TITLE: 03/29 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 153Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: None
SHIFT SUMMARY: We've been locked for 7:30. The LVEA is still in HAZARD, Robert has 3 viewports still open but they're covered with foil, DIAG_MAIN was flashing PSL_ISS diff power is low.

22:45 UTC Relock #1 -- We reached NLN at 23:26 UTC, after Robert wrapped up his measurements we went into Observing at 23:45 at ~150Mpc

• 2 ALS diffs that I accepted

05:52 UTC SEI transition backed to WINDY from MICROSEISM

LOG:

We've been locked for 3:50 and been in observing since 23:45UTC, cleaned range has been hovering just under 160.

I looked at Jennie's and Camilla's spot position test (76770) to check if the movements had an effect on the sensitivity. In brief: yes, they do.

The largest effect is at low frequency (<30 Hz, see spectra and ratio to nominal values) and most evident with CAM_YAW2_OFFSET, and to a smaller extent with CAM_PIT2_OFFSET. Those changes are probably what was driving the change in range: I believe they're due to the fact tha by changing the spot position one changes the optimal A2L coefficients that are used on ITMY to minimize the coupling of CHARD and DHARD. So my guess is that one should ignore those changes since they are likely recoverable by tuning ITMY A2L.

The most intersting changes are at high frequency (>500 Hz, see spectra and ratio to nominal values). Moving CAM_YAW2_OFFSET has a small (3%) but noticeable effect on the sensitivity at high frequency. Not sure what's causing this: I don't think the change in power is large enough to account for a shot noise improvement, nor is the optical gain change. I think this is worth move investigation.

Analysis code attached.

Jennie W, Sheila, Francisco

11:30 am - ish

After many previous efforts we are trying again to move input yaw pointing in the IMC (via IM1 and IM3) and measure if this has any effect on our jitter coupling.

See first image for where the sliders were before we made changes.

We orginally started by taking a reference jitter coupling measurement, brown traces in the two attached graphs, first one is pitch, second is yaw.

The graphs show the DARM spectra on the top left, the coherence with two jitter witness channels on the top middle and right, and the transfer functions of these witness channels to DARM on the bottom row of graphs.

IM 1 and 3 were stepped in yaw down by 20 and we waited for IM4 and PRM motion to level off before moving again to make sure the IFO stayed lock.

We did three steps to go down a total of 60 counts where we took the green traces in the attached graphs.

After this we reverted the alignment changes.

I then took this ndscope screenshot showing the steps down and then back up.

It is not clear to me that the build-ups are better.

2pm -ish

We took another reference for jitter before moving. This is coloured blue.

We made more steps on IM1 and IM3 till we had gone twice as far as earlier (ie. down by 120 counts on IM1 and IM3). This made the build-ups noticeably bigger as the change is easier to see when we are thermalised.

We took another jitter measurement shown in red.

We are not sure why the PSL-ISS_SECONDLOOP_PDSUMOUTER chnages as we change the input pointing but we could be clipping somewhere between IM4 and ISS array.

We left the IMs where they were and then lost lock a couple of minutes after, probably due to wind (60mph!) The IFO still relocked with these yaw changes.

Earlier this week there was a HAM1 HEPI trip at LHO, not sure why. Robert was working near HAM3, that was the only activity. WD says the actuators saturated, but I can't find any evidence of it. 

It looks like a one point there were 6 total actuator saturations, but they must have happened too fast to show up in the 512hz MASTER_OUT channels? Attached plot shows the time when the ACT SAT COUNT channel (16hz) (bottom right) went from 0 to 6. The corner 2 L4Cs see something, there is a burst of something in the actuators (top 2 plots on the left column), but they don't seem to get anywhere near saturating. Something like this happens again less than an hour later and trips the HEPI, breaking the lock.

Second image is the same channels, from before the first act saturations to after the trip. Still no evidence of actuator saturations anywhere in this data. The only way I can make sense of this is somehow we had actuator saturations that were too fast to be recorded in the 512hz MASTER OUT channels, but whatever caused them, don't  seem to show up in the 3d l4c channels on the L4Cs on the floor under the chamber.

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/

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.

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:

• Huge wind gusts within the past hour, up to 55mph
• Microseism is rising
• Currently relocking at DARM_TO_DC
• Systems look good
• MC2/3 cameras are blue

TITLE: 03/28 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 152Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan C
SHIFT SUMMARY:

Most of today was for Commissioning and then PEM Injection prep/measurements. 

H1 was locked for a good part of the shift, with (2) locklosses.  Able to relock after 20+hr lock without needing an alignment (but definitely needed to correct lots of pitch misalignment. 

Had a high winds storm pass through during the last hour of the shift, highest wind value from our wind sensors was 57mph from the Corner Station (see attached).

