Sheila, Jennie W
We have some a series of peaks inthe DARM spectrum from 25-34 Hz, some of which have broad shoulders, which have been with us for a long time but are now more prominent due to improvements in low frequency sensitivity.
I took a 2mHz resolution spectrum from a time with good range last night (165 Mpc). I tried searching all of these frequencies on the alog but found none of them.
frequency (Hz) | |
25.223 | |
26.475 | maybe BS roll mode (0.3 Hz off) Jennie found HAM6 channels in Gabriele's BRUCO from last night around 26.5 Hz. This frequency shifted since March 31st when it was at 26.512 Hz. Jim found these peaks in HAM6 GS13s and HPI L4Cs, and sees them when the IFO is locked and unlocked. He also sees that the frequency of this line shifted slightly since March 31st in the seismic sensors, as in DARM |
27.418 | HSTS bounce modes could be candidates (these look closest): SRM, SR2, PR2, MC1, MC2 Jim also sees this in HAM6 GS13s and L4Cs. |
27.504 | SR2/SRM bounce modes are closest |
27.707 | SR3 bounce? |
28.217 | PR3 bounce BRUCO shows coherence with PRCL, which |
29.000 | suspicously close to exactly 29 Hz, Jim also sees this in HAM6 GS13s and L4Cs. |
29.971 | |
32.301 | broad shoulder, dramatic change with PRCL offset |
33.334 | |
33.428 | |
33.639 | PR2 coherence |
33.639 | |
33.513 | |
35.712 | |
40.938 | HSTS and HLTS roll modes, PR2 and MC2 are closest. 40.938*0.6666 is 27.291 Hz, not lining up exactly with any of the above. (see similar discussion here: 21696) |
In the resonances wiki there is a ERM mode listed at 25.6281 (calculated not measured). There is a BS roll mode (R3) calculated as 25.9175 Hz with a link to 49643, which suggests it is 26.06 Hz
Jennie searched Gabriele's Bruco from last night, and found that there are PRCL coherences for some of these peaks. I retook the 2mHz spectra for a comparison of the times before and after the PRCL offset was first tuned, you can toggle between this and this screenshot to see the difference. Since this PRCL offset was first put in, we have changed the BS camera spot position which brought back the board PRCL coherence this offset was getting rid of (76814). The PRCL offset did seem to reduce the broad noise in DARM around these peaks, as you can see in the third attachment with with more binning.
Here's a similar effort from a few weeks ago: 76505
Interestingly, some of the peaks appear to have moved:
25.194 to 25.225 Hz
26.536 to 26.477 Hz
27.041 Hz is gone
29.500 Hz is gone
33.591 to 33.642 Hz
35.221 to 35.400 Hz
39.800 Hz is gone
Following up from my alog77064 saying that this needed to change, today I moved SRY triggering from POP_A_DC to AS_C_NSUM with new trigger threshold of upper=0.005 and lower=0.004. This worked well and gave us a quick, well aligned DRMI during main locking. The Acquire_SRY state used to lower the trigger thresholds after a few minutes for times that we had less power on POP_A, I've removed the lowering but added a notification to check the alignment or triggering.
I've updated ALIGN_IFO to reflect this and committed to the SVN. I anticipate we might need to fine tune these thresholds over the coming weeks.
The ETMY HEPI pump tripped this morning around 14:35 UTC (7:35am PST) potentially from the CS power glitch? I ended up going out to the Yend mech room and reset the VFH panel to reset the HEPI pump controller. The light was still on when I first checked the panel, I pressed the green ON button first which did not fix the issue, I then cycled it off and back on, pressing the red then green button, confirming that the light went off and on which Jim confirmed to have fixed it. Jim then brought back the pressure to 70PSI from the Beckoff_Pump_Controller medm.
Verified the HEPI Beckhoff electronics are powered by 24V from the VAC-R1 rack. Vacuum rack is on UPS.
Thu Apr 11 10:12:01 2024 INFO: Fill completed in 11min 57secs
Jordan confirmed a good fill curbside
BruCo scan from a good range time from last night: https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~gabriele.vajente/bruco_1396823046_GDS_CALIB_CLEAN/
Some highlights:
The last two plots show what improvement in sensitivity we should be able to get by reducing the above noise couplings, and which of the above noises contribute most at each frequency. Those plots are produced by offline subtraction with NonSENS
The MSR UPS went onto battery backup for 2 seconds at 07:35:02 due to an AC power glitch.
TITLE: 04/11 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Aligning
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan C
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 3mph Gusts, 2mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.15 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: 17 hour lock ended about an hour ago. H1 is currently running an alignment, but stuck at green locking with no light on Y arm. HEPI and both ISI statges at EY have tripped during locking, not sure of the cause yet.
HEPI EY pump controller looks to have tripped off for some reason. I'll get ahold of Jim and continue investigating.
TITLE: 04/11 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 167Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan C
SHIFT SUMMARY: Very quiet shift (expect for the air handler) with H1 observing for all but 2 minutes.
H1 has now been locked for 10 hours.
LOG:
No log for this shift.
State of H1: Observing at 161Mpc
H1 has been locked for 6 hours, things are running smoothly.
Starting around 00:20 UTC (5:20pm PDT) this evening, the air has been much louder in the control room. Called Bubba to ask about it, and he says it's related to Eric's work today on the AHU-3 VAV (alog77092) and that the temporary ducting may have come undone. Other than it being louder in the control room, the duct should be fine and will be addressed in the morning.
