Naoki, Corey, Vicky
Corey is taking it to OBSERVE without squeezing tonight.
We traced down an issue to FC2 0.3-0.5 Hz oscillations, which maybe is worse right now due to wind. We think this excess FC2 motion is preventing FC from locking.
FC2 0.3-0.5 Hz oscillations screenshot - see the FC Green VCO control signal trying to lock and failing - at the same time, we can see the FC2_M1_L oscillations around 0.4 Hz, even with no control signals sent to FC2 SUS. So, seems like FCGS VCO is trying to track the FC2 L oscillations, but the real FC2 motion is too much for the FCGS VCO to hold lock, and this prevents further locking. Corey says perhaps this FC2 motion is extra bad right now due to the wind. I don't remember this issue in O4a. Without FC2 L motion calming down a bit, I don't think we can hold a stable FC lock.
So, we decided to go to Observe without SQZ tonight, at least until the wind calms down. Maybe could try SQZ later if wind calms down.
Edit: It seems FC has been struggling to lock with winds > 30-40 MPH these last couple days, see screenshot with FC locking and wind speeds.
Rahul, Corey, Naoki
Rahul found that FC2 M1 OSEM OFFSET were OFF, which should be ON. He will report the detail later. After we turned on the offset, FDS was recovered. So we went to observing with squeezing.
As I was getting ready to change H1 configuration for NLN w/ NO Squeezing, Rahul mentioned the input filters for the FC2. So, before I changed anything, we halted No-Squeezing and decided to try for Squeezing---Naoki was able to get us there fairly quick. And then we went to Observing.....but this only lasted about 30min before the FC unlocked again. (this also happened to coincide with winds increasing again with gusts touching 40mph)
So we may still have an issue with FC2/HAM8 isi shaking (I believe Naoki & Jim were saying the noise is around 0.3Hz.)
I will return to following the procedure for No-Squeezing as Vicky posted originally.
And just like that, H1 had a lockloss.....about 5-sec prior to the lockloss I heard a loud creak in the Control Room/building which I'm assuming is due to a big wind gust. :( (see attached for a look at the winds---it's windier than last night! And last night at around this time is when the winds increased and the SQZ started having issues during a 4hr wind storm)
I still have NOT made the changes to SQZ guardians for NO SQUEEZING.
I have switched ON the osem input filters after they were found to be OFF on SUSFC2 (HAM8) and have also accepted them in the SDF.
TITLE: 04/15 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 161Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: TJ
SHIFT SUMMARY:
With another 4hr wind storm, Squeezing wasn't possible due to a noisy HAM8 & an FC2 mirror oscillating at 0.35Hz. This wind storm also caused a lockloss. Initial Alignment was run (skipping SRC). Winds calmed, and made it to Observing w/ Squeezing due to quieter conditions. Overall about 5hrs of downtime due to winds preventing Squeezing and causing a lockloss.
LOG:
Similar to yesterday, we had a 4hr wind storm. This caused issues with the Squeezer during the last lock and then eventually had gusts that rumbled the detector for a lockloss! Reacquisition was tough, so optedfor a "partial" Initial Alignment (skipping SRC since SRY doesn't acquire). After an IA, H1 locked on its first attempt.
Aaaaaand, we also have Squeezing....BECAUSE...30min ago the wind storm calmed down! (and I was all ready to make changes to SQZ nominal states for guardian nodes!)
I believe SQZ_FC now has the ASC "on" from Naoki's earlier work, so I ACCEPTED the SDF diffs for this (attached).
H1 just had a lockloss (after 10.5hr lock) due to a big wind gust (coincident with an audible "creak" in the Control Room). Prior to this, coincident with the beginning of this current wind storm about 3.5hrs ago, the Squeezer unlocked taking us out of Observe (similar to last night when wind storm occurred). Naoki & Vicky spent a bit of time trying to get the squeezer back, but I overheard them talking about lots of motion on SQZ optics).
Was getting ready to transition H1 to a No Squeezing state for the night, but the Squeezer locked back up (see Naoki/Rahul alog). But it only lasted 30min until winds increased.