LOG:

• 1502 Optics Lab cleaning (karen)
• 1539 Out of OBSERVING for commissioning/pem injections
• 1539 Beam Jitter measurements + input pointing changes (sheila)
• 1541 EX accelerometer fixes (robert)
• 1558 IMC CM board measurment at racks (sheila)
• 1600 Lockloss  (Sheila was heading out at this time and might have just entered the LVEA, but not totally certain.)
  • Lock1:  Xarm was way off in pitch (even after an INCREASE FLASHES).  Was off in pitch and mainly got it back with TMSx.  ALSO---PRMI flashes were OFF in pitch (PRM pit adjusted).  DRMI flashes were also OFF in pitch (SRM pit adjusted).  Saved ~15min by doing all this Pitch BabySitting vs going through an alignment.  Back to NLN at 1712 (w/ CAMERA SERVO complete at 1716)
• 1622 SEI_ENV transitions to USEISM
• 1635-1707 Facility check in FC beam tube enclosure (chisS)
• 1718 Transition LVEA to HAZARD!! (Camilla for Robert)
  • She did not enter LVEA to transition, so she most likely did NOT cause lockloss.
• 1729 Lockloss!!
  • Lock2:  No issues or action needed
  • 1814-NLN & 1820-Camera Servo complete
• 1737-1754 Checking HEPI @HAM1 (jim)
  • While at HAM1 Jim noticed audible noise---believes it is Paging System speaker
• 1739 Grabbing wipes in Fire/Hazardous waste bunker (kim)
• 1740-1825 Attaching camera to viewport + Looking for Laser Vibrometer in LVEA & then EX (robert)
• ~1755 Paging System powered OFF (after Jim noticed ~60Hz noise from speaker in the LVEA).  [fil]
• 1806-1819 ADF Squeezer rack work---entering via output/side door near roll-up door (Daniel)
• 1835 IMC photos (robert)
• 1835 Input pointing walks (jennie, francisco, sheila)
• 2000-2016 Hanford High Astronomy class in control room (cassidy.alan)
• 2010 Vacuum checks at MY (janos)
• 2133-2218 Turning off shaker at EX (robert)
• 2135 Setting up StarLink internet antenna at the VPW (dave)
• 2145 Big storm rolls through (gusts approaching 60mph)
• 2219 Taking laser vibrometer to LVEA (robert)
• After winds calmed down after the windstorm and when we could start locking, DRMI locked up fine, but have lost lock in a few steps before CARM OFFSET REDUCTION.  Jennie mentioned if we continue having issues we can have her restore input pointing to what it was earlier in the shift.

Kevin and Vicky helped to get the old range comparison plots from the noise budget working with some updates to the noise budget.  The first plots show the spectra, range integand and the cumulative range for a comparison between O4a and a few days ago.  This is range calculated by gwinc, the sensmon range is shown in the legend. 

Looking at the darm spectra and the range difference plot here, you can see that we gained about 15Mpc of range from low frequency improvements including DARM offloading.  Above 40Hz our recent sensitivity has been worse, we lose 15 Mpc from the decreased sensitivity beween 40-100 Hz and another 7 or so from the worse sensitivity above 100Hz. 

Last night we had slightly better BNS range after the squeezer alignment work 76757 , the same comparison of O4a to last night shows that we are loosing less range from 65-300 Hz, as shown in this plot as well. 

I've also made this comparison for no squeezing, using times from 76537 and 76540: here.  This shows that without squeezing the mid frequency sensitivity (30-70Hz) has gotten worse which is costing roughly 10Mpc of range.

Elenna's sensitivity comparison from a few weeks ago contains helpful links to recent changes: 76449

Adding a 20dB attenuator at the output of the ADF CLF reduced the ADF signal strength by approximately a factor of 10.

Camilla, Jennie W

Camilla and I reran the camera offset tests yesterday while in observing. There is a clear effect from yaw offset changes in the build-ups but not so clear with pitch changes.

See this image for the CAM2 servo steps and this image for the CAM1 servo steps.

CAM 2 YAW

The lowest yaw offset gives highest circulating power and highest power on POP A, B and REFL A PDs and the highest yaw offset gives the lowest power values. The lowest offsets give a dip in the range, as does the highest yaw offset. The best offsets for range seem to be close to nominal, the second highest offset step (-414 counts).

KAPPA C is highest at the lowest yaw offset, which makes sense as this is when we have the best build-ups.

CAM 2 PITCH

For the pitch as mentioned above the steps are not obvious in the circulating power plot or the POP A/B / REFL A plots. There is maybe a correlation between the lowest offset and the lowest power build-up, and the second highest offset and the highest power build-up but no clear correlation with the range or KAPPA C.

CAM1

This has similar trends to CAM2 however I think thye pitch is correlated the opposite way from 1 whihc makes me think that the motion the pitch causes is just some swaying f the alignment as the camera offsets change and it doesn't particularly matter which way we change them in pitch. The yaw offset change though shows peaks at lowest offset, troughs at highest offset and best range near nominal offset and highest KAPPA C (optical gain) at highest yaw offset.

