Displaying reports 1201-1220 of 80620.Go to page Start 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 End
Reports until 07:26, Thursday 12 December 2024
H1 General
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:26, Thursday 12 December 2024 - last comment - 08:15, Thursday 12 December 2024(81784)
OPS Thursday DAY shift start

TITLE: 12/12 Day Shift: 1530-0030 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 153Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: TJ
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 8mph Gusts, 4mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.32 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

Comments related to this report
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - 08:15, Thursday 12 December 2024 (81785)

I ran the coherence check and range comparison (Sheila said she's not sure if these plots are showing exactly what they should be though) comparing the better range at the start to now.

2ndary microseism also took a step up above the 90th percentile in the past 30 minutes and brough SEI_ENV to useism.

Images attached to this comment
Non-image files attached to this comment
LHO General
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:02, Wednesday 11 December 2024 (81783)
Ops Eve Shift Summary

TITLE: 12/12 Eve Shift: 0030-0600 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 159Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: TJ
SHIFT SUMMARY: One lockloss this shift with an unknown cause, but otherwise a quiet evening with no sign of The Noise seen last night. H1 has now been observing for about 30 minutes.

H1 General (Lockloss)
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 20:08, Wednesday 11 December 2024 - last comment - 21:33, Wednesday 11 December 2024(81781)
Lockloss @ 04:00 UTC

Lockloss @ 04:00 UTC - link to lockloss tool

No obvious cause, but maybe a very slight ETMX glitch right before the lockloss. Ends lock stretch at 26:51.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - 21:33, Wednesday 11 December 2024 (81782)

H1 back to observing at 05:31 UTC. DRMI looked quite bad so I opted for an initial alignment, which ran automatically as well as main locking.

H1 PSL
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 19:12, Wednesday 11 December 2024 - last comment - 14:33, Tuesday 17 December 2024(81780)
FSS Autolocker Investigations

J. Oberling, R. Short

This afternoon, Jason and I started to look into why the FSS has been struggling to relock itself recently. In short, once the autolocker finds a RefCav resonance, it's been able to grab it, but loses it after about a second. This happens repeatedly, sometimes taking up to 45 minutes for the autolocker to finally grab and hold resonance on its own (which led me to do this manually twice yesterday). We first noticed the autolocker struggling when recovering the FSS after the most recent NPRO swap on November 22nd, which led Jason to manually lock it in that instance.

While looking at trends of when the autolocker both fails and is successful in locking the RefCav, we noticed that the fastmon channel looks the most different between the two cases. In a successful RefCav lock (attachment 1), the fastmon channel will start drifting away from zero as the PZT works to center on the resonance, but once the temperature loop turns on, the signal is brought back and eventually settles back around zero. In unsuccessful RefCav lock attempts (attachments 2 and 3), the fastmon channel will still drift away, but then lose resonance once the signal hits +/-13V (the limit of the PZT as set by the electronics within the TTFSS box) before the temploop is able to turn on. I also looked back to a successful FSS lock with the NPRO installed before this one (before the problems with the autolocker started, attachment 4), and the behavior looks much the same as with successful locks with the current NPRO.

It seems that with this NPRO, for some reason, the PZT is frequently running out of range when trying to center on the RefCav resonance before the temploop can turn on to help, but it sometimes gets lucky. Jason and I took some time familiarizing ourselves with the autolocker code (written in C and unchanged in over a decade) to give us a better idea of what it's doing. At this point, we're still not entirely sure what about this NPRO is causing the PZT to run out of range, but we do have some ideas of things to try during a maintenance window to make the FSS lock faster:

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - 14:33, Tuesday 17 December 2024 (81876)

As part of my FSS work this morning (alog81865), I brought the State 2 delay down from 1 second to 0.5, and so far today every FSS lock attempt has been grabbed successfully on the first try. I'll leave in this "Band-Aid" fix until we find a reason to change it back.

H1 ISC
jenne.driggers@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:09, Wednesday 11 December 2024 - last comment - 17:26, Wednesday 11 December 2024(81778)
Maybe some HAM1 things are related to the low range times?

