Displaying reports 981-1000 of 85686.Go to page Start 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 End
Reports until 07:31, Sunday 28 September 2025
H1 General
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:31, Sunday 28 September 2025 (87184)
OPS Sunday Day shift start

TITLE: 09/28 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 153Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 9mph Gusts, 7mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.35 μm/s 
QUICK SUMMARY:

LHO General (OpsInfo, SUS)
ibrahim.abouelfettouh@LIGO.ORG - posted 05:16, Sunday 28 September 2025 - last comment - 09:36, Sunday 28 September 2025(87183)
OPS OWL Shift: SRM Tripped

Got called at 4:50 due to a mysterious SRM trip at 4:47 AM. IFO was in SRC ALIGN for initial alignment and SRM was railing during PREP_FOR_SRY. ST2 and ST3 sus tripped, which makes me think that initial alignment may have caused it? Microseism is on the rise but nothing jumps at me otherwise (attached).

Either way, I untripped it and waited until IFO got to DRMI which it just did. Flashes look good. Will continue light monitoring but I think guardia can take it from here.

Reset myself as the OWL.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - 09:36, Sunday 28 September 2025 (87185)SUS

Taking a look at some of the signals, SRM tripped at 11:47:36, about 30 seconds after it was aligned. An oscillation started ~5 seconds before the WD trip. ALIGN_IFO was starting SRC, the motion was mostly seen by the lower stage osems, M1 did not trip (barely, LF and RT saw an RMS of 140 where the trip threshold is 150). LF and RT seemed to see the largest motion, DAMP_Y_INMON was much larger than P which also tracks with that.

Images attached to this comment
LHO General
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:00, Saturday 27 September 2025 (87180)
Ops Eve Shift End

TITLE: 09/28 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 153Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
SHIFT SUMMARY: Quiet shift, locked for 5 hours. Range is much more stable than the last lock and up a few Mpc.
LOG:

LHO General
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:03, Saturday 27 September 2025 (87182)
Ops Eve Shift Start

TITLE: 09/28 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 156Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan C
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: USEISM
    Wind: 4mph Gusts, 1mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.33 μm/s 
QUICK SUMMARY: Just got back to observing after a 31 hour lock. 

H1 General
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:02, Saturday 27 September 2025 (87181)
Observing 2353 UTC

Relocking took a bit longer due to an earthquake off of the coast of oregon rolling through. The only thing of note was that I changed the threshold in ALIGN_IFO for the MICH Bright convergence checker from 1.5 to 2. This average convergence checker I've seen take longer then it should so I wanted to try to speed it up a bit.

H1 General
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:32, Saturday 27 September 2025 (87171)
OPS Monday Day shift summary

TITLE: 09/27 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Acquisition
INCOMING OPERATOR: TJ
SHIFT SUMMARY: The SQZer struggled a little before and during the calibration measurement, 1 lockloss that we are still recovering from (move spots as of 23:30).
LOG:                                                                                                                       

Start Time System Name Location Lazer_Haz Task Time End
16:48 VAC Pump LVEA N AIP pumping on HAM6 02:42
22:16 VAC TJ LVEA N Plug in ION pump 22:21
LHO FMCS
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:46, Saturday 27 September 2025 (87179)
Checking HVAC Fans - Weekly FAMIS

FAMIS26688

The EX fan2 is starting to get noisy. EY fan 1 is also starting to see some extra noise during the night (see the green trace on attachment 2).

Corner station and other outbuildings look good.

Images attached to this report
H1 SEI
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:40, Saturday 27 September 2025 (87178)
BRS Drift Trends -- Monthly

FAMIS26666

A few known blips from the power outage and the corrupted frames (alog86985), but it also looks like the temperature changed in both BRSs this week. I don't see any alogs on this, but it does seem to be putting it in the correct direction, leading me to think this was done by someone.

Other than that, the drift looks good.

