FAMIS 20020
PMC alignment seems to be drifting; PMC_TRANS has decreased by ~0.7W and PMC_REFL has increased by the same amount over the past 10 days.
I found a quiet time for Jenne to use to train the cleaning. Picture below. Time starts 1394621323 GPS for cleaning training of around 38 mins with no big range drops. It was early Saturday morning before Ibrahim's shift started and as far as I can tell from the labbook no one was measuring anything. We had been thermalised for more than 5 hours.
At 10:12 all h1seib3 models stopped running with an ADC timeout due to CER rack work. We fenced this frontend from the Dolphin fabric and power cycled the computer to recover the system.
Mon Mar 18 10:10:47 2024 INFO: Fill completed in 10min 43secs
Travis confirmed a good fill curbside.
Ibrahim A, Oli P, Jeff K
During commissioning on Friday, excitations on the ETMs caused the watchdogs to trip for TMSX SUS, ETMX SUS, and ETMX ISI for stages 1&2. When installing and setting up the new SUS watchdogs and filter banks for the ETMs and TMSs on Tuesday (76269), Jeff and I decided to set the trigger threshold for the watchdogs to 25microns (the threshold value read outs on the ETM and TMS watchdog screens are now in microns instead of ADC counts). This value is arbitrary - we decided on it after the initial untripping of the watchdogs following installation kicked the suspensions over the previous threshold value of 5 (also arbitrary).
After this trip, the L1 and L2 stages on ETMX were having trouble getting lower than 25 (attachment1). We were waiting almost 30 minutes before raising the threshold since we could confirm that the trip hadn't been caused by something unknown. The damping loops were then able to bring all values below 25 within 11 seconds(attachment2).
So far we've only had these two experiences, so it'll take us a bit to figure out the best threshold values.
As a very rough comparison of how close our current values are compared to watchdog trips before the change, I trended ETMX_{M0,R0,L1,L2}_WD_OSEMAC_BANDLIM_*_OUT channels grouped by stage(I can't trend the RMSLP channels because they didn't exist before Tuesday) versus ETMX_{M0,R0,L1,L2}_WDMON_STATE(M0, R0, L1, L2). I've set the horizontal cursors to the min and max of this latest trip.
Even the trip with the smallest WD_OSEMAC_BANDLIM_*_OUT values had at least double the amplitude of our trips after the model change.
Based on this info and the max values reached during this last trip, I have increased the SUS watchdog values for ETMX and ETMY to:
M0 -> 100
R0 -> 120
L1 -> 170
L2 -> 270
and for TMSX and TMSY:
M1 -> 100.
These values may still change as we get a better understanding of the normal range of the suspensions through trips and running health check transfer functions.
Changes are committed to SDF safe but will need to be committed to OBSERVE(ETMX, ETMY, TMSX, TMSY).
The new DARM configuration drastically reduced the number of low frequency glitches.
See a comparison of omicorn glitches with old DARM and with new DARM, and glitch rates with old DARM and new DARM.
TITLE: 03/18 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Commissioning
OUTGOING OPERATOR: None
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 3mph Gusts, 2mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.18 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
IFO is in DOWN
Louis put IFO in DOWN due to issues locking itself. Will begin locking now.
Other:
H1:PEM-CS_DUST_PSL101 dust counts did not change, please investigate.
EX Pressure EX_X5_PT526 MOD1 PRESS TORR is showing a yellow alert on the vacuum alarm handler.
PSL Dust monitor 101 went offline 10:15 Tue 27 Feb 2024, around the time Jason and Ryan S were doing some PSL table work. I restarted the LVEA/PSL Dust EPICS IOC this morning, and the PSL 101 system came back with a "NOT IN USE" status.
PSL 101 is the Laser Room dust monitor, we will take a look at this next time we go into the PSL enclosure.
The IFO is having trouble locking itself this evening. Requesting down for the night.