Starting from the somewhat strange RM1 spectra I saw earlier today (alog ), I have been looking at HAM1-related things.  I don't think this is a strong correlation, and maybe this just means that the HAM1 FF is doing what it should be, but it seems that the TTL4Cs on HAM1 are qualitatively different between times of good range and poor range.  However, the confusing thing is that the L4Cs seem bad at times when the range is good, which means that I don't really understand how they could be causing our troubles.  Also, other times seem to not have this inverse pseudo-correlation.  So, I'm not so sure that this is a sign of our troubles, or just something totally unrelated.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jim.warner@LIGO.ORG - 17:26, Wednesday 11 December 2024 (81779)

If one or more of the L4Cs is failing (which can be intermittent), that would change the effectiveness of the HAM1 TT asc ff. Turning off the HAM1 asc FF (as Elenna and I commented on earlier) would help narrow things down. I can try to do an assessment of the health of the L4Cs offline.

H1 TCS (ISC)
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:55, Wednesday 11 December 2024 - last comment - 12:57, Friday 13 December 2024(81777)
H1:TCS-ITMX_CO2_ISS_CTRL2_OUT_DQ step up unexplained but now not good witness of DARM noise

Sheila found that H1:TCS-ITMX_CO2_ISS_CTRL2_OUT_DQ stepped up from -0.2 to 0 on 2024/12/05 21:40:07 UTC (13:40 PST) Plot attached. This is of interest as this channel has ben a witness to our noisy/low range periods in DARM but is not connected to anything. I see no reason for this step up, the only person in the LVEA at the time was Robert setting up VP measurements (near HAM3 not CO2X) 81628, the CO2 laser remained l locked and we were not touching the CO2 chiller around the time 81634.

Since this step up, this channel has not been a good witness of our DARM noise, maybe the cable wasn't grounded and something changed to ground it on 12/05. Plot of it being a witness to the noise on 12/02 and not on 12/11.

Before and after the step up, this CO2 channel is still a witness to the CO2 rotation stage moving, attached. Both CO2X and CO2Y ISS CRTL2 channels see the rotation stages move, some crosstalk in chassis? CO2Y signal is orders of magnitude larger.  Jason was looking into these channels and the chassis

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - 08:33, Thursday 12 December 2024 (81787)DetChar, ISC

I don't see any change in the H1:TCS-ITMX_CO2_RIN_INLOOP_OUTMON channel at that time, but the reason for the step in the CRTL2 output is from a turned off digital offset in the H1:TCS-ITMX_CO2_AOM_SET_POINT bank. I turned this off when we were looking at it and I forgot to alog it, apologies.

Curious that we lost sensitivity to whatever this is when an offset was removed, but I think this is a good clue.

Images attached to this comment
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - 09:18, Thursday 12 December 2024 (81790)

I've just put the offset back in just to see if we get our "monitor" back. Accepted in safe and observe snaps, but only one screenshot.

Images attached to this comment
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 12:57, Friday 13 December 2024 (81815)

It seems that with the offset on again, this channel is again a witness of the noisy times. 

Images attached to this comment
H1 General (DetChar)
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:32, Wednesday 11 December 2024 (81763)
OPS Wednesday DAY shift summary

TITLE: 12/12 Day Shift: 1530-0030 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 155Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan S
SHIFT SUMMARY: We stayed locked the entire shift, over 23 hours as of 00:30 UTC. Lost of investigations into the range drops today, range has been steady since the last occurance ~14hours ago. If the drop happens again there's a plan to investigate out of observing alog81774.
LOG:                                                                                                                                                               

