H1 has been locked for 2hrs with a range just under 165Mpc.  This is with microseism above the 95th percentile just under 1um/s.

After Austin started an Initial Alignment, locking looked optimistic, but then several consecutive locklosses later, I ended up transitioning SEI_CONF node from USEISM --back to--> WINDY.  This required:

• Changing constants in the code for SEI_ENV, LOAD-ing, & INIT-ing

The picket fence has been pretty noisy and flashes yellow for various channels (don't recall seeing this earlier this week).

Violins are just under an order of magnitude higher than they were last night at 3e10^-17.

TITLE: 01/05 Eve Shift: 00:00-08:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Aligning
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Austin
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 5mph Gusts, 3mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.15 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.55 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

Arrived to my shift Mid-Initial Alignment for H1 per Austin's recovery from commissioning lockloss (and due to minor hardship for getting through early steps of ISC-LOCKing).  Status:  Alignment complete and H1 has just passed the DRMI locking steps.  NOTE:  Lockloss at LOW NOISE COIL DRIVERS, & then CHECK AS SHUTTERS.

Austin also mentioned the unique low-freq seismic activity--Microseism was starting a slow decrease 24hrs ago, but in the last 12hrs it started to turn around and is currently back up to where it was 24hrs ago (which is at/above the 95th percentile).  BUT--a unique observation is that the "secondary" microseism band has also increased around the 12hr turnaround.  So because of the odd microseism and rough locking in early states, SEI_CONF is at the USEISM state.  If we want to return SEI_CONF to WINDY, It's not a simple transition to WINDY. TJ shared how we make this transition:

• Open code for SEI_ENV node, and make change to the SEI_ENV.py file
• Comment/uncomment out constants for "sei_conf_nom" and "sei_conf_eq" from USEISM to WINDY
• Save the file.
• LOAD run on SEI_ENV guardian node.
• INIT on SEI_ENV---this will take SEI_CONF back to WINDY.

For much of the above---it most likely not be done tonight, unless the Earth becomes much more quieter seismically for us.

Dave, Erik, Camilla, Jonathan,

During a lock loss Jonathan went to EY and got the network interface configured.  This was enough to get the machine back on the network.  When the machine was replaced yesterday the camera was plugged into the wrong slot on the pci board, this was fixed as well.

Dave, Erik, and Camilla remotely activated and tested the camera.

Some notes:

 * During an iteration of work inside, go outside for cell phone reception something in the door mechanism to EY got stuck and it would not open despite being set to unlocked by the operator and by a key fob.  After many tries it eventually opened.
 * Since the re-keying there is no key in the lock box.

At 15:30:48 PST this afternoon h1hwsex crashed again. It had crashed Sat 23 Dec 2023 and was rebooted this Tue 02 Jan 2024. It ran for just about 2 days before crashing again.

Camilla says it is OK to leave the computer off overnight, Erik will replace this computer with a V1 during tomorrow's commissioning break (Fri 05 Jan 2024).

H1 was unlocked at the time of the crash, which means the HWS camera is acquiring images. Camilla confirmed it is OK to leave the camera in this state, it is the ITM cameras which have been causing noise issues.

To green up EDC and SDF, I started the HWS EX dummy IOC on cdsioc0. This is running as user 'ioc' in a tmux session.

TITLE: 01/04 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Aquisition
INCOMING OPERATOR: Corey
SHIFT SUMMARY:

- 16:17 - GRB short E463149

- 16:51 - Superevent S240104b 

- 17:11 - 18:10 - Fire pump testing began - Tagging DetChar in case this shows up as noise on their end

• Back on and off again intermittenly @ 18:31 - 19:30

- EX saturation @ 22:02

- 22:35 - went into COMMISSIONING for opportunistic DARM measurements while LLO is down due to microseism

• Lockloss @ 22:57 - caused by commissioner measurement

- ISC went through MICH FRINGES a few times without being able to move up, which is my cue to begin running an IA, which is currrently ongoing

- Mystery rise and steady hold of primary microseism is still apparent, coupled with a now rising secondary microseism, I have moved the SEI CONF guardian to USEISM to help make locking less cumbersome

