[Elenna, Gabriele]
Elenna did two PRCL noise injections, at times separated by about 1h40m. We measured the transfer function to the other LSC loops and to REFL_RIN, since we observed coherence of DARM with RIN and DARM with PRCL.
The most striking observations are:
The transfer function PRCL_IN1 / PRCL_OUT should be a good measurement of the optical gain. The gain measured the second time is ~0.75 the gain measured the first time. So we're losing PRCL optical gain over time. Not a new story. Probably thermal effects.
PRCL to MICH and SRCL coupling got smaller.
PRCL to CHARD_P got smaller, but PRCL to CHARD_Y got larger (by a factor 3-4, depending on frequency). This might be explained if the beam spot is moving on the PRM over time, in yaw, to increase the length to angle coupling. It's interesting that this is happening in yaw and we know we have a yaw alignment problem in the PRC.
Another interesting coupling is from PRCL to REFL_RIN. Ideally we should not have any linear coupling from PRCL to REFL power. This could happen if PRCL or CARM were locked off resonance. The fact that the coupling RIN / PRCL is getting larger (by a factor 2) might indicate that the PRCL (or CARM) offset is changing over time. Probably thermal effects? Maybe also related to the change in optical gain?
Following up on the PRCL to RIN coupling. From a measurement in 68899, I estimate that the PRCL actuation strenght is 1e-7 microns/cts at 4 Hz, assuming the SUS-ISCINF counts are the same as PRCL_OUT counts and that the OSEM L witness is calibrated in microns. This allows me to convert the REFL_RIN / PRCL_OUT in REFL_RIN / PRCL displacement. It is fairly flat, and in the two measurements it changed from 200 1/um to 400 1/um
From a simply double cavity model, one can compute the RIN in reflection as a function of the PRCL and CARM offsets from resonance. The actual REFL power depends a lot on the losses and reflectivity of the mirrors, and here I haven't included any sidebands. So this is at best an order of magnitude guess.
This simple model shows as expected a linear dependency of PRCL > RIN coupling with the PRCL offset. To explain the measured coupling one should have a PRCL offset between 0.025 and 0.050 nm. This seems small enough to be realistic.
My guess is that this offset is probably due to higher order modes created by the yaw misalignment in the PRC
Using the same actuation strenght estimate, and the measured TFs from PRCL_OUT to PRCL_IN1, we can estimate the PRCL optical gain in the two cases: 2.3e6 and 1.7e6 cts/micron, where cts are measured at PRCL_IN1.
So the offsets that minimize PRCL to RIN would be 58 and 85 counts.
TITLE: 03/29 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Commissioning
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
SHIFT SUMMARY:
Nominal_Low_Noise Reached at 20:03 UTC
The Following comissioning tasks were attempted:
Robert
Elenna PRCL (current doing 20mins)
Naoki 100/100 ASQZ
Jennie CMB OLG measure at 1h30 in NLN
Naoki 125/125 ASQZ (20mins) until 2:50pm
Robert (20mins) until 3:10pm
Elenna PRCL (~10mins) until 3:30pm
Robert (20mins)
Camilla FF injections (maybe- could wait until we're better thermalzied Monday)
last 2 did not finish.
Lockloss at 23:00 UTC
Unknown source of lockloss, but there was a PEM group member in the LVEA "unplugging stuff" when the lockloss happened. More investigations needed.
ScreenShots attached.