TITLE: 03/17 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Commissioning
INCOMING OPERATOR: None
SHIFT SUMMARY:
IFO is at LOCKING and at CARM_5_PICOMETERS (309)
(15:00 UTC 0- 21:45 UTC) ISI IY Interface Chassis is dead and requires replacement:
ISI IY WD tripped around 3AM - I go to untrip right now, it trips again, triggering our last lockloss. (09:48 UTC)
Looking at the values, they are all below threshold so I untrip and then <1 minute later, it trips again. I try this one more time while trending the relevant channel, T240 ISI Stage 1and the counts climb uo irrattically until it trips again (<1 min later). After ensuring, Screenshots of this behavior below.
I get in contact with Jim, and he informs me that the corner 1 sensors are all dead, indicating an interface chassis issue. With instructions, I go to the CER to power cycle but it stays dead. Photos of the dead chassis below.
After getting a hold of Fernando, him and Richard were able to get a hold of Fil, who said he would come to site to do the replacement/fix (according to Richard).
Jim noticed that the Chassis came back at 10:53 but that we should stay down until Fil investigates.
At around 21:00 UTC, Fil arrived and we replaced the Chassis with a functional one. Fil stayed until ALSY locked, confirming that the issue was fixed.
21:25 UTC - Began Locking
22:23 UTC - Started Initial Alignment due to CHECK MICH FRINGES ran and failed for the 3rd time and manual touching of BS and PRM was going nowhere.
22:49 UTC - Initial Alignment Complete, locking now
22:56 UTC - DRMI Locked - requested NLN
Other:
EX Pressure EX_X5_PT526 MOD1 PRESS TORR is showing a yellow alert on the vacuum alarm handler.
LOG:
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21:00 | OPS | Ibrahim | CER | N | Power cycling interface chassis | 22:00 |
| 20:51 | PCAL | Rick | Optics Lab | N | Grabbing something to ship to LLO | 21:21 |
| 22:27 | EE | Fil, Ibrahim | CER | N | Interface chassis replacement | 22:27 |
Sun Mar 17 10:09:59 2024 INFO: Fill completed in 9min 56secs
TITLE: 03/17 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Commissioning
OUTGOING OPERATOR: None
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 3mph Gusts, 2mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.18 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
IFO is LOCKING (but seems to need help)
Other:
Seems hat the last lockloss happened ~4.5 hrs ago, triggered by an IY ISI Stage 1 and 2 WD Trip. No earthquakes occured during this time.
H1:PEM-CS_DUST_PSL101 dust counts did not change, please investigate.
EX Pressure EX_X5_PT526 MOD1 PRESS TORR is showing a yellow alert on the vacuum alarm handler.
The ITMY trip seems to have been caused by the corner 1 interface chassis failing. All of the corner 1 CPS, L4C and GS13s are dead. Probably need to swap it out so Fil can take a look, but I think our only spare is installed in HAM8, at the moment.
Summary: Took SQZ/ASQZ/NoSQZ data. Recommissioned SQZ_ANG_ADJUST guardian but leaving it off. Script prepared to change ZM4/ZM5 PSAMs while IFO is locked, this depends on SQZ IFO ASC and the SQZ_ANG_ADJUST working correctly.
Nominal since yesterday is 205deg SQZ angle, PSAMS 120/120 76444.
I checked the SQZ BLRMs didn't have any unexpected peaks in and then scanned the ADF demod phase as we did in 74691. From 108 to 150 in 2deg / 180second steps. See attached plot. SQZ_ANG_ADJUST servos the SQZ angle by keeping H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_SQZ_ANG at 0. Accepted new optimum H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 128 in sdf. Nominal in NLN for SQZ_ANG_ADJUST is still DOWN though it probably it now should be fine to keep on, we should change this next week.
While trying to take ASQZ data, OPO unlocked. Took No SQZ time 4:45UTC to 4:55UTC, we are getting 4.8 dB of SQZ at 2kHz.No SQZ didn't look as good as 6/28/2023 ref. Relocked with different FC_WFS value, plot attached I needed to readjust sqz angle from 215 back to 205. After that we got better SQZ and ASQZ.. what changed? Different OPO temp or alignment or PZT at different range? I'm not sure. Think this means the SQZ_ANG_ADJUST setting is now wrong so adjusted to ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 140.