LOG:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Sheila, Louis

We tried transitioning to the new DARM configuration today slowly to debug the transition from NEW_DARM -> [nominal] DARM. We've had plenty of success transitioning into the new DARM state recently using the ETMY_NLN and NEW_DARM ISC_LOCK guardian states. However, today we encountered several errors when doing so. Some syntax errors cropped up from a few lines in ETMY_NLN (that neither of us recognized) that kept us from moving beyond the main() method. We ran the run() instructions by hand (with the GRD state back in NLN) and fixed the syntax errors in ETMY_NLN and then continued by hand to the NEW_DARM configuration (while the guardian state stayed in NLN) but lost lock when swapping the gains on SUS-ETM{Y,X}_L3_LOCK_L. We confirmed that all the expected DARM loop filters were installed and engaged as expected before moving to ETMX (NEW_DARM) from ETMY. It's not clear to us yet why we lost lock this time around after having virtually no issues switching to the new DARM state recently.

Lockloss @ 22:57 - caused by commissioner measurement.

H1 is still locked, currently at 44.5 hours. All systems appear stable, though primary microseism is currently on the rise - cause of it is unknown.

Thu Jan 04 10:07:02 2024 INFO: Fill completed in 6min 58secs

Gerardo confirmed a good fill.

FAMIS 25972

BSC high freq noise is elevated for these sensor(s)!!!
    
ITMX_ST2_CPSINF_H1    
ITMX_ST2_CPSINF_V1

The Primary Microseism is currently elevated in a strange way, which may explain a slight increase in the noise Spectra across all chambers. But other than that I did not see anything that looked wildly different from the last ISI CPS Noise Spectra Check referenced in alog 75088.

TITLE: 01/04 Day Shift: 16:00-00:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 157Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Tony
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 5mph Gusts, 3mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.11 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.36 μm/s 
QUICK SUMMARY:

- H1 just hit a 40 hour lock and appears stable

- CDS/DMs ok

- EQ band looks to be slowly on the rise but still within a region in which we can operate

TITLE: 01/04 Eve Shift: 00:00-08:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 156Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Tony
SHIFT SUMMARY:

Nice shift with H1 locked for 32hrs and H1/L1 double coincident the entire shift.  Warnings of earthquakes, but nothing noticeable in the control room.  Winds slowly tapered down as the shift went on and all else is well.

TITLE: 01/04 Eve Shift: 00:00-08:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 161Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Austin
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 5mph Gusts, 4mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.04 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.58 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

H1's just passed the 24hr lock mark w/ a range centered at 160Mpc.  We are running without our pair of large central TV monitors (staging to be replaced)!  Note of no commissioning until Friday.

Smooth running shift with no issues to report and H1 rocking steady slightly above 160Mpc & 28hrs of lock!

Ibrahim, Oli, Betsy, Arnaud, Fil

Context: In December ('23) We were having issues confirming that the damping, OSEMs, electronics and model were working (or rather, which wasn't working).

I have more thorough details elsewhere but in short:

• There was initial weirdness in setting offsets and exciting the different degrees of freedom
• Fil and I checked that all OSEMs were healthy by driving excitations to each one at the coil driver level (ensuring that the test stand was working)
• Arnaud was invoked to help with TFs for the BBSS (we couldn't get these to work prior)
• There was a lot more "fixing" and confirming involving excitations, damping, input filters, OSEMs, OLV setting, test stand electronics, and even getting into X1. I have notes on all this elsewhere but this is not the scope of this alog.

Eventually, we were able to go through Jeff and Oli's alog 74142. Here is what was found:

All "crude push around offsets" in the test bank yielded positive drives in the damp channels. These are the ndscope screenshots. Different offsets were needed to make the offset change more apparent in the motion (such as with L). A minimum of 1,000 was arbitrarily chosen and was usually enough.

Transfer Functions: where it gets interesting... (DTT Screenshots)

In these DTTs, each reference (black) are the transfer functions without the damping, while the red traces are with the damping.

All "translation" degrees of freedom (L, V, T) showed correct damping, peak location and resonance

All "rotation" degrees of freedom (P, R, Y) showed completely incorrect damping, usually showing shifted peaks to the right (higher freq).

