TITLE: 10/06 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 153Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan C
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 3mph Gusts, 2mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.09 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: H1 has been locked for 37.5 hours. Commissioning time scheduled today from 15:30 to 18:30 UTC.
TITLE: 10/06 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 156Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan C
SHIFT SUMMARY:
H1 has been locked for 28 hrs, currently Observing.
I Have nothing else to report.
LOG:
No Log
TITLE: 10/05 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 155Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan S
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 16mph Gusts, 10mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.11 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
H1 is Locked and Observing & I've got no plans to change that.
TITLE: 10/05 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 156Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Tony
SHIFT SUMMARY: Very quiet day with H1 observing throughout; nothing of consequence to report. H1 has been locked for 22.5 hours.
State of H1: Observing at 158Mpc
H1 has been locked for 18 hours; quiet morning so far with no drops from observing.
Sun Oct 05 10:07:49 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 7min 45secs
TITLE: 10/05 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 156Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan C
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 13mph Gusts, 9mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.11 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: H1 has been locked for 13.5 hours. One drop from observing last night at 09:21 UTC from SQZ dropping out, but look like everything came back fine.
TITLE: 10/05 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 155Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan C
SHIFT SUMMARY:
One Lockloss @23:44 UTC & fairly easy relocked.
Back to Observing at 1:06 UTC.
H1 has been locked for 4 Hours.
LOG:
No Log
Unknown Lockloss.
H1:LSC-DARM_IN1_DQ seemed to be the first channel that takes an excursion.
Relocking notes:
Relocking was striaght forward, but had to send Y-ARM to Increase flashes. Otherwise it didn't give me any hassle.
TITLE: 10/04 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 74Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan S
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 10mph Gusts, 5mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.14 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
H1 Has been locked for 27 Hours and is currently Observing.
The plan is to continue to Observe the universe for as long as possible.
TITLE: 10/04 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 150Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Tony
SHIFT SUMMARY: H1 remained lock the whole day with only a few drops from observing, most of which were intentional. After the squeezer relocked, the range was a bit low, but the SQZ angle servo eventaully brought it back up over the course of about an hour. I probably could have run a SQZ angle scan right before going back into observing to fix the range sooner. H1 has now been locked for 27 hours.
LOG:
This SQZ Lockloss was caused by the OPO PZT running out of range. Plot attached, when the OPO relocked with the PZT at ~100V, the SQZ angle servo worked as expected to bring the range back.
FAMIS 27375, last checked in alog86751
There are 13 T240 proof masses out of range ( > 0.3 [V] )!
ETMX T240 2 DOF X/U = -1.57 [V]
ETMX T240 2 DOF Y/V = -1.466 [V]
ETMX T240 2 DOF Z/W = -1.024 [V]
ITMX T240 1 DOF X/U = -2.176 [V]
ITMX T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.432 [V]
ITMX T240 3 DOF X/U = -2.304 [V]
ITMY T240 3 DOF X/U = -1.084 [V]
ITMY T240 3 DOF Z/W = -2.75 [V]
BS T240 1 DOF Y/V = -0.375 [V]
BS T240 3 DOF Y/V = -0.301 [V]
BS T240 3 DOF Z/W = -0.46 [V]
HAM8 1 DOF Y/V = -0.503 [V]
HAM8 1 DOF Z/W = -0.821 [V]
All other proof masses are within range ( < 0.3 [V] ):
ETMX T240 1 DOF X/U = -0.091 [V]
ETMX T240 1 DOF Y/V = -0.146 [V]
ETMX T240 1 DOF Z/W = -0.159 [V]
ETMX T240 3 DOF X/U = -0.122 [V]
ETMX T240 3 DOF Y/V = -0.182 [V]
ETMX T240 3 DOF Z/W = -0.153 [V]
ETMY T240 1 DOF X/U = -0.029 [V]
ETMY T240 1 DOF Y/V = 0.131 [V]
ETMY T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.192 [V]
ETMY T240 2 DOF X/U = -0.118 [V]
ETMY T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.177 [V]
ETMY T240 2 DOF Z/W = -0.007 [V]
ETMY T240 3 DOF X/U = 0.187 [V]
ETMY T240 3 DOF Y/V = -0.021 [V]
ETMY T240 3 DOF Z/W = 0.078 [V]
ITMX T240 1 DOF Y/V = 0.223 [V]
ITMX T240 2 DOF X/U = 0.128 [V]
ITMX T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.229 [V]
ITMX T240 2 DOF Z/W = 0.189 [V]
ITMX T240 3 DOF Y/V = 0.078 [V]
ITMX T240 3 DOF Z/W = 0.087 [V]
ITMY T240 1 DOF X/U = 0.022 [V]
ITMY T240 1 DOF Y/V = 0.077 [V]
ITMY T240 1 DOF Z/W = -0.058 [V]
ITMY T240 2 DOF X/U = 0.012 [V]
ITMY T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.196 [V]
ITMY T240 2 DOF Z/W = 0.074 [V]
ITMY T240 3 DOF Y/V = 0.037 [V]
BS T240 1 DOF X/U = -0.122 [V]
BS T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.121 [V]
BS T240 2 DOF X/U = 0.037 [V]
BS T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.122 [V]
BS T240 2 DOF Z/W = 0.013 [V]
BS T240 3 DOF X/U = -0.204 [V]
HAM8 1 DOF X/U = -0.206 [V]
There are 2 STS proof masses out of range ( > 2.0 [V] )!