Images attached to this report
H1 General (DetChar, OpsInfo, VE)
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:31, Saturday 27 September 2025 (87177)
Plugged in ion pump by HAM5 per VAC instruction

Yesterday Gerardo instructed my to plug in the ion pump that's on top of HAM5 if we have a lock loss. The plug and recepticle are located on the NW corner of HAM5. Turning on the ion pump will help transition off of the carts that are pumping there sooner than waiting until a weekday.

Images attached to this report
H1 General (Lockloss)
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:35, Saturday 27 September 2025 (87176)
21:34 UTC lockloss

21:34 UTC lockloss

H1 SQZ (SQZ)
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:13, Saturday 27 September 2025 - last comment - 15:11, Monday 29 September 2025(87175)
OPS Saturday DAY shift update - SQZ issues
Comments related to this report
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - 15:11, Monday 29 September 2025 (87204)

As Ryan correctly identified, the issue to why the SQZ dropped was there was no enough green power to keep the OPO ISS locked. So he had to reduced the setpoint in sqzparams from 80uW to 75uW. It wouldn't surprise me if this happens again as we are still close to the botton of the ISS's range.

Tomorrow AM we'll check if we can get any more power with the SHG waveplate, otherwise we may need to realign through the AOM and into the fiber again as we last did in 86323 or move crystal spots.

H1 CAL (CAL)
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:01, Saturday 27 September 2025 (87174)
Saturday calibration measurement

We have been locked for around 29 hours at the start of the measurement.

Broadband:

Start: 2025-09-27 19:23:09 UTC

Stop: 2025-09-27 12:28:20 UTC

Files: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/PCALY2DARM_BB/PCALY2DARM_BB_20250927T192309Z.xml
 

Simulines: The SQZer lost lock in the middle of this at 19:33, and wasn't able to relock until the measurement completed.

Start: 2025-09-27 19:28:45 UTC // 1443036543.471832 GPS

Stop: 2025-09-27 19:52 UTC // 1443037941.223046 GPS
Files:

2025-09-27 19:52:03,067 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/DARMOLG_SS/DARMOLG_SS_20250927T192846Z.hdf5
2025-09-27 19:52:03,076 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/PCALY2DARM_SS/PCALY2DARM_SS_20250927T192846Z.hdf5
2025-09-27 19:52:03,081 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L1_SS/SUSETMX_L1_SS_20250927T192846Z.hdf5
2025-09-27 19:52:03,085 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L2_SS/SUSETMX_L2_SS_20250927T192846Z.hdf5
2025-09-27 19:52:03,089 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L3_SS/SUSETMX_L3_SS_20250927T192846Z.hdf5

 

Images attached to this report
Non-image files attached to this report
H1 SUS (SUS)
edgard.bonilla@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:49, Saturday 27 September 2025 (87168)
M1, M2, and M3 OSEM calibration for PRM

I took Jeff's measruements for calibrating the PRM OSEMs [LHO: 87102] to calibrate the M1, M2 and M3 stages. [See similar calcs for SRM here: LHO: 87166]. I only analyzed the data for the ALIGNED position of the suspension.

The TL;DR is that the M1 calibrations are in line with expectations from PR3/SR3/SRM.
The M2 calibrations are all over the place, with the Left side OSEMs seeing the most chenges (factors of 3.6 for LL and 2.2 for LR)
The M3 calibrations are really off for the Left side OSEMs (factors of 10 (!) for LL and 4 for LR).
My expectation is that the yaw alignment is really pushing these OSEMs to a point where the nonlinear response has kicked in enough that the ir response is all wonky. I think we need to analyze this information more before drawing any snap conclusions. I will do this on Monday to be ahead of Tuesday maintenance

Here is the full output of the calibration script [see attached figures for the before and after comparison]:
______________________________________________________________________

OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-PRM
Frequency range for calibration: 6 to 15 Hz
Stages to be calibrated: ['M1' 'M2' 'M3']
Measurement date: 2025-09-23_1810 (UTC).


