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.
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')
TITLE: 09/26 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 149Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 11mph Gusts, 6mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.04 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.33 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: Locked for 9 hours, calm environment. The ETMY roll mode seems to be under control. It does "breathe" up and down a bit, but it isn't growing.
TITLE: 09/26 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 150Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: TJ
SHIFT SUMMARY: We stayed locked the entire shift, 9 hours at the end of the shift. Secondary microseism is still rising.
LOG:
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16:48 | VAC | Pump | LVEA | N | AIP pumping on HAM6 | 23:43 |
| 16:27 | TCS | Camilla | VAP prep lab | N | Check on parts dimensions, cheeta | 16:39 |
| 23:20 | CAL | Dripta | Optics lab | LOCAL | PCAL checks | 23:29 |
Closes FAMIS 28424, last checked in alog 86887.
Measurements did not seem to run last week (and couldn't find an alog for it), but did this week.
ITMX did not run this week - just like the previous check on 09/09.
I didn't capture a screenshot in time but I recall the same message from the last check:
"Cannot calculate beta/beta2 because some measurements failed or have insufficient coherence!
Cannot calculate alpha/gamma because some measurements failed or have insufficient coherence!
Something went wrong with analysis, skipping ITMX_13_Hz_1440859844"
Plots attached.
It seems like the charge on ETMX is increasing as seen by a few different metrics...
Currently the 'ETMX_L3_LOCK_BIAS_OFFSET' we use while locked is +6.05425, the sign is flipped when we are down. Specifically in the PREP_FOR_LOCKING main() fx it's set to -8.9, and it looks to be switching the value as expected.
There's not all that much we can do about this right now, we should keep an eye on it and make sure the values are flipped during maintenance windows (they should be since it's in GRD).
This errata is the SR3 version of [LHO: 87160] that dealt with PR3.
While double-checking the PR3/SR3 OSEM calibration script, I noticed a typo on the printing output of the function that generated the logpost [LHO: 85907].
No changes need to be made because the calculated M1 OSEM calibrations and M1_DAMP gains are both correct. Plots and other visual documentation is all correct too.
However, the expected alignments posted in [LHO: 85907] were wrong, as the (old EUL) to (new EUL) transformation matrix was accidentally inverted.
I post here the corrected script output for the SR3 OSEM calibration for the sake of documentation and transparency. Note that the theoretically calculated alignment values match the observed ones for SR3 too [see attached screenshot]
_____________________________________________________
OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-SR3
Stage: M1
2025-07-22_1530 (UTC).
The suggested (calibrated) M1 OSEMINF gains are
(new T1) = 2.174 * (old T1) = 3.213
(new T2) = 1.610 * (old T2) = 1.517
(new T3) = 1.569 * (old T3) = 1.494
(new LF) = 1.331 * (old LF) = 1.733
(new RT) = 1.374 * (old RT) = 1.494
(new SD) = 1.390 * (old SD) = 1.793
To compensate for the OSEM gain changes, we estimate that the H1:SUS-SR3_M1_DAMP loops must be changed by factors of:
L gain = 0.740 * (old L gain)
T gain = 0.719 * (old T gain)
V gain = 0.545 * (old V gain)
R gain = 0.545 * (old R gain)
P gain = 0.629 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.740 * (old Y gain)
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the at 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 * inv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-07-22_1530 (UTC) as a reference, the new apparent alingments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L -5.0 um -7.7 um -2.8 um
T -21.6 um -30.0 um -8.4 um
V 11.8 um 10.6 um -1.2 um
R -576.3 urad -1036.9 urad -460.6 urad
P -266.5 urad -447.4 urad -180.8 urad
Y -585.0 urad -792.6 urad -207.6 urad
We have estimated a OSEM calibration of H1 SR3 M1 using HAM5 ST1 drives from 2025-05-21_0000 (UTC).