I have not noticed a noticeable change in the IFO range since this noise increase, but I'll tag PEM and DetChar just in case.
This particular issue seems to have been caused by tubing coming loose from the pressure transducer for the supply fan on the hot deck side of AHU-3. The control system no longer had a reference for the fan static pressure and opened the vanes to maximum which sent the duct static pressure to over 3" W.C. The air handler ran this way all night until I was able to reconnect the tubing and reset the air handler.
TITLE: 04/10 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 157Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: TJ
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 6mph Gusts, 3mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.23 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: H1 has been locked and observing for 3 hours.
TITLE: 04/10 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 160Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan S
SHIFT SUMMARY: One lockloss today with an easy relock. Some calibration work on the HVAC system that caused more fan noise in the OSB from 15:00-16:00UTCish. Rest of the day was quiet. We hit our current highest O4b range, 167.6Mpc!
LOG:
15:00ish-15:30ish Calibration of the CS HVAC system(77092) - fans much louder than normal - tagging Detchar
15:00UTC Detector relocking and at LOWNOISE_ASC
15:06 NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE
15:09 Observing
15:45ish HVAC calibration done but fans still slightly louder than normal while cooling the CS to correct temps - detchar
18:15-18:19UTC Richard and Eric going into LVEA to check for HVAC noise - detchar
19:46 Lockloss
20:41 NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE
20:56 Observing
Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
14:59 | FAC | Karen | MY | n | Tech cleaning | 16:00 |
16:02 | VAC | Janos+others | MY | n | Vacuum tour | 18:17 |
18:15 | FAC | Richard, Eric | LVEA | n | Quick hvac noise check | 18:19 |
20:17 | VAC | Gerardo, Jordan | FCES | n | Checking cable racks | 21:00 |
21:39 | VAC | Gerardo | OSB receiving door | n | Moving stuff | 22:09 |
There's been three locklosses today 04/10 and they all seem like they could've been caused by the same issue. For all three locklosses, it looks like the lockloss was seen by L2 of all four quads before it was seen by DARM or ETMX L3, which are usually the first that we see the locklosses hit. These three locklosses were seen in the order of: both ITMs at the same time, then ETMX, then ETMY, followed by DARM and ETMX L3. It's possible that the 19:46 LL had ETMX L2 see it at the same time as the ITMs, but the other two locklosses (07:21UTC and 13:11UTC) look to have hit the ITMs first.
I also looked the the last lockloss before 04/10 where there wasn't high wind or commissioning as a comparison and that lockloss had ETMX L3 and DARM seeing it first, like usual.
Lockloss 2024/04/10 07:21:20UTC - 77080
- ALL quad L2s saw the lockloss before DARM or EX L3 - Order: ITMs, EX, EY
Lockloss 2024/04/10 13:11:12UTC - 77082
- Same as above Order: ITMs, EX, EY
Lockloss 2024/04/10 19:46:48UTC - 77093
- Same as above - ITMs+EXmaybe, EY
Lockloss 04/10 19:46 UTC
late alog from work done yesterday:
I bumped up the ETMX L2 line to keep the uncertainty in the kappa PUM SUS line below a threshold of 0.01. Uncertainties above 0.01 clash with the hourly uncertainty services that run on the ldas clusters.
command and output:
gpstime;val=1.7 && caput H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_CLKGAIN $val && caput H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_SINGAIN $val && caput H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_COSGAIN $val && caput H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_CLKGAIN $val && caput H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_SINGAIN $val && caput H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_COSGAIN $val
PDT: 2024-04-09 15:42:06.558045 PDT
UTC: 2024-04-09 22:42:06.558045 UTC
GPS: 1396737744.558045
Old : H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_CLKGAIN 1.5
New : H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_CLKGAIN 1.7
Old : H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_SINGAIN 1.5
New : H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_SINGAIN 1.7
Old : H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_COSGAIN 1.5
New : H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_COSGAIN 1.7
Old : H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_CLKGAIN 1.5
New : H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_CLKGAIN 1.7
Old : H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_SINGAIN 1.5
New : H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_SINGAIN 1.7
Old : H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_COSGAIN 1.5
New : H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_COSGAIN 1.7
The ETMX L2 cal line gains are set by ISC_LOCK during the TURN_ON_CALIBRATION_LINES state, so Louis's gain changes had been reverted when we relocked. I dropped H1 out of observing at 00:07 UTC to re-run the command from Louis's alog above, update the gain value in lscparams.py, load ISC_LOCK, and accept the associated SDF diffs (screenshot attached).
PDT: 2024-04-10 17:08:06.083606 PDT
UTC: 2024-04-11 00:08:06.083606 UTC
GPS: 1396829304.083606
Old : H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_CLKGAIN 1.5
New : H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_CLKGAIN 1.7
Old : H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_SINGAIN 1.5
New : H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_SINGAIN 1.7
Old : H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_COSGAIN 1.5
New : H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_COSGAIN 1.7
Old : H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_CLKGAIN 1.7
New : H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_CLKGAIN 1.7
Old : H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_SINGAIN 1.7
New : H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_SINGAIN 1.7
Old : H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_COSGAIN 1.7
New : H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_COSGAIN 1.7
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