STS EY DOF X/U = -4.609 [V]
STS EY DOF Z/W = 2.244 [V]
All other proof masses are within range ( < 2.0 [V] ):
STS A DOF X/U = -0.456 [V]
STS A DOF Y/V = -0.864 [V]
STS A DOF Z/W = -0.523 [V]
STS B DOF X/U = 0.179 [V]
STS B DOF Y/V = 0.945 [V]
STS B DOF Z/W = -0.348 [V]
STS C DOF X/U = -0.692 [V]
STS C DOF Y/V = 0.751 [V]
STS C DOF Z/W = 0.533 [V]
STS EX DOF X/U = -0.214 [V]
STS EX DOF Y/V = -0.152 [V]
STS EX DOF Z/W = 0.079 [V]
STS EY DOF Y/V = 1.242 [V]
STS FC DOF X/U = 0.198 [V]
STS FC DOF Y/V = -1.122 [V]
STS FC DOF Z/W = 0.607 [V]
Following instructions from the TakingCalibrationMeasurements wiki, at 18:33 UTC I dropped H1 out of observing to run the usual calibration sweeps. Calibration monitor and report attached.
Broadband - 18:34:20 to 18:39:38 UTC
Simulines - 18:40:57 to 19:04:04 UTC
File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/DARMOLG_SS/DARMOLG_SS_20251004T184057Z.hdf5
File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/PCALY2DARM_SS/PCALY2DARM_SS_20251004T184057Z.hdf5
File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L1_SS/SUSETMX_L1_SS_20251004T184057Z.hdf5
File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L2_SS/SUSETMX_L2_SS_20251004T184057Z.hdf5
File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L3_SS/SUSETMX_L3_SS_20251004T184057Z.hdf5
Comparing the broadband from this Saturday to the previous broadband on Sept 27, there has been a significant change in the calibration uncertainty. We know that there was a small change in the overall calibration since the last model push on 8/28, which could be related to the power outage. However, I can't think of any significant change in the last week that could account for this difference.
We do know that:
However, both of those bullet points should be accounted for by the TDCFs.
Sat Oct 04 10:07:34 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 7min 30secs
TITLE: 10/04 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 152Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Corey
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 4mph Gusts, 2mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.20 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: H1 has been locked for 18 hours. Looks like an EQ from Guatemala put us into EQ mode about 5 hours ago, but otherwise no issues overnight.
TITLE: 10/04 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 154Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Corey
SHIFT SUMMARY: Observing at 155 Mpc and have been Locked for almost 8.5 hours. Quiet shift with nothing to report
LOG:
no log
Observing at 151 Mpc and have been locked for over 6.5 hours. Nothing to report
Jennie W, Keita,
Since we don't have an easy way of scanning the input beam in the vertical direction, Keita used the pitch of the PZT steering mirror to do the scan and we read out the DC voltages for each PD.
The beam position can be inferred from the pictures setup - see photo. As the pitch actuator on the steering mirror is rotated the allen key which is in the hole in the pitch actuator moves up and down relative to the ruler.
height on ruler above table = height of centre of actuator wheel above table + sqrt((allen key thickness/2)^2 + (allen key length)^2) *np.sin(ang - delta_theta)
where ang is the angle the actuator wheel is at and delta_theta is the angle from the centre line of the allen key to its corner which is used to point at the gradations on the ruler.
The first measurement from our alignment that Keita found yesterday that minimised the vertical dither coupling is shown. It shows voltage on each PD vs. height on the ruler.
From this and from the low DC voltages we saw on the QPD and some PDs yesterday Keita and realised we had gone too far to the edge of the QPD and some PDs.
So in the afternoon Keita realigned onto all the of PDs.
Today as we were doing measurements on it Keita realised we still had the small aperture piece in place on the array so we moved that for our second set of measurements.
The plot of voltage with ruler position and voltage with pitch wheel angle are attached.
Keita did a few more measurements in the verticall scan after I left on Friday, attached is the updated scan plot.