Thu Mar 28 10:13:28 2024 INFO: Fill completed in 13min 23secs

Gerardo confirmed a good fill curbside.

Vicky, Naoki, Nutsinee

To scan the ZM alignment, we copied the SCAN_ALIGNMENT state in SQZ_MANAGER guardian in LLO. After some debugging, we successfully ran this state. The result is saved in here.

https://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/exports/SQZ/GRD/ZM_SCAN/

This state scans the ZM4/ZM6 COM and DIF P/Y. We need the proper diagonalization to define the COM and DIF, but we have not done it today. The state fits the BLRMS6 at 1.7kHz and finds the optimal ZM slider value for minimizing the BLRMS6 as shown in the first attachment. After each ZM scan, the SQZ angle is also scanned and the optimal SQZ angle is found as shown in the second attachment.

The third attachment shows the BLRMS. The T1 cursor shows when the sqz-optimized scan was done. After the scan, the BLRMS6 looked good, but the BLRMS3 (yellow) was not so good and the BNS range was below 150 Mpc. So we tweaked the sqz angle and the BNS range reached more than 150 Mpc.

The original SCAN_ALIGNMENT tries to find the minimum of squeezing, but we modified it so that it can also try to find the maximum of anti squeezing. The T2 cursor in the third attachment shows when the asqz-optimized scan was done. The result is saved here.

sqz-optimized: https://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/exports/SQZ/GRD/ZM_SCAN/240327132206/

asqz-optimized: https://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/exports/SQZ/GRD/ZM_SCAN/240327144407/

The fourth attachment shows the ZM slider after the sqz-optimized and asqz-optimized scan. The ZM4 Y is almost the same, but other ZM alignment is different by 10-20 counts between the sqz-optimized and asqz-optimized scan. The proper diagonalization of ZM4/6 would resolve it.

Since the SCAN_ALIGNMENT touches the TRAMP of ZM slider, we reverted it after the scan as shown in the fifth attachment.

F. Clara, M. Pirello, R. Schofield

We systematically verified the cabling from the VEA to the Electronics racks of all 7 accelerometers currently in service.  We replaced channel 5 on the new Accelerometer Power Conditioner for further testing, the new channel 5 is performing correclty.  Then we went through and tested the accelerometers vs the signals in NDSCOPE / DIAGGUI.  We found a fault in the EY_EBAY_Z cable and replaced it.  We corrected the cabling to match the system drawing D1300773 , while verifying the signals, we found an unlabeled cable that was not documented.  We determined that this cable was patch done before O4 to fix a bad accelerometer cable on BSC10_X, this cable was routed correclty and is now documented.  Final complete order of the cabling is as follows:

SignalName <= ADC# <= CBL# <= SLOT# <= AccelerometerName(path)
EY_OPLEV_X <= ADC7 <= CBL1 <= SLOT1 <= EY_OPLEV_X
EY_BSC10_X <= ADC8 <= CBL2 <= SLOT2 <= Black Patch Cable <= Patch Panel #3<= White Accelerometer Cable <= EY_BSC10_X
EY_BSC10_Y <= ADC9 <= CBL3 <= SLOT3 <= EY_BSC10_Y
EY_BSC10_Z <= ADC10 <= CBL4 <= SLOT4 <= EY_BSC10_Z
EY_TABLE_X <= ADC11 <= CBL5 <= SLOT5 <= EY_TABLE_X
EY_VEAFLOOR_Z <= ADC12 <= CBL6 <= SLOT6 <= EY_VEA_FLOOR
EY_EBAY_Z <= ADC13 <= CBL7 <= SLOT7 <= EY_EBAY_Z

The patched cable is a temporary solution, a permanent solution should be considered here.

This morning I took the OPLEV charge measurements on both ETMX and ETMY suspensions. I will post the results below after processing the data.

Both the suspensions were restored to their nominal state after the measurements were complete.

Later, Jeff flipped the sign on ETMX ESD bias voltage once the above measurements were done.

In addition to the BSC10 accelerometer, the amount of floor motion also increases over the past 6 weeks, though not in a sudden fashion.

This does not correspond to the time of the most recent fan swap, judging by fan accelerometers.

Naoki, Daniel, Nutsinee

Today we increased RF6  from -22dBm to -13 dBm and 8 dBm. We saw excess noise at 8 dBm above 300Hz but no excess noise at -13dBm. REF 12 is the squeezing at -22dB before we started the test. Using the time from alog76553. REF9 and REF10 both show squeezing at -13dBm RF6 at different squeeze angle where one has a better sensitivity at low frequency bucket. REF13 shows squeezing at 8dBm RF6. The excess noise above 300Hz cannot be improved with squeeze angle. Investigation is required.

We turned off ADF sqz angle servo during the test. We readjusted the ADF squeeze angle demod phase and accepted the new value in the SDF.

We are parking RF6 at -12dBm. Since Daniel didn't like the unlucky number 13.