%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M1
%%%%%%%%%%%%

The suggested (calibrated) M1 OSEMINF gains are
(new T1) = 1.365 * (old T1) = 1.646
(new T2) = 1.265 * (old T2) = 1.370
(new T3) = 1.544 * (old T3) = 1.727
(new LF) = 1.702 * (old LF) = 1.840
(new RT) = 1.499 * (old RT) = 1.504
(new SD) = 1.627 * (old SD) = 1.808

To compensate for the OSEM gain changes, we estimate that the H1:SUS-PRM_M1_DAMP loops must be changed by factors of:
L gain = 0.627 * (old L gain)
T gain = 0.614 * (old T gain)
V gain = 0.726 * (old V gain)
R gain = 0.726 * (old R gain)
P gain = 0.719 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.627 * (old Y gain)

The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the M1 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process

The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * pinv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-09-23_1810 (UTC) as a reference, the new M1 apparent alignments are:

DOF        Previous value       New value            Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L          -78.6 um             -125.4 um              -46.8 um
T           83.9 um              136.5 um              +52.6 um
V           50.6 um              67.5 um               +16.8 um
R           64.4 urad            115.3 urad          +51.0 urad
P          -1229.3 urad         -1507.6 urad         -278.4 urad
Y          -45.2 urad            27.0 urad           +72.2 urad


%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M2
%%%%%%%%%%%%

The suggested (calibrated) M2 OSEMINF gains are
(new UL) = 1.162 * (old UL) = 1.428
(new LL) = 3.622 * (old LL) = 4.249
(new UR) = 1.141 * (old UR) = 1.344
(new LR) = 2.281 * (old LR) = 2.589

The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the M2 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process

The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * pinv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-09-23_1810 (UTC) as a reference, the new M2 apparent alignments are:

DOF        Previous value       New value            Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L           13.3 um              58.9 um               +45.6 um
P          -981.3 urad          -2050.3 urad         -1069.0 urad
Y           645.5 urad           905.7 urad          +260.1 urad


%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M3
%%%%%%%%%%%%

The suggested (calibrated) M3 OSEMINF gains are
(new UL) = 1.368 * (old UL) = 1.645
(new LL) = 10.906 * (old LL) = 13.240
(new UR) = 1.522 * (old UR) = 1.709
(new LR) = 4.051 * (old LR) = 4.756

The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the M3 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process

The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * pinv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-09-23_1810 (UTC) as a reference, the new M3 apparent alignments are:

DOF        Previous value       New value            Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L           68.5 um              551.8 um             +483.3 um
P          -1519.6 urad         -11711.4 urad        -10191.7 urad
Y          -344.6 urad          -6603.7 urad         -6259.1 urad

 

We have calculated a GS13 to OSEM calibration of H1 PRM ['M1' 'M2' 'M3'] using HAM2 ST1 drives from 2025-09-23_1810 (UTC).
We fit the response PRM_OSEMINF/HAM2_SUSPOINT to unity between 6 and 15 Hz to get a calibration such that 1 [OSEM m] = [GS13 m]

This message was generated automatically by OSEM_calibration_master.py on 2025-09-27 02:12:10.458163+00:00 UTC

 

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

EXTRA INFORMATION

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M1
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The H1:SUS-PRM_M1_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) T1: 1.206
(old) T2: 1.083
(old) T3: 1.119
(old) LF: 1.081
(old) RT: 1.003
(old) SD: 1.111

The matrix to convert from the old PRM M1 Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:

+1.601    -0.0    +0.0    +0.0    -0.0    -0.008
+0.0    +1.627    -0.0    +0.0    +0.0    +0.0
+0.0    -0.0    +1.385    -0.001    +0.002    -0.0
-0.0    +0.0    -0.326    +1.385    -0.035    +0.0
+0.0    -0.0    +4.675    -0.28    +1.404    -0.0
-1.265    +0.0    -0.0    -0.0    +0.0    +1.601