We fit the response M1_DAMP/HAM5_SUSPOINT between 5 and 15 Hz to get a calibration in [OSEM m]/[GS13 m]
This message was generated automatically by OSEM_calibration_SR3.py on 2025-09-26 21:16:58.591270+00:00 UTC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
EXTRA INFORMATION
The H1:SUS-SR3_M1_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) T1: 1.478
(old) T2: 0.942
(old) T3: 0.952
(old) LF: 1.302
(old) RT: 1.087
(old) SD: 1.290
The matrix to convert from the old Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+1.353 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.002
+0.0 +1.39 +0.0 -0.0 -0.0 +0.0
+0.0 +0.0 +1.882 +0.02 -0.0 -0.0
+0.0 -0.0 +4.175 +1.882 +0.007 +0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.454 +0.032 +1.59 +0.0
+0.27 -0.0 -0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +1.353
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'T', 'V', 'R', 'P', 'Y')
While double-checking the PR3 OSEM calibration script, I noticed a typo on the printing output of the function that generated the logpost [LHO: 86222].
No changes need to be made because the calculated M1 OSEM calibrations and M1_DAMP gains are both correct.
However, the expected alignments posted in [LHO: 86222] were wrong, as the (old EUL) to (new EUL) transformation matrix was accidentally inverted.
I post here the corrected script output for the PR3 OSEM calibration for the sake of documentation and transparency. Note that the theoretically expected alignment values are in line with the observed ones [see attached screenshot]
____
OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-PR3
Stage: M1
2025-08-05_1700 (UTC).
The suggested (calibrated) M1 OSEMINF gains are
(new T1) = 1.770 * (old T1) = 2.055
(new T2) = 1.547 * (old T2) = 1.544
(new T3) = 1.443 * (old T3) = 1.511
(new LF) = 1.590 * (old LF) = 1.862
(new RT) = 1.774 * (old RT) = 2.063
(new SD) = 1.543 * (old SD) = 1.639
To compensate for the OSEM gain changes, we estimate that the H1:SUS-PR3_M1_DAMP loops must be changed by factors of:
L gain = 0.596 * (old L gain)
T gain = 0.648 * (old T gain)
V gain = 0.617 * (old V gain)
R gain = 0.617 * (old R gain)
P gain = 0.670 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.596 * (old Y gain)
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the at 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 * inv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-08-05_1700 (UTC) as a reference, the new apparent alingments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L -57.1 um -97.3 um -40.2 um
T -101.3 um -156.3 um -55.0 um
V 62.4 um 106.7 um +44.4 um
R 433.5 urad 819.6 urad +386.1 urad
P -631.8 urad -981.5 urad -349.7 urad
Y -166.7 urad -345.9 urad -179.3 urad
We have estimated a OSEM calibration of H1 PR3 M1 using HAM2 ST1 drives from 2025-05-21_0000 (UTC).
We fit the response M1_DAMP/HAM2_SUSPOINT between 5 and 15 Hz to get a calibration in [OSEM m]/[GS13 m]
This message was generated automatically by OSEM_calibration_SR3.py on 2025-09-26 20:41:09.411215+00:00 UTC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
EXTRA INFORMATION
The H1:SUS-PR3_M1_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) T1: 1.161
(old) T2: 0.998
(old) T3: 1.047
(old) LF: 1.171
(old) RT: 1.163
(old) SD: 1.062
The matrix to convert from the old Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+1.682 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.007
+0.0 +1.543 +0.0 -0.0 -0.0 +0.0
+0.0 +0.0 +1.633 +0.01 -0.001 -0.0
+0.0 -0.0 +1.964 +1.633 +0.017 +0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -1.154 +0.081 +1.495 +0.0
+1.148 -0.0 -0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +1.682
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'T', 'V', 'R', 'P', 'Y')
STATE of H1: Observing at 152Mpc
Fri Sep 26 10:09:31 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 9min 27secs
Gerardo confirmed a good fill curbside.
Closes FAMIS26663, last checked in alog87026
Laser Status:
NPRO output power is 1.858W
AMP1 output power is 70.03W
AMP2 output power is 139.0W
NPRO watchdog is GREEN
AMP1 watchdog is GREEN
AMP2 watchdog is GREEN
PDWD watchdog is GREEN
PMC:
It has been locked 2 days, 20 hr 56 minutes
Reflected power = 24.91W
Transmitted power = 104.2W
PowerSum = 129.2W
FSS:
It has been locked for 0 days 2 hr and 13 min
TPD[V] = 0.5372V
ISS:
The diffracted power is around 4.2%
Last saturation event was 0 days 2 hours and 13 minutes ago
Possible Issues:
PMC reflected power is high
TITLE: 09/26 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 148Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 9mph Gusts, 6mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.21 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Got notified again and since I hadn't slept yet, was still logged in with some ideas of what was causing issues.
