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.

Here's a BruCo scan for last night: https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~gabriele.vajente/bruco_1395660903_GDS_CALIB/ using GDS-CALIB_STRAIN_CLEAN

Some observations on the low frequency range (<50 Hz):

1. there is coherence with PRCL, MICH and SRCL. My guess is that PRCL couples through MICH and SRCL, since there is some coherence MICH vs PRCL and SRCL vs PRCL.
2. however, similar coherence pattern is visible with REFL_RIN, and I'm not sure what to make of that
3. there is coherence with CHARD_Y and lower with DHARD_Y. There is also coherence with HAM1 motion, that's probably due to the known HAM1 to CHARD coupling
4. below 20 Hz it looks like there is high coherence with IMC angular yaw signals, so maybe we're limited by low frequency jitter there?

It looks like we could try to improve the low frequency by:

1. doing A2L again to fix CHARD_Y
2. see if that improves PRCL coherence, if not
3. redo MICH FF and SRCL FF, hopefully that will reduce PRCL too. If not
4. investigate the interesting fact that PRCL and REFL_RIN seem to show the same coherence with DARM

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
OUTGOING OPERATOR: None
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 9mph Gusts, 8mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.52 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

H1's been locked 20.75hrs and is currently in OBSERVING at a range just under 160Mpc.

Robert mentioning needing to fix some accelerometers at an End Station and then start PEM injections (he also mentioned commissioning work possibly going on while he looks at the accelerometers).

TITLE: 03/28 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 151Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: None
SHIFT SUMMARY: We're Observing and have been Locked for over 12.5 hours now. Very quiet night!
LOG:

2300UTC Detector locked for 4.5 hours, commissioning wrapping up

2308 Into Observing

Closes FAMIS#25984, last checked in 76634

They all look very similar to at least the last few weeks of checks. The only thing that stood out to me was ITMY stage 2 V2 around 100Hz and 170Hz - the spikes there are slightly thicker than all the other stage 2 higher frequency spikes.

We've now been Locked for over 9 hours and are Observing.

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.

Jennie and I started the camera_servo_offset_stepper.py script to run for CAM2 (at 23:18UTC - 3:28UTC) should finish by 8:18pm and scheduled CAM1 for 8:30 to 12:30pm (3:30 to 7:30UTC). These didn't run yesterday 76732 as the IFO was unlocked. 

TITLE: 03/27 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing
INCOMING OPERATOR: Oli
SHIFT SUMMARY: We've been locked for over 4.5 hours and have just transitioned back to Observing for the rest of the evening. The one lock loss we had was possibly cuased by work on the floor. Relocking was straight forward, I ended up moving PRM to lock PRMI in an attempt to avoid an initial alignment. It took 57 min to relock.

• 1726 Lock loss. HAM1 HEPI tripped
• 1821Back to low noise
  • DRMI/PRMI looked awful when it first arrived. In an attempt to avoid an initial alignment, I let it run a Mich bright, then I moved PRM a fair amount in pitch and yaw to get PRMI to lock. DRMI locked up without issue after this. No other intervention was needed.
  • 57min from lock loss to NLN
• 2308 Observing

LOG:

TITLE: 03/27 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Commissioning
OUTGOING OPERATOR: TJ
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 13mph Gusts, 11mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.27 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

Detector has been Locked for 4.5 hours and commissioning is wrapping up.

Daniel plugged in the SR785 into the common mode board this morning. 

I've followed the instructions in 64204, and 67214 summarized here:

make sure the excitation A is enabled on the common mode board, the 785 is plugged in.

cd /ligo/gitcommon/psl_measurements/templates
conda activate /ligo/home/craig.cahillane/.conda/envs/psl
python ../code/SRmeasure.py carm_olg_template.yml

The plot options in the template don't work.

to find your data go to: /ligo/gitcommon/psl_measurements/data/carm_olg and try ls -lrtp to find the most recent file 

To make a plot:

python ../code/quick_tf_plot.py /ligo/gitcommon/psl_measurements/data/carm_olg/CARM_OLG_27-03-2024_131841.txt

The CARM olg right now is something like 17 kHz, consistent with 76448  but a little higher than 70920 and 65676 and 67584.  These all look fine according to the loop stability, but we could try reducing the CARM gain a bit to be more similar to O4a.

I reduced the gain by 3dB on both inputs 1 and 2, resulting in the second attachment.  I've lowered the gain setting in laser noise supression to 3dB from 6dB as well so that we will run like this.

We tried the in-lock charge measurements but forgot about the New-DARM configuration so caused a lockloss in the SWAP_TO_ITMX state.

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.

Camilla, Nutsinee, Sheila

• No SQZ time 16:07-16:25  March 20th UTC
• Camilla measured NLG at this time: amplified seed 0.170 counts, unamplifed 0.0098 (dark offset too small)= NLG 17.3
  • while Camilla was doing we added the seed pzt scan to the SQZ Manager state and turning it off in down.
• moved ADF to 322 Hz, measured 5dB of SQZ with PSAMs at ZM4 150 ZM5 90 (strain guage 8.46V ZM5, -1.26 V ZM5) 16:39 UTC (no long data stretch), filter cavity ASC on, 42 MHz ASC off.
• mean sqz with filter cavity misaligned, ADF off, touched ZMs to maximize BLRMS.  This was confusing and didn't show clear changes due to our alignment shifts.
• We locked FDS anti-squeezing, and we spent quite a lot of time adjusting the alignment of ZM 5 +6, as shown in the screenshot.  We ended up with an alignment that was ~40 urad different in
• A SQZ 18:10-18:16 UTC 107.55 SQZ phase CLF servo polarity was negative ref 3
• SQZ 18:23-18:29 SQZ phase 207.1 clf servo polarity positive ref 9
• SQZ +10 18:30-18:35:29 217.53 SQZ phase clf servo positive ref 18
• SQZ  -10 18:36:30 SQZ phase 197.62 CLF polarity positive ref 19
• mid sqz 18:44-18:50 SQZ ang 240.83 polarity positive ref 20
• mid sqz 18:52:25-18:59 SQZ ang 95.76 polarity positive ref 21
• sqz clf flip 19:02-19:08 polarity negative phase 35.08 ref 22
• no sqz time: 19:12 until lockloss at 19:25:12 UTC ref 23

Screenshot of different sqz angles attached.  Nutsinee's final attachment compares sqz with two different CLF servo signs.