In trying to figure out why this is, we asked:

• Could it be any culprit OSEMs? If so, then the damping would not have shown as cleanly for L, which uses the same 3 OSEMs (F1, F2, F3) as P.
• Could it be the electronics? Fil and I checked the coil drivers and confirmed through exciting a sine wave that this is unlikely the case. This will be re-confirmed with the new transfer function findings.
  • A small idea could indicate satellite box configurations could be misbehaving but again, the satellite boxes which serve certain OSEMs show both working and erroneous behavior.
    • E.G. RT and LF show good matching peaks and damping in Vertical but not in Roll, despite both being hooked up to the same electronics throughout.
• Could it be the OSEM polarities? These were confirmed to be correct.
  • Plus, if so, then we would see more differences with the OSEM offset scopes taken above perhaps?
    • E.G. Coil output for SD with positive offset was still positive despite a -1G polarity correction, indicating that the math is right here. Using SD as an example because it's only used in T.
  • Could it be that multiple polarities are wrong at the same time in such a was as to distort the results in this Translation vs. Rotation way?
    • E.G. LF and RT are set with opposing polarities so the output gains have 1G and -1G respectively. Since V works, but not Roll, I think that this rules out polarity issues?
  • Will reconfirm polarities time permitting.
• Could it be the model? Some BP filters? I do not know. There have been, as said, a whole host of details left out leading into this transfer function reading, so a thorough troubleshooting, re-testing would need to happen to confirm - the only untouched things are:
  • The DTT Template used
  • The BS Model provided by Jeff and Oli in alog 74142.
    • Confirmed that the matrices in EUL2OSEM are set correctly as far as sign notations and OSEM to DoF combos. Sums are net 0 for rotations and are net positive/negative for translations (which seems intuitive).

(In)conclusion:

It seems that whenever the OSEMs push in the same direction, everything goes as planned, hence why all translation damping works. When we ask the OSEMs to push in opposing directions with respect to one another though, they seem to freak out. This seems to be the prime "discovery" of finally getting the transfer functions.

This is the "for now" update - will keep trying to find out why until expertise becomes available.

TITLE: 01/03 Eve Shift: 00:00-08:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 152Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Austin
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 6mph Gusts, 4mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.46 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

Austin handed off an H1 nearly at NLN.  I eventually took H1 to Observe, at 0011utc, but at 0037, have been getting bumped out of OBSEVERING due to a gain change (i.e. H1:CAL-INJ_CW_GAIN) for CALINJ SDF.

Attached is the last 20+ min of these gain changes from 1.0 to 0.0 every ~1min.  Have Louis on the phone now.

STATE of H1: Observing at 154Mpc
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 8mph Gusts, 5mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.04 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.94 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

InLock Sus charge measurements likely caused the lockloss this morning. Though there was a PI message at the same time. but the PI didn't seem high enough to break a lock.
https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~lockloss/index.cgi?event=1387641172

Relocking  started before 1600UTC.
16:45 UTC NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE reached and OBSERVING at 16:51 UTC

SQZ manager dropped us into commissioning at 17:22 UTC
Back to Observing at 17:24 UTC

N2 truck arrived at Y end around 17:34.
I missed the time that the N2 truck left. I believe it was shortly after 1900 UTC

The Temps in the in the VPW ranged from 66F to 73F. Im not sure what the correct range should be, but the one that read 73 was nearest the warmed server exhaust on that side of the room.

Jenne, Naoki, Louis, Camilla, Sheila

Here is comparison of the DARM CLEAN spectrum with OM2 hot vs cold. The second screenshot shows a time series of OM2 cooling off.  The optical gain increased by 2%, as was seen in the past (for example 71087).  Thermistor 1 shows that the thermal transient takes much longer (12 + hours) than what thermistor 2 says (2 hours). 

Louis posted a comparison of the calibration between the two states, there are small differences in calibration ~1% (74913).  While the DARM spectrum is worse below 25Hz, it is similar at 70 Hz where we in the past thought that the sensitivity was worse with OM2 cold.  From 100-200 Hz the sensitivity seems slightly better with OM2 cold, some of the peaks are removed by Jenne's jitter subtraction (74879) but there also seems to be a lower level of noise between the peaks (which could be small enough to be a calibration issue).  At high frequency the cold OM2 noise seems worse, this could be because of the squeezing.  We plan to take data with some different squeezing angles tomorow and will check the squeezing angle as part of that.

So, it seems that this test gives us a different conculsion than the one we did in the spring/summer, and that now it seems that we should be able to run with OM2 cold to have better mode matching from the interferometer to the OMC.  We may have not had our feedforwards well tuned in the previous test, or perhaps some other changes in the noise mean that the result is different now.