Start Time System Name Location Lazer_Haz Task Time End
16:53 OPS LVEA LVEA YES LVEA IS LASER HAZARD 21:13
15:56 FAC Tyler MidX N Crane inspection, FCES next (~10/11am?) 18:24
16:07 FAC Karen Optics lab, vac prep N Tech clean 16:51
16:34 FAC Chris Midx N Join Tyler 17:01
16:51 FAC KAren OSB recieving N Cardboard moving, door rollup 17:02
17:01 FAC Chris Midx N Driving a trailer 18:24
17:02 FAC Karen Woodshop, firepump room N Tech clean 17:14
18:24 FAC Tyler FCES N Crane inspection 18:35
18:59 PSL Jason Optics lab N Put away optic 19:05
19:18 VAC Gerardo OSB recieving N Loading and moving away parts 19:22
19:21 FAC Chris OSB recieving N Moving the van away 19:25
21:07 CAL Francisco PCAL lab LOCAL PCAL work 21:38
Images attached to this report
H1 ISC (OpsInfo, SEI)
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:22, Wednesday 11 December 2024 - last comment - 16:32, Wednesday 11 December 2024(81775)
How to turn off HAM1 feedforward

I can't find the right alog for directions, so here is an easily searchable set of directions for HAM1 FF.

There is a master switch for the HAM1 feedforward, but it can sometimes cause problems to slam it on and off that way. Instead, you can ramp the input to the feedforward down to zero. From sitemap:

SEI > ISI Sensor Config > [middle of the screen, see attachment] HAM1 ASC FF > L4CINF

This opens a filter bank page with four filter banks. They each have a gain of 1 and a ramp time of 20 seconds. Set all of these gains to zero to turn off the input to the feedforward. Ramp them back to 1 to engage.

Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jim.warner@LIGO.ORG - 16:32, Wednesday 11 December 2024 (81776)

I put cli instructions in this alog : https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=79033.

caput H1:HPI-HAM1_TTL4C_FF_INF_RX_GAIN 0 & caput H1:HPI-HAM1_TTL4C_FF_INF_RY_GAIN 0 & caput H1:HPI-HAM1_TTL4C_FF_INF_X_GAIN 0 & caput H1:HPI-HAM1_TTL4C_FF_INF_Z_GAIN 0 &

This should turn the HAM1 asc ff off in a safe way.

 

H1 General
jenne.driggers@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:19, Wednesday 11 December 2024 (81774)
Okay to leave observing to investigate The Noise

As several of us just talked about in the control room, if The Noise is happening when folks are on site and there's a plan of a thing to try, please feel free to drop Observing to check.  I think we'll keep the list of things to try elsewhere more dynamic than the alog (probably the LHO commissioning google doc).  Some examples of things that we're thinking of right now are (a) turning off the HAM1 FF, or (b) walking (gently) around electronics racks (CER, EX ESD driver area) to see if we can hear any electronics 'whining' or otherwise going bad.

Please do send me a mattermost message, which should audibly ping my phone, but this is causing such problems for our data quality that there is no need to wait for a response from me before trying something.

LHO General
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:01, Wednesday 11 December 2024 (81772)
Ops Eve Shift Start

TITLE: 12/12 Eve Shift: 0030-0600 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 155Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan C
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 4mph Gusts, 2mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.28 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: H1 has been observing for 23 hours. The vac prep lab dust monitor is reporting as disconnected.

 

H1 ISC (SUS)
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:25, Wednesday 11 December 2024 - last comment - 15:58, Thursday 19 December 2024(81769)
Test mass motion from ASC drives

This alog presents the first steps I am taking into answering the question: "what is the calibrated residual test mass motion from the ASC?"

As a reminder, the arm alignment control is run in the common/differential, hard/soft basis, so we have eight total loops governing the angular motion of the test masses: pitch and yaw for differential hard/soft and common hard/soft. These degrees of freedom are diagonalized in actuation via the ASC drive matrix. The signals from each of these ASC degrees of freedom are then sent to each of the four test masses, where the signal is fed "up" from the input of the TST ISC filter banks through the PUM/UIM/TOP locking filters banks (I annotated this screenshot of the ITM suspension medm for visualization). No pitch or yaw actuation is sent to the TST or UIM stages at Hanford. The ASC drive to the pum is filtered through some notches/bandstops for various suspension modes. The ASC drive to the TOP acquires all of these notches and bandstops and an additional integrator and low pass filter, meaning that the top mass actuates in angle at very low frequency only (sub 0.5 Hz).

Taking this all into account involves a lot of work, so to just get something off the ground, I am only thinking about ASC drive to the