LOG:
Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
17:26 | ops | LVEA | corner | YES | LVEA is Laser HAZARD !!!! | 15:24 |
15:50 | PEM | Robert | LVEA | YES | Veiwport Cameras | 17:50 |
16:12 | ISC | JenneW & Camilla | LVEA | yes | Power Cycling SR785 | 16:24 |
20:10 | PEM | Robert | LVEA | YES | PEM Injections | 20:43 |
20:44 | PRCL | Elenna | Remote | N | PRCL Investigations | 20:56 |
20:57 | SQZ | Naoki | CrtlRm | N | 100/100 ASQZ | 21:21 |
21:24 | CARM | Jenne W | CtrlRm | N | Common mode board tests | 21:25 |
21:29 | SQZ | Naoki | CtrlRm | N | 125/125 ASQZ | 21:52 |
21:53 | PEM | Robert | CtrlRm | N | Shaking Injection on the input arm. | 22:10 |
22:19 | PRCL | Elenna | Remote | N | PRCL Measurements. | 22:33 |
22:35 | SQZ | Naoki | CrtlRm | N | Quiet Time no Sqz | 22:51 |
22:52 | PEM | Robert | CtrlRm | N | PEM Shaking input side @ 12.6hz | 23:00 |
Jenne, Jennie
As we were about to go to Observing today, we noticed two DIFFs in observe in EYISC model.
Looking through the alog Jenne noticed that Ryan accepted these diffs the other day, but they showed up the opposite way round as diffs today meaning the guardian changed them back as we locked. Therefore the evening operator should accept these diffs to be
2 for COMBOOST and 6 for IN1GAIN.
We took 10 minutes no sqz time.
PDT: 2024-03-29 15:41:17-15:51:17
UTC: 2024-03-29 22:41:17-22:51:17
GPS: 1395787295-1395787895
Camilla, Jennie W
Camilla and I measured the CARM loop after restarting the SR785 earlier.
We followed instructions here.
The OLG seems similar to two days ago after Sheila decreased the gain.
Our measurement was done about 1 hr and 17 mins into lock so while we were thermalising.
The measurement Sheila did was done about 2 hrs and 19 mins into lock.
Maybe we should measure this again during a well-thermalised lock so we will aim to do this on Monday.
Naoki, Nutsinee
We changed the PSAMS from 100/100 to 125/125. We ran the SCAN_ALIGNMENT with asqz-optimized. The result is here.
https://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/exports/SQZ/GRD/ZM_SCAN/240329142738/
The asqz and sqz time for 125/125 PSAMS is as follows.
asqz
PDT: 2024-03-29 14:37:25-14:42:25
UTC: 2024-03-29 21:37:25-21:42:25
GPS: 1395783463-1395783763
sqz
PDT: 2024-03-29 14:47:30-14:52:30
UTC: 2024-03-29 21:47:30-21:52:30
GPS: 1395784068-1395784368
Here's a PSDs of PSAMs 100/100 compared to 125/125. We reverted the PSAMs settings back to 100/100 after the test. ZMs alignments have been reverted back to when we had 100/100 (post SCAN_ALIGNMENT sctript). SQZ angle reverted to last night's lock (184 degree). We also put ZM4, 5, 6 slider bar back to MONITOR list. Changes of the slider values have been accepted in the SDF.
Sheila, Jennie W
[Log from Wednesday afternoon]
Sheila stopped the bias voltage on L3 ETMX stage as was done earlier today, at each stage we checked the DARM spectrum and the PCAL to DARM TF to make sure we are not getting confused by a noise change vs. a calibration change.
The PCAL to DARM measurements are saved in /ligo/home/jennifer.wright/Documents/Bias_ESD/2024-03-27-PCAL_DARM_BB.xml. The calibration doesn't change much between bias voltages of 140V and 190V but changes by about 2% in magnitude around 40-50Hz.
The DARM measurements are saved in /ligo/home/jennifer.wright/Documents/Bias_ESD/EX_bias_change_March2024_repeat.xml.
The top left graph compares the different measurements of calibrated CAL-DELTAL_EXTERNAL using 190 V bias, the bottom the different measurements using 415V and the right hand graph compares all of them. Maybe I can see a difference between 190V and 415V but it seems pretty noisy across measurements at the same voltage so hard to draw a conclusion.
Plot attached showing that the Higher Order Modes around 10.4 to 10.6kHz are in a similar position during ER16 (blue) that they were at the end of O4a (yellow).
This is expected as we have not changed the TCS system (CO2 and RH settings the same). Unsure why in the last long (2024/03/28) they are larger, the noise floor changes with SQZ but wouldn't expect the peaks to change much.