He also then set the pitch to the middle of the range (165mm on the scale in the graph) and took a horizontal scan of the PD array using the micrometer that the PZT mirror is mounted on. See second graph.
From the vertical scan of the PD array it looks like diodes 2 and 6, which are in a vertitcal line in the array, are not properly aligned. We are not sure if this is an issue with one of the beam baths through the beamsplitters/mirrors that split the light onto the four directions for each vertical pair of diodes or if these diodes are just aligned wrongly.
The above plots are not relevant any more as PD positions were adjusted since, but here are additional details for posterity.
Calculating rotation angle of the knob doesn't mean anything, that must be converted to a meaningful number like the displacement of the beam on the PD. This wasn't done for the above plots but was done to the plots with final PD positions.
TITLE: 10/03 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 149Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Oli
SHIFT SUMMARY: One lockloss due to an earthquake today that kept H1 down for a while, but relocking after that was mostly straightforward; not much else to report today. H1 has now been locked for 3 hours.
LOG:
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22:52 | SAF | Laser HAZARD | LVEA | YES | LVEA is Laser HAZARD | Ongoing |
| 14:38 | FAC | Randy | X-arm | N | BT inspection | 19:37 |
| 17:34 | ISC | Keita | Opt Lab | Local | ISS array work | 19:26 |
| 17:41 | PEM | Anamaria | CER | N | Checking an accelerometer | 17:44 |
| 17:50 | JAC | Corey | JAC Lab | N | JAC table work | 20:29 |
| 18:23 | ISC | Jennie | Opt Lab | Local | ISS array work | 19:26 |
| 18:48 | PEM | Robert, Anamaria, Alicia, Rene | LVEA | - | PEM things | 19:26 |
| 19:26 | PEM | Robert | LVEA | - | Placing shaker near BSC8 | 19:42 |
| 21:33 | JAC | Corey | JAC Lab | N | JAC table work | 23:07 |
| 21:34 | ISC | Keita, Jennie | Opt Lab | Local | ISS array work - Jennie out @ 22:08 | 22:24 |
Camilla, Sheila
We did a series of quick measurements related to filter cavity backscatter, a follow up with plots will come soon.
Injection for linear coupling (varies from day to day, we are repeating to see how much it changes, 1st screenshot):
Fringe wrapping (scattered amplitude seems slightly lower than in 2024 when moving ZM2, slightly higher when moving ZM5):
Open loop gain (also varies from day to day):
FC2 M1/M3 cross over:
Here's the plot of the fringe wrapping measurements in displacement units. It can be compared to a similar measurement made on ZM4 + 5 at LLO: 60856. Over email Peter asked some questions about the power levels needed to explain this.
Power level heading towards HAM7 from OFI:
The power on the DCPDs is 47mW, and there is 12pW retro-reflected off the filter cavity, so the total isolation provided by OFI + SFI2 + SFI1 is 2.5e-10 in power ratio, or 96dB. The OFI isolation ratio was measured to be 43dB in 79379. If this is true it would imply that one of the SFIs is providing less than the 30dB isolation assumed in T1800447, and we should have 2uW of carrier light headed towards SFI2.
Our readback of the 1% pick off of light from the interferometer heading towards SFI2, B:PD1 (OFI PD A) says that we have 0.03mW on it, meaning 3mW from the IFO going towards SFI2, about 1mW of this would be carrier based on (87114),which seems too high.
The responsivity of this PD was checked in 60284, and later double checked because it seemed low (the settings are still the same). The similar PD OFI PDB has a measured responsivity of 0.25A/W and the excelitas website lists a peak responsivity of 0.6A/W at 850nm for these PDs. (ffd-200h-si-pin) If we think that this calibration was mistaken and the real responsivity is more like OFI PD B, 0.25A/W, there is 0.72 mW of light from the OFI heading towards SFI2, ~240 uW of carrier, the OFI isolation would only be 23dB, and the SFIs must be providing something like 36 dB each.
Reflectivity:
If my interpretation of the fringe wrapping measurements into power are correct (12 nW of power is retroreflected from the path that includes ZM5), we are reflecting 50ppm of the carrier scattered toward HAM7 using the (recalibrated) 240uW value from OFI PDB, or 0.6% if we believe the isolation ratio measurement for the OFI and use the 2uW value. B:BS1 is a 1%, so the maximum reflectivitiy we could get from scatter in the B:PD1 path would be 0.01%. This means that the B:PD1 path can't explain the reflectivity needed if there is 2uW headed towards HAM7, and even if there is 240uW heading towards HAM7 this PD seems unlikely to explain the scatter, since it would need to reflect half the light that's incident on the PD. Camilla did alog the check of the alignment (and the beam dump catching the retro-reflection off this diode: 65006)