Have a script saved in userapps/../sqz/h1/scripts/PSAMs_double_raster.py that adjusts:
The test will stop and go back to nominal phase and ZMs if the IFO looses lock. After the test the ZM PSAMs will slowly (5mins so ASC/ADF servos can keep up) be taken back to 120/120.
Instructions for operator is there is time tomorrow:
I tested again the OMC aligment with low frequency lines, as in 76335
It looks like there is still some modulation of the DARM line amplitude at 410.x Hz. There is also some effect on the pitch jitter line amplitude, but no effect on the yaw jitter line amplitude.
New offsets that simultaneously make the DARM calibration line maximum and the pitch jitter minimum:
| Old | Diff | New | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A PIT | -0.25 | -0.07 | -0.32 |
| A YAW | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| B PIT | -0.05 | -0.05 | -0.1 |
| B YAW | 0.07 | -0.01 | -0.03 |
I put those offsets in. The range dropped. So they are not good. I don't understand why. I reverted them. The range went back. A step in the other directions did not change the range much, but KAPPAC dropped.
I checked that indeed GDS-CALIB_STRAIN was worse with the alignment offsets that made the range lower
Disregard the previous plot, there were two glitches in the data. DARM is slightly worse, but as significantly as thought.
We now have the new DARM offloading configuration up and running, and fully calibrated, so we can do a direct comparison of the old offloading (Old DARM) and new offloading (New DARM) using GDS-CALIB_STRAIN.
As pointed out by Elenna, the new DARM configuration improves the low frequency noise level. See first plot.
The old DARM configuration induced non-stationary noise at low frequency, as visible in the spectrogram in the second plot, and also in the whitened spectrogram in the third plot (where DARM is whitened with the median of the Old DARM configuration, to show at the same time the reduction in noise and the better stationarity).
Those same spectrograms also show that the new DARM configuration makes the low frequency noise more stationary.
Other comparison plots:
Finally, the last two plots show bicoherence of DARM with the ESD drive in old DARM and new DARM: nothing is visible in new DARM.
Great! This tripled the volumetric sensitivity to 500+500 M☀️ intermediate-mass black holes.
Georgia, Trent
To get the finesse of the omc as a function of the pzt voltage (in order to double check the pzt voltage calibration). OMCscan.py has shortcoming in that it doesn't like when there are more than three carrier 00 peaks so to get three carrier 00 peaks that were included in my initial scan I had to seperate the data into two "bins". I had the GPS time 1393542033 with a duration of 80 to get the first two peaks and the GPS time 1393542063 with a duration of 60 to get the second and third peaks. The links of the GPS times are the corresponding pzt calibrations. The links in the finesse are the zoomed in plots for the corresponsing peaks. To get the plots we ran OMCscan.py and fit_peak_w_args.py
| Field | Mode | q | Finesse | PZT Voltage [V] |
| Carrier | 00 | 0 | 404 | 7.3 |
| 1 | 408 | 50.6 | ||
| 2 | 404 | 91.0 | ||
| 10 | 0 | 395 | 41.8 | |
| 1 | 406 | 82.0 | ||
| 20 | 0 | 367 | 32.7 | |
| 1 | 368 | 73.1 | ||
| 45 upper | 00 | -1 | 372 | 15.7 |
| 45 lower | 00 | 0 | 356 | 43.7 |
Here is a plot of all the finesses versus the pzt voltages.