Vicky, Camilla. Attached plot has comparisons of No SQZ times, the noise floor at 10kHz seems to have decreased since O4a. Using times in Jennie's 76516 show similar noise floors.
Late alog: After the Emergency vent and OFI crystal swap in July/August, in late August we saw that the two HOM peaks had moved into a single peak. Plot: Blue = pre vent in July, Brown and green = Post vent in August.
Dan Brown made the quick model attached showing that the IFO to OMC mismatch does have an impact on the height of those peaks. From Dan: The plot looks at mode mismatch change and how laser frequency to DCPD coupling scales with it. If changing the OFI has modified the mode-matching or more likely just reduced HOM scattering then seeing smaller peaks could be due to that.
TITLE: 03/29 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Aligning
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 3mph Gusts, 1mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.30 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Relocking attempts:
Camillia Tried to manual Initial_Alignment IMC kept unlocking.
We moved IM1 and IM3 Both in Yaw. This did not help us.
We then tried reverting all (Except SQZ to GPS time: 1395555623 )
This helped our Diff beat note.but we could no longer get through ALIGN_IFO 's ACQUIRE_XARM_IR.
We got stuck waiting on H1:LSC-XARM_TRIG_INMON to go to 1. And it's flashes were just above 0.2.
After touching up IM4 and PR2 to try to get H1:LSC-XARM_TRIG_INMON to go above 0.2 ( the trigger threshhold : H1:LSC-XARM_TRIG_THRESH_ON)
Camilla and I thought at first, that touching these sliders could possibly help us increase those flashed to 0.2 , but after a while we felt that we were just fooling our selves and all the flashes were random. Some of those flashes were above 0.2, and ALIGN_IFO still did not move forward.
Jenne Driggers and I then restarted Manual_ Initial_Alignment to see if it was a green arms issue.
X-Arm has been much more difficult to lock since tise.
XArm ITM camera Error signal may not be benificial: We did alignment without the servo just using the TMS WFS instead.
We tried to go to ACQUIRE_XARM_IR and got stuck again then dropped back to Green arms to find our green arms had been reduced back down to 0.4 again the second time. That error signal was ignored for this attempt at Alignment.
we have gone back to ALIGN_IFO's ACQUIRE_XARM_IR and tried to lock XARM IR
Touching IM4 and PR2 again.
Increased gain H1:LSC-XARM_GAIN, -> This did not work.
Jenne D. is Watching H1:LSC-XARM_TRIG_INMON to try and increase flashes manually by touching up IM4 and PR2 again. Once again this is not helpful.
Align_IFO set to SET_SUS_FOR_ALS_FPMI
Restored ALL Sliders (EXCEPT SQZ) to GPSTIME: 1395555752 (A little after ALIGN_IFO had gone to SET_SUS_FOR_ALS_FPMI [5] just after initial alignment completed.)
Touched up Both arms. X arm ALS CAM Error signal looks much better this time.
Took ALS_XARM and ALS_YARM to Initial alignment then Initial alignment offloaded.
Took ALIGN_IFO to ACQUIRE_XARM_IR with out an increase in gain.
We are currently in PRC_ALIGN trying to manually align.
I updated the picket fence code to swap the US_HLID station with the US_HWUT station. The new picket map is shown in the attached png.
We should be expecting about 130 seconds of warning [considering the 35 seconds of latency we get from the NEIC servers (for 95% of the data), and the 5 seconds delay from our real-time filter]. The amplitude peak is within a factor of 2 of the one seen at LHO, comparable to the overall performance of other picket stations. The full analysis of the station is posted in SEI alog 2431
To get the update, git pull at the picket fence folder
Fri Mar 29 10:10:45 2024 INFO: Fill completed in 10min 42secs
Gerardo confirmed a good fill curbside.
Jennie W, Camlla
We went onto the floor while initial alignment was happening to power cycle the SR785 which has been plugged into the common mode board (by the PSL racks) since yesterday.
It had stopped responding yesterday afternoon so I moved the knob to wake it up and power cycled it via the switch at the back of the unit.