The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'T', 'V', 'R', 'P', 'Y')

%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M2
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The H1:SUS-PRM_M2_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) UL: 1.229
(old) LL: 1.173
(old) UR: 1.178
(old) LR: 1.135

To compensate for the M2 OSEM gain changes, any controllers using the M2 OSEMs as inputs must be compensated with gains of:
L gain = 0.611 * (old L gain)
P gain = 0.610 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.506 * (old Y gain)

The matrix to convert from the old PRM M2 Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:

+2.052    -0.043    -0.016
-18.856    +2.052    +0.33
-7.135    +0.33    +2.052

The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'P', 'Y')

%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M3
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The H1:SUS-PRM_M3_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) UL: 1.202
(old) LL: 1.214
(old) UR: 1.123
(old) LR: 1.174

To compensate for the M3 OSEM gain changes, any controllers using the M3 OSEMs as inputs must be compensated with gains of:
L gain = 0.424 * (old L gain)
P gain = 0.431 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.272 * (old Y gain)

The matrix to convert from the old PRM M3 Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:

+4.462    -0.144    -0.08
-63.208    +4.462    +1.752
-35.107    +1.752    +4.462

The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'P', 'Y')

Non-image files attached to this report
LHO VE
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:19, Saturday 27 September 2025 (87173)
Sat CP1 Fill

Sat Sep 27 10:10:23 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 10min 19secs

 

Images attached to this report
H1 CDS
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:30, Saturday 27 September 2025 (87172)
VACSTAT alarm, HAM1 00:27:47 PDT, sensor glitch

At 00:27:47 Sat 27 Sep 2025 PDT we got a VACSTAT alarm for a HAM1 sensor glitch.

The gauge read a pressure increase from 1.20e-07 to 3.61e-07 as a square wave for 2 seconds. VACSTAT slope just tripped at 1.0e-09, the deta-p did not trip as its level had been increased to 3.0e-07 to prevent such false positive alarms.

I reset the alarm by restarting the vacstat_ioc.service on cdsioc0 at 09:20.

Images attached to this report
H1 General (VE)
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:35, Saturday 27 September 2025 (87170)
OPS Saturday DAY shift start

TITLE: 09/27 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 150Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 4mph Gusts, 2mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.33 μm/s 
QUICK SUMMARY:

LHO General
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:01, Friday 26 September 2025 (87169)
Ops Eve Shift End

TITLE: 09/27 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 149Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
SHIFT SUMMARY: Locked for 14.5 hours. There is a very slight trend downward to the range that is starting to show up, It's maybe showing up from around 100-1000Hz based on a DARM comparison and the range BLRMS. Might be too early to tell though. 

ETMY roll mode has been stable, and violins looks great.
 

 

H1 SUS
edgard.bonilla@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:13, Friday 26 September 2025 (87166)
M1, M2, and M3 OSEM calibration for SRM

I used Oli's SRM OSEM calibration measurments from [LHO: 87112] to get the absolute calibration of the SRM OSEMs. I only bothered with the ALIGNED position because that's is the official set of measurements for calibration.

I also used a new, quasi-automated version of the calibration script used for the PR3 and SR3 suspensions. The script fits the 6-15 Hz data directly to 1 [OSEM m]/[GS13 m], no additional modelling is involved in the calibration.
The script's information, coordinates, and instructions will be the subject of a later logpost.

The results of the calibration are a mouthful because we are now doing M1, M2, and M3 all simultaneously.
The TL;DR is that the M1 OSEM calibrations seemed off by factors of 1.8 or so, larger than the SR3/PR3 averages, but not unexpected. 
The M2 and M3 absolute calibrations were surprisingly good. They were all high from the GS13 measurments by a factor of 10% or so, which leads me to believe this is likely not a coincidence and someone may have previously done an absolute calibration of the SRM M2/M3 OSEMs. I would love to confirm these suspicions, but such work may be lost to time.

See the PDFs attached for the before and after calibration for all three stages.

Here is the full calibration script output:

___________________________________________

OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-SRM
Frequency range for calibration: 6 to 15 Hz
Stages to be calibrated: ['M1' 'M2' 'M3']
Measurement date: 2025-09-23_1830 (UTC).


%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M1
%%%%%%%%%%%%

The suggested (calibrated) M1 OSEMINF gains are
(new T1) = 1.756 * (old T1) = 1.958
(new T2) = 1.806 * (old T2) = 2.127
(new T3) = 1.761 * (old T3) = 1.842
(new LF) = 1.945 * (old LF) = 2.102
(new RT) = 1.593 * (old RT) = 1.819
(new SD) = 1.525 * (old SD) = 1.794

To compensate for the OSEM gain changes, we estimate that the H1:SUS-SRM_M1_DAMP loops must be changed by factors of:
L gain = 0.571 * (old L gain)
T gain = 0.656 * (old T gain)
V gain = 0.565 * (old V gain)
R gain = 0.565 * (old R gain)
P gain = 0.561 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.571 * (old Y gain)

The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the M1 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process

The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * pinv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-09-23_1830 (UTC) as a reference, the new M1 apparent alignments are:

DOF        Previous value       New value            Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L          -37.1 um             -65.7 um               -28.6 um
T           45.4 um              69.2 um               +23.8 um
V           35.5 um              62.4 um               +27.0 um
R          -62.2 urad           -112.0 urad          -49.7 urad
P           1082.8 urad          1901.1 urad         +818.3 urad
Y           3.9 urad             88.6 urad           +84.8 urad


%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M2
%%%%%%%%%%%%

The suggested (calibrated) M2 OSEMINF gains are
(new UL) = 0.900 * (old UL) = 1.109
(new LL) = 0.838 * (old LL) = 1.082
(new UR) = 0.921 * (old UR) = 1.134
(new LR) = 0.939 * (old LR) = 1.293

The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the M2 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process

The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * pinv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-09-23_1830 (UTC) as a reference, the new M2 apparent alignments are:

DOF        Previous value       New value            Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L          -58.3 um             -52.7 um                +5.6 um
P           861.7 urad           772.3 urad          -89.4 urad
Y          -518.0 urad          -520.3 urad           -2.2 urad


%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M3
%%%%%%%%%%%%

The suggested (calibrated) M3 OSEMINF gains are
(new UL) = 0.939 * (old UL) = 1.267
(new LL) = 0.875 * (old LL) = 1.138
(new UR) = 0.903 * (old UR) = 1.170
(new LR) = 0.939 * (old LR) = 1.351

The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the M3 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process

The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * pinv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-09-23_1830 (UTC) as a reference, the new M3 apparent alignments are:

DOF        Previous value       New value            Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L          -72.1 um             -65.8 um                +6.4 um
P           923.6 urad           845.0 urad          -78.6 urad
Y          -459.5 urad          -453.6 urad           +5.9 urad

 

We have calculated a GS13 to OSEM calibration of H1 SRM ['M1' 'M2' 'M3'] using HAM5 ST1 drives from 2025-09-23_1830 (UTC).
We fit the response SRM_OSEMINF/HAM5_SUSPOINT to unity between 6 and 15 Hz to get a calibration such that 1 [OSEM m] = [GS13 m]

This message was generated automatically by OSEM_calibration_master.py on 2025-09-27 00:50:36.037056+00:00 UTC

 

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

EXTRA INFORMATION

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M1
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The H1:SUS-SRM_M1_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) T1: 1.115
(old) T2: 1.178
(old) T3: 1.046
(old) LF: 1.081
(old) RT: 1.142
(old) SD: 1.176

The matrix to convert from the old SRM M1 Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:

+1.769    -0.0    +0.0    +0.0    -0.0    -0.014
+0.0    +1.525    -0.0    +0.0    +0.0    +0.0
+0.0    +0.0    +1.77    -0.001    -0.0    +0.0
-0.0    -0.0    -0.224    +1.77    +0.006    -0.0
-0.0    -0.0    -0.761    +0.046    +1.783    -0.0
-2.203    +0.0    -0.0    -0.0    +0.0    +1.769

The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'T', 'V', 'R', 'P', 'Y')

%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M2
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The H1:SUS-SRM_M2_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) UL: 1.232
(old) LL: 1.291
(old) UR: 1.232
(old) LR: 1.377

To compensate for the M2 OSEM gain changes, any controllers using the M2 OSEMs as inputs must be compensated with gains of:
L gain = 1.113 * (old L gain)
P gain = 1.112 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 1.114 * (old Y gain)

The matrix to convert from the old SRM M2 Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:

+0.9    +0.001    +0.001
+0.227    +0.9    -0.02
+0.635    -0.02    +0.9

The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'P', 'Y')

%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M3
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The H1:SUS-SRM_M3_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) UL: 1.349
(old) LL: 1.300
(old) UR: 1.295
(old) LR: 1.439

To compensate for the M3 OSEM gain changes, any controllers using the M3 OSEMs as inputs must be compensated with gains of:
L gain = 1.094 * (old L gain)
P gain = 1.095 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 1.095 * (old Y gain)

The matrix to convert from the old SRM M3 Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:

+0.914    +0.0    +0.0
+0.147    +0.914    -0.025
+0.147    -0.025    +0.914

The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'P', 'Y')

 

Non-image files attached to this report
H1 SEI (SEI, SUS)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:17, Tuesday 23 September 2025 - last comment - 18:56, Friday 26 September 2025(87093)
H1 ISI HAM2 and ISI HAM5 EUL2CART Suspension Point Drive Matrices Changed from PR3/SR3 to PRM/SRM
J. Kissel

In prep for measuring the absolute calibration PRM and SRM OSEMs, I've changed the ISI HAM2 / HAM5 suspension point drive matrices to project from the PRM and SRM suspension points rather than PR3 and SR3 what we used when calibrating those top mass OSEMs.

Here's the method for installing these matrices:

>> addpath /ligo/svncommon/SeiSVN/seismic/Common/MatlabTools/
>> load /opt/rtcds/userapps/trunk/isc/common/projections/ISI2SUS_projection_file.mat;
>> ham2 = ISI2SUSprojections.h1.prm.EUL2CART;
>> fill_matrix_values('H1:ISI-HAM2_SUSPOINT_EUL2CART',ham2)
>> ham5 = ISI2SUSprojections.h1.srm.EUL2CART;
>> fill_matrix_values('H1:ISI-HAM5_SUSPOINT_EUL2CART',ham5)

Attached are screenshots of the matrix MEDM screens themselves and the SDF accept in the OBSERVE .snap files. 
Since these are used and moved around to calibrate each of the SUS in the chamber, and it's so simple to restore if lost, I'm not bothering to save the values in the ISI's safe.snap.
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
brian.lantz@LIGO.ORG - 09:26, Friday 26 September 2025 (87155)

WARNING:  We need to check this before we use it again. These projections were done for the sensors, not the actuators. 

The EUL basis -> ISI drives actuator matrix needs to be calculated and added to the suspoint projections script and data in the repo. Edgard says this should be the transpose of the sensor matrix, not the inverse. Documentation is in progress.
(EUL2CART and CART2EUL are both for the sensor projection, and are inverses of each other)

edgard.bonilla@LIGO.ORG - 18:56, Friday 26 September 2025 (87167)

Ohp. I made a mistake here.

The drive matrix calculation bit is true about applied drives. However, because the ISI drive requests here are made at the error point of the ISO loops, the inverse is actually correct. Nevermind what I said before.

Apologies for the confusion.

Displaying reports 981-1000 of 85686.Go to page Start 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 End