H1 got stuck at input align and a quick looksy through the alog found this parcel of frustration from TJ's alog 86095. Using the wiki and following this, I found that indeed:
IM's did not quite restore to an aligned state post EQ so I trended back OSEMs and moved sliders:
This worked!
But as then I couldn't lock SRY, so I moved SRM a bit in order to maximize AS_A centering peaks!
This also worked!
Back to LOCKING
A 5.9 EQ from Oregon hit H1 quite violently and tripped:
HAM1 ISI, HAM2 ISI, HAM2
IM1 (M1), IM2 (M1), IM3 (M1), IM4 (M1)
MC1 (M1), MC2 (M1), MC3 (M1)
PRM (M1,2,3), PR2 (M1), SRM (M1,2,3), SR2 (M1), SR3 (M1)
FC1 (M1,2,3), FC2 (M1,3)
Along with their respective ISIs (ST1) and the QUAD ISIs (though I untripped a bit too quickly to note the exact ISIs I untripped so will append this tomorrow when I can trend without lag).
A few guardians also stalled so I unstalled them. I attached an overview of verbal trips and overview screen.
IFO is back to LOCKING and EQ is mostly passed. I've reset myself as the OWL.
TITLE: 09/26 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Wind
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
SHIFT SUMMARY: Currently relocking and in LASER_NOISE_SUPPRESSION. One lockloss today due to the wind, and relocking has been taking a while because of the wind. We were worried about the ETMY Roll mode earlier, but it ended up coming back down on its own. Maybe we should keep an eye on it over the weekend, but it seemed like the current setting are doing okay. The ion pump is still running in the LVEA - since the lockloss was so late in the evening, there were no vacuum people on site to turn it off, but that's okay.
LOG:
23:30 UTC Observing and Locked for over 11 hours
00:22 GRB-Short E603710
02:27 Lockloss
- ALSY needed help
- Constant ALS locklosses because of high wind, so sitting in DOWN for a while
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16:48 | VAC | Pump | LVEA | N | AIP pumping on HAM6 | 23:43 |
| 02:26 | PCAL | Tony | PCAL Lab | y(local) | Setting up measurement | 02:41 |
Lockloss at 2025-09-26 02:37 UTC after 14.5 locked due to high wind :( We were riding it out really well up until now
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.
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)
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.
Oli, Ivey, Edgard.
We used Oli's measurements from [LHO: 86204] to do an OSEM calibration for the PR3 M1 OSEMs. Here are the outputs of the calibration script.
_______________________________________
OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-PR3
Stage: M1
2025-08-05_1700 (UTC).
The suggested (calibrated) M1 OSEMINF gains are
(new T1) = 1.770 * (old T1) = 2.055
(new T2) = 1.547 * (old T2) = 1.544
(new T3) = 1.443 * (old T3) = 1.511
(new LF) = 1.590 * (old LF) = 1.862
(new RT) = 1.774 * (old RT) = 2.063
(new SD) = 1.543 * (old SD) = 1.639
To compensate for the OSEM gain changes, we estimate that the H1:SUS-PR3_M1_DAMP loops must be changed by factors of:
L gain = 0.596 * (old L gain)
T gain = 0.648 * (old T gain)
V gain = 0.617 * (old V gain)
R gain = 0.617 * (old R gain)
P gain = 0.670 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.596 * (old Y gain)
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the at 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 * inv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-08-05_1700 (UTC) as a reference, the new apparent alingments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L -57.1 um -33.6 um +23.5 um
T -101.3 um -65.6 um +35.7 um
V 62.4 um 36.6 um -25.8 um
R 433.5 urad 225.7 urad -207.8 urad
P -631.8 urad -406.5 urad +225.2 urad
Y -166.7 urad -76.1 urad +90.5 urad
We have estimated a OSEM calibration of H1 PR3 M1 using HAM2 ST1 drives from 2025-05-21_0000 (UTC).