Here we are after the H1 lockloss. By default, will see if Squeezing is possible, but if we run into the same issues & it's windy, will transition H1 for No-Squeezing operations for the night.
Fernando, Dave:
We have released a new SUS Oplev Overview MEDM in which the BSC oplevs have CONTROL buttons to open Fernando's control screens.
I took the opportunity to macrotize the overview, with the oveview opening two MICRO MEDMs: H1SUS_OPLEV_MICRO.adl is opened directly for the HLTSs, and H1SUS_OPLEV_WCTRL_MICRO.adl is opened for the BSCs. The latter in turn opens H1SUS_OPLEV_MICRO.adl and adds the CONTROL button. The control adl file resides in the SYS/H1/MEDM directory and is called H1SYS_OPLEV_CONTROL.adl.
The new Oplev Overview was created in the SUS/H1/MEDM directory, the original remains in the SUS/COMMON/MEDM directory and has not been modified.
To see the new Oplev MEDM you will need to start a new SITEMAP.
Attachment shows the Overview MEDM, with ETMY's Control MEDM superimposed.
TITLE: 04/15 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 154Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan C
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: SEISMON_ALERT
Wind: 10mph Gusts, 5mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.04 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.15 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Nicely Observing H1 handed off by RyanC. He mentioned, same issue with SRC for alignment and needing to skip it (that's atleast 3x in a row). He also mentioned a drop out of Observing due to SQZ_FC as observed last night (and tweaks Naoki made for this). Currently, waiting for a M5.9 S.Korea earthquake to roll through with its R-wave in 10min.
Forgot my log
Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
15:20 | FAC | Chris | FCES | N | Move snorkle lift to FCES | 16:20 |
16:03 | FAC | Kim | MidX | n | Tech clean | 17:03 |
18:04 | EE | Fil | MidY | n | Parts search | 19:04 |
17:10 | CAL | Francisco | PCAL lab | LOCAL | PCAL work | 20:10 |
18:18 | FAC | Tyler | AHU | N | AHU1 fan | 18:35 |
TITLE: 04/15 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 154Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Corey
SHIFT SUMMARY: We stayed locked the whole shift after locking.
The wind started to pickup in the early afternoon, gust over 30mph
Lock#1
Found the IFO in IA, stuck at SRY. I adjusted SRM to maximise the spot on AS AIR then got out of IA and was able to lock. It took a few tries, ALS was getting knocked out by the wind possibly.
LOG:
Jeff K, Sheila D
We are interested in which signals we can use to try to damp triple bounce and roll modes, since these are probably responsible for some of the peaks in our forest of peaks around 25-35Hz (77109 and 76505). Jeff is preparing to implement a damping path on the HSTSs so that we can try to damp these.
We looked at signals (in addition to DARM) that we may want as options for damping.
Dtt template is at /ligo/home/sheila.dwyer/SUS/HSTS_damping_signals_checks.xml
"Yes and..." Here're some plots that demonstrate the coupling between these modes and ISC channels - at higher resolution, - separated into ASC and LSC signals, and - with the individual optics called out as per their ID in LHO:49643 In addition to the region that Sheila focuses on, 27 Hz and 28.5 Hz to isolate the highest vertical modes of the recycling cavity HSTS and HLTSs, I also show the 40-42 Hz region to show the highest roll modes of the recycling cavity HSTSs. (Note, I looked around ~45 Hz for the highest HLTS vertical modes, but they did not appear in DARM, nor any of these other sensors.) This should help us pick the error signals, and/or how much damping we should expect to get, if we don't want to use DARM_CTRL as our error signal (due to concerns about parasitic loops, or needed to account for it inn the DARM calibration, etc.).