Graeme, Matt, Craig Using our setup from yesterday (alog 76397), we injected into the common mode board and measured a CARM to DARM transfer function. Matt will post plots, comparisons, and measurement times later. I am posting the data now, it lives in/ligo/gitcommon/psl_measurements/data/carm_to_darm_tfs/. Just to clarify what these measurements are, we injected a 600 mV broadband white noise injection from 51.2 kHz to 102.4 kHz frequency span into the common mode board excitation point. We measured out at the REFL A 9 QMON at the PSL racks (which is actually REFL A 9 I used for frequency feedback) and out of the OMC DCPD whitening chassis A+ terminal, patched over to the PSL racks as described in alog 76397. We saw a significant rise in the REFL A 9 QMON noise as we injected more (Matt's plots to come), but very little increase in the OMC DCPD noise. We had around 5e-3 coherence between the two at best. We took 10000 averages, so we believe that anything above 1e-4 is "well-resolved". We did not have time to try injecting between 1 kHz and 51.2 kHz before we lost lock, or to try looking atOMC DCPD A / EXCWe were not injecting at the time of the lockloss. We left the SR785 out there but not plugged in to anything on the racks so we can relock peacefully. EDIT: We went back out, got some data betwen 1 kHz and 52 kHz, and then unplugged everything, including the SR785 and the HAM6 OMC DCPD A+ whitening chassis cable. We didn't unplug the patch panel connection.
I've also attached my notes of the measurement process, displaying port connections as well as injection times and so on.
| Measurement | Span | Injection Times | Excitation Amp | Data / Plots |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IMC OLG Transfer Function | 10kHz-102kHz |
2024/03/15 15:17 - 15:41 PST (MC Common Mode Servo Common Path Exc A) |
100mV | |
| CARM Measurement | 10kHz-102kHz |
2024/03/15 15:43 - 15:47 PST (IFO Common Mode Servo Common Path Exc A) |
100mV | |
| CARM to DARM Measurements | 50kHz-100kHz |
2024/03/15 16:17 - 16:36 PST (IFO Common Mode Servo Common Path Exc A) |
600mV | Without_Exc_Vs_Exc_CARM_to_DARM |
| CARM to DARM Measurements | 1kHz - 52kHz |
2024/03/15 15:54 - 18:00 PST (IFO Common Mode Servo Common Path Exc A) |
300mV |
OMC_DCPD/REFL9I Coherence CARM to DARM transfer func. OMC_DCPD & REFL9I PSDs OMC_DCPD/REFL9I CSDs |
| OMC DCPD excitation | 1kHz - 52kHz |
2024/03/15 18:13 - 18:16 PST (IFO Common Mode Servo Common Path Exc A) |
300mV |
OMC_DCPD vs. Excitation Coherence OMC_DCPD vs Excitation Transfer Func. OMC_DCPD, PSD with Excitation |
| Loop Suppression to CARM | 1kHz - 52kHz |
2024/03/15 18:24 - 18:32 PST (IFO Common Mode Servo Common Path Exc A) |
300mV |
With the offset on the AS_A WFS centering, that should lower DHARD_Y coupling to DARM:
https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~gabriele.vajente/bruco_1394535464_DARM
Indeed, DHARD_Y coherence with DARM is much lower. Interestingly, now CHARD_Y coherence seems higher.
In other news, there is some coherence with MICH, but hopefully the retuned FF filter will help with that.
Coherence with input jitter witness is also large, see for example the PSL periscope
[Trent, Georgia]
We were curious if the coherence between DARM and the PSL periscope accelerometer was improved with Craig's Wednesday night input alignment. Though there wasn't much time without glitches or excitations during this lock, we got a 700 averages with 75% overlap bw 0.1Hz. In the attached plot, top is DARM ASD, bottom is coherence with the PSL periscope accelerometer (witness sensor for jitter), and right plot is zoomed in on some of the jitter peaks. It looks pretty convincing that for the resonances above 100Hz, the coherence was lower with the new input (and full IFO) alignment on Wendesday.
According to some of the sensors in HAM2 and HAM3, we might have walked the input pointing further in PIT than the O4A alignment, so maybe there is an IM1 and IM3 alignment somewhere in between the two times in the attached plot that has even lower input jitter coherence.
Attachment shows DARM × PSL acceleration coherence on 13 Dec (red), 11 Jan (turquoise), and 16 Mar (black). There is no significant difference between the latter two.
OM2 was hot on 13 Dec and cold on the latter two.