When we got back to the control room I pinged it via
10.22.10.30
which is its IP address I think mentioned in this alog.
I will try doing some CARM OLG measurements today once we get locked.
TITLE: 03/29 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Aligning
OUTGOING OPERATOR: None
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: SEISMON_ALERT
Wind: 5mph Gusts, 4mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.30 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
When I arrived H1_Manager had requested assitance.
And had ISC_LOCK in Initial_Alignment for 4 hours.
I stopped it because it was saturating the suspentions and had been for over an hour.
The Diff beatnote seems low. I'll be touching up the beat note.
LVEA is LASER Hazard still.
Air ligo system beeped and ran out of batteries.
We changed the PSAMS from 150/90 to 100/100 and ran the SCAN_ALIGNMENT with sqz-optimized. We will leave this PSAMS setting tonight. The result of SCAN_ALIGNMENT is here.
https://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/exports/SQZ/GRD/ZM_SCAN/240328143140/
We ran the SCAN_ALIGNMENT with asqz-optimized. The result is here.
https://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/exports/SQZ/GRD/ZM_SCAN/240329140112/
The quiet asqz time for 100/100 is as follows.
PDT: 2024/3/29 14:11:30-14:21:30
UTC: 2024/3/29 21:11:30-21:21:30
GPS: 1395781908-1395782508
Naoki, Vicky, Sheila, Camilla
To scan the sqz angle to optimize the squeezing in the bucket, we copied the SCAN_SQZANG state in SQZ_MANAGER guardian in LLO. This state will find the optimal sqz angle to minimize the BLRMS3 at 350 Hz. We replaced the 0.1 Hz LP with 1 Hz LP for BLRMS3. We will test this state tomorrow.
We tested the SCAN_SQZANG state and it seems to work. The result is saved here.
https://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/exports/SQZ/GRD/SQZANG_SCAN/
TITLE: 03/28 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Wind
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Corey
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: USEISM
Wind: 10mph Gusts, 7mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.54 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Into Observing at 23:45UTC
MC1 and MC3 cameras went offline between 11:00 and 12:00 Thursday morning. I cannot ping the cameras (h1cam07, h1cam12). I powercycled the network switch ports for these cameras, with no change. Looks like these cameras are disconnected from the ethernet.
All three times we tried to move the input beam (76534, 76607 and yesterday), we caused a lock loss when moving in the yaw direction.
Approximate lock loss times: 1394946678 1395096385 1395535842
All lock losses appear to show the same behavior:
Those lock losses are indeed very fast, and this seems to point to a CARM problem.
Some smart person suggested t check the ISS loops as the cause of those lock loss. It looks like this is the culprit: the ISS second lop is the first one to go crazy before each of those three lock losses. The error and control signals both go away from their trend value when we see the first jump in IMC transmitted power.
So maybe the ISS second is very marginal now.
Agreed, here are some more plots, it looks like we are probably saturating the AOM when we unclip the beam going into the second loop ISS array.
Also, it is interesting that looking at these times the out of loop PD power seems to increase as we move the input pointing (shown in the last plot, but similar for all three of these).
Edit: Keita suggested looking at indivdual PDs on the ISS, indeed the indivdual PDs are moving in different directions.
Artem, Camilla
After suggestion from Jeff and Edgard, we've adjusted the In-lock Charge Measurements Frequencies to avoid the 14Hz Roll mode. Measurements were taken last week 76331 and are scheduled for tomorrow AM. We check that results are not effected by this change tomorrow. Reminder to avoid 11Hz for ETMX 68034.
Old | New | |
ITMX | 14Hz | 13Hz |
ITMY | 15Hz | 15Hz |
ETMX | 13Hz | 12Hz |
ETMY | 12Hz | 12Hz |
Before we all forget, just to mention it here: frequencies were reverted back to defaults (left column) before latest attempt of in-lock charge measurements (that caused lock loss 76604). The idea was to repeat "old" setup before trying new one, but we never got the chance before lock loss. Whoever follows up on this, please try to set new drive frequencies (on the right) at some point.