Apologies. In my haste to produce the plots, I didn't read all the elements in the table of SUS resonances reported in LHO:49643, and incorrectly assumed that the table was sorted by frequency, picking off the first listed suspension that was close. Thus, in the first two attachments, - 2024-04-15_HXTS_HighestVModes_Labeled_DARM_and_ASC_Signals.png and - 2024-04-15_HXTS_HighestVModes_Labeled_DARM_and_LSC_Signals.png I claim that the mode at ~27.42 +/- 0.01 Hz is SRM in these spectra (id'ed at 27.45 Hz in LHO:49643), but PR2 and MC3 are closer possibilities (id'ed at 27.41 and 27.42 Hz in LHO:49643). To definitively assign these modes to suspensions, we'll likely have to do some driven tests at high frequency resolution.
FranciscoL, RickS
On April 4, 2024 we used DTT to measure the amplitudes of the Pcal lines used in the Pcal X/Y calibration comparison in both the Pcal end station Rx sensor outputs and the DARM_ERR signal. The attached plots shows the peaks in the spectra measured with 0.001 Hz requested BW, 50% overlap, 10 averages during a long lock stretch. The second image is a page from Francisco's lab book.
The SNRs for the lines from the Pcal Rx sensors is about 5e-5 and
the SNRs of the lines in the DARM_ERR signal are about 1350.
Typo: The SNRs for the lines from the Pcal Rx sensors is about 5e-5 --> 5e5
Since the sqz angle seemed not optimized and range was below 160 Mpc in this lock, I tuned the sqz angle during observing after 4 hours into lock. The attachment shows that sqz and range improved with sqz angle at 200. The previous sqz angle was 192 and it was set just after the lock in 77144.
We've been locked for 3 hours, in observing since 16:10 UTC. SQZing has been getting better as we thermalize.
The SQZ_FC lost lock and dropped us from observing at 19:27UTC, back at 19:29
TITLE: 04/15 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Aligning
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Tony
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 11mph Gusts, 8mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.13 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
I powercycled ITMY camera (h1cam23) and restarted its server process on h1digivideo2. All looks good now, the camera went down at 04:33 Sun 14th PDT.
Vicky, Naoki
In the last lock, the FC IR kept unlocking. We first thought the timer issue similar to 76280 so we removed the timer, but it did not help. We checked the FC IR OLG and it was fine. Then we found that the FC ASC input signal moved a lot. We turned off FC ASC and the stability was improved. We decided to go to observe without FC ASC tonight.
As a separate issue (I think) than FC not locking, the pump ISS control voltage was dropping below 2V and losing lock. I aligned the fiber polarization, but more importantly sent more power from the pump aom to the fiber, aka reduced the rejected power on H1:SQZ-SHG_REJECTED_DC_POWERMON, to keep pump ISS locked. On a Tuesday with extra time, might be worth checking if the pump path alignment (pump aom + fiber) is still good.
Once we got back to NLN, continued to have the issue with SQZ_FC unlocking. Naoki & Vicky continued to work on it.
Currently we have SQUEEZING.
To get to OBSERVING, I had to ACCEPT some Diffs (see attached).
If the SQZ_FC unlocks again, Operators should take steps to put H1 in NLN + NO SQUEEZING (I'm set up to follow the procedure to do this if it happens in the next 45min, otherwise, I sent a text to the OWL shift operator.)
See LHO:77188 - these FC locking issues seem correlated with >30-40 mph winds, likely moving FC2 SUS too much to hold lock. We had seen the FCGS trans beam (on SQZT8 in FCES) moving a lot on the camera, which suggested the FC cavity axis was moving a lot. This is why we disabled FC ASC this night. If that helped, it's b/c FC2 SUS, aka the FC cavity axis, was moving due to winds. We traced this down the following night 77188 when higher winds prevented even FC green VCO locking, and we saw the FCGS control signal was railing and correlated with FC2 SUS motion with no control signal.
Both nights (this and following one) - FC locked overnight once winds calmed down, see screenshot.
Eric, Naoki, Vicky, Jennie W, Sheila
We did SQZ OMC mode scan with cold OM2. The PSAMS is 175/100 (strain voltage 8.9/-0.69). The attached figure shows the result (ref 34). The SQZ OMC mode matching is 0.64/(0.64+2*0.03)~91.4%.
