloss
22:54 NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE
    - Adjusted OPO temp and that got FC to lock
    - Issues with ISIHAM2/3/4/5 sdf diffs for GS13INF V1/2/3

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

Lockloss at 2025-08-01 22:02 UTC after 3 minutes in NLN. We couldn't go into Observing because of SPM differences causing SDF diffs in the guardians for ISIHAM2/3/4/5. Last time we had this, I asked Jim what to do and he said to just INIT the guardians, and it caused a glitch, but we did not lose lock, and he said INITing them should not cause glitches or locklosses (85809). Today, I did the same thing and went to INIT the guardians, but when doing it for the first one, ISIHAM2, it caused a glitch and we lost lock from it.

Lockloss at 2025-08-01 18:45UTC due to earthquake

We are holding in DOWN due to the earthquake

Fri Aug 01 10:11:21 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 11min 17secs

Closes FAMIS#26433, last checked 86020

Everything is looking good besides the PMC reflected power being a bit high - it looks like it's been increasing over the past month.

Laser Status:
    NPRO output power is 1.866W
    AMP1 output power is 69.95W
    AMP2 output power is 140.6W
    NPRO watchdog is GREEN
    AMP1 watchdog is GREEN
    AMP2 watchdog is GREEN
    PDWD watchdog is GREEN

PMC:
    It has been locked 2 days, 2 hr 18 minutes
    Reflected power = 23.73W
    Transmitted power = 105.5W
    PowerSum = 129.3W

FSS:
    It has been locked for 0 days 2 hr and 47 min
    TPD[V] = 0.7741V

ISS:
    The diffracted power is around 3.8%
    Last saturation event was 0 days 2 hours and 47 minutes ago

Possible Issues:
    PMC reflected power is high

Lockloss @ 03:36 UTC after 7 hours locked - link to lockloss tool

Possibly an ETM glitch? Hard to say, but the ground was mostly calm at the time, although it's shaking more now as H1 attempts to relock.

This is a look at the data that Camilla and TJ took in 85957, motivated by some modeling work that Kevin and Dan have been doing.  We took data to look at the squeezing rotation around the arm higher order modes, to compare to measurements that Kevin took using the ADF.  We borrowed Jeff's DCPD test matrix to create a DCPD sum channel at 524kHz, and used a modified version of Elenna's script to save 5 minutes of no squeezing data from the individual DCPDs. 85937

Process details:

The first plot here shows the spectra and cross correlation, subtraction and rebinning that I did.  We took 5 minutes of data for each of these traces, and 1 second FFTs, so we have 300 averages and the cross correlation asd should be a factor of 300^1/4 = 4 below the no squeezing asd.  (Thanks to Elenna for pointing out that I was doing this ratio for the PSD).  This is not far below the squeezing level, so when we do the subtraction of the cross correlation the squeezing data becomes noisy.  We could do this with shorter FFTs to get the cross correlation lower where the noise is uncorrelated between the two DCPDs, but we want to subtract some fairly narrow features from the spectra, so our best option if we are bothered by this noisy subtracted squeezing data would be to take a longer no squeezing time.   After doing the subtraction I rebinned the data to 3 Hz bins. 

Looking at higher order mode frequencies:

The next plot shows this data plotted in dB of squeezing, you can identify the higher order modes most clearly from looking at the mid squeezing data where the higher order modes cause a rotation of the squeezing angle. Zooming in on 10 kHz you can identify the higher order mode frequencies as roughly 10615+/5 Hz and 10565+/- 10Hz from the X arm modes (see 84172 for ID with X arm), with the uncertainty based on what I can place as limits by eye, which is worse for the lower mode.  The separation of these into different peaks means that there is some astigmatism in the X arm.  The y arm mode has much more correlated noise to subtract, and is sitting right under the forest of accoustic modes, but you can still see evidence of a rotation starting around 10.25kHz.  This data isn't clear enough to estimate if there is similar evidence of astigmatism in the y arm.  

Zooming in around 5kHz, we can see that there do seem to be two modes with rotations, one of them is sitting on top of a set of lines, but seems to be narrower than the other.  The broad mode is at  5345+/- 15 Hz Hz and the narrower one is at 5184+/- 4Hz .  Assuming that the second one is from the X arm based on the identification of the 2nd order modes, the second order mode frequency is 98.8+/- 0.3% of twice the first order mode frequency for the lower mode, and 99.3% +/-0.3% for the upper mode. This ratio is not 1 because the beam size of the 2nd order modes is slightly bigger than for the 1st order mode, since the mirror is non spherical its curvature is sightly different for the larger sized beam, so these ratios contain some information about how non spherical the mirrors are.

Squeezing loss and rotation estimates:

We can use this data to estimate a loss an rotation expirienced by the squeezing at these higher order modes.  Using the mean squeezing data, where the squeezing angle is completely uncontrolled, and Camilla's measurement of the nonlinear gain of 13.8 we can estimtae the total squeezing efficiency (using the notation from Aoki):