We fit the response M1_DAMP/HAM2_SUSPOINT between 5 and 15 Hz to get a calibration in [OSEM m]/[GS13 m]
This message was generated automatically by OSEM_calibration_SR3.py on 2025-08-06 01:07:57.985744+00:00 UTC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
EXTRA INFORMATION
The H1:SUS-PR3_M1_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) T1: 1.161
(old) T2: 0.998
(old) T3: 1.047
(old) LF: 1.171
(old) RT: 1.163
(old) SD: 1.062
The matrix to convert from the old Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+0.596 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.003
+0.0 +0.648 -0.0 +0.0 +0.0 -0.0
-0.0 +0.0 +0.617 -0.004 +0.001 +0.0
+0.0 +0.0 -0.748 +0.617 -0.007 -0.0
+0.0 +0.0 +0.517 -0.036 +0.67 -0.0
-0.407 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.596
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'T', 'V', 'R', 'P', 'Y')
The calibration values posted here are correct, but the theoretical alignment values are incorrect. See the corrected post from Sep 26th, 2025.
[CORRECTED LOGPOST LHO: 87160]
OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-SR3
Stage: M1
2025-07-22_1530 (UTC).
The suggested (calibrated) M1 OSEMINF gains are
(new T1) = 2.174 * (old T1) = 3.213
(new T2) = 1.610 * (old T2) = 1.517
(new T3) = 1.569 * (old T3) = 1.494
(new LF) = 1.331 * (old LF) = 1.733
(new RT) = 1.374 * (old RT) = 1.494
(new SD) = 1.390 * (old SD) = 1.793
To compensate for the OSEM gain changes, we estimate that the H1:SUS-SR3_M1_DAMP loops must be changed by factors of:
L gain = 0.740 * (old L gain)
T gain = 0.719 * (old T gain)
V gain = 0.545 * (old V gain)
R gain = 0.545 * (old R gain)
P gain = 0.629 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.740 * (old Y gain)
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the at 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 * inv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-07-22_1530 (UTC) as a reference, the new apparent alingments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L -5.0 um -3.1 um +1.8 um
T -21.6 um -15.5 um +6.1 um
V 11.8 um 9.8 um -2.0 um
R -576.3 urad -327.5 urad +248.9 urad
P -266.5 urad -158.3 urad +108.2 urad
Y -585.0 urad -431.9 urad +153.1 urad
We have estimated a OSEM calibration of H1 SR3 M1 using HAM5 ST1 drives from 2025-05-21_0000 (UTC).
We fit the response M1_DAMP/HAM5_SUSPOINT between 5 and 15 Hz to get a calibration in [OSEM m]/[GS13 m]
This message was generated automatically by OSEM_calibration_SR3.py on 2025-07-22 16:24:05.000267+00:00 UTC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
EXTRA INFORMATION
The H1:SUS-SR3_M1_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) T1: 1.478
(old) T2: 0.942
(old) T3: 0.952
(old) LF: 1.302
(old) RT: 1.087
(old) SD: 1.290
The matrix to convert from the old Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+0.74 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.001
+0.0 +0.719 -0.0 +0.0 +0.0 -0.0
-0.0 +0.0 +0.545 -0.006 +0.0 +0.0
+0.0 +0.0 -1.209 +0.545 -0.003 -0.0
+0.0 +0.0 +0.18 -0.013 +0.629 -0.0
-0.148 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.74
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'T', 'V', 'R', 'P', 'Y')
Please see the attached images of before calibrating and after calibrating.
Comparing these new OSEMINF gains to the gains we got last time we did this (84367) (before the satamp swap), they are pretty similar:
| OSEM | Previous Calculated OSEMINF gains (84367) | New Calculated OSEMINF gains (85907) | Percent difference (%) |
| T1 | 3.627 | 3.213 | 12.1 |
| T2 | 1.396 | 1.517 | 8.3 |
| T3 | 1.345 | 1.494 | 10.4 |
| LF | 1.719 | 1.733 | 0.8 |
| RT | 1.490 | 1.494 | 0.2 |
| SD | 1.781 | 1.793 | 0.6 |
So that's another indicator that the sat amp swap did not have much of an effect on the suspension response to suspoint excitations
The calibration values posted here are correct, but the theoretical alignment values are incorrect. See the corrected post from Sep 26th, 2025.
[CORRECTED LOGPOST LHO: 87162]