We followed the instruction in 74892. Here are some notes.
PSAMS 175/100, cold OM2
DARK
I used my code to fit the scan and C02 peak for this scan. As we saw with the PSL beam the new OMC means we cannot resolve these two peaks.
But if I assume one is buried in the noise and do the fit anyway we get (0.027 - 0.0038)/(0.027 + 0.64 - 0.0038) = 3.5% mode-mismatch for the squeezed beam matching to the OMC, with a fitted HWHM of 0.33 MHz.
NB: The factor 0.0038 mA is what I had to add to the scan data to shift the baseline to be above zero otherwise the fitting doesn't work well.
If I just use the measured height of C02 from the full scan (which is like assuming both C02 and C20 are overlapped) the mode-mismatch would be (0.029 - 0.0038)/(0.029 + 0.64 - 0.0038) = 3.8 %.
The OMC (001 is the current) parameters are given in this alog by Matt Todd, this gives a value for the half-width at half-maximum of 0.31MHz which matches our fitted one fairly closely.
The C02 peak graph (second image) has the OMC scan data in blue, fit in red, and initial guesses for the fit in purple.
Looking at this SQZ-OMC mode scan (data, mode scan), and running the same scripts as before (e.g. LHO:70866), this loss estimate based on OMC visibility using the squeezer beam doesn't really make sense. Hopefully PSL scans will make more sense. May be worth re-taking this squeezer measurement sometime.
Mode-matching and visibility make sense: Single-bounce SQZ-OMC mode mismatch ~ 4% based on TEM02/20 is consistent with Jennie's peak fitting, HOM content ~ 9-12%, and OMC locked/unlocked visibility = 1-locked/unlocked ~ 90%.
Loss estimate does not make sense: the inferred OMC transmission is ~72%, and if we ignore mode mismatch (ie assume 100% matching) this corresponds to an OMC transmission of 81%. But ~20% omc loss is ruled out by observed squeezing levels.
5.4 dB SQZ corresponds to a total loss of 20-25%, see params below including 12.3% expected sqz losses. This limits OMC losses < 10-15%, if assuming no mode-mismtch. With mode-mismatch, squeezing suggests OMC losses << 10%. This is not saying much, except this measurement is off.
So squeezing rules out the ~20% omc losses inferred from this sqz-omc visibility measurement. I'm not sure what is exactly is wrong, but in the mode scan, there was considerable TEM01/10 misalignment despite running OMC ASC + manual alignment. Unsure if alignment is the issue, or maybe something wasn't right with the squeezer beam, such that alignment couldn't improve (worth checking the beam round-ness on sqzt7?).
Script output below (code in git). Running this and Sheila's script in LHO:70866, I get the same output. So, the script seems OK, but something else is wrong with this measurement.
--------------- er16 sqz ------------------ processing measurement for er16 sqz P_Refl_on_res*1e3 = 0.12831 mA P_Refl_off_res*1e3 = 1.00626 mA Trans_A*1e3 = 0.62987 mA (I assume OMC-DCPD_SUM_OUTPUT is calibrated into mA with the new OMC, I did not check this calibration.) removed trans blocked of -0.00332 mA Power on refl diode when cavity is off-resonance: 1.006 mW Power on refl diode when cavity is on-resonance: 0.128 mW Trans power when cavity is on-resonance: 0.734 mW Incident power on OMC breadboard (before QPD pickoff): 1.026 mW Measured efficiency (DCPD current/responsivity if QE=1)/ incident power on OMC breadboard: 71.546 % Using 4.0% mode-mismatch from Jennie peak fitting, visibiilty_00*100 = 90.885% assumed QE: 100 % power in transmission (for this QE) 0.734 mW HOM content infered (like mode matching): 11.964 % Cavity transmission infered: 82.057 % predicted efficiency () (R_inputBS * mode_matching * cavity_transmission * QE): 71.546 % omc efficency for 00 mode (incl R_inBS * cavity_transmission * QE, no mm): 81.270 % round trip loss: 1606 (ppm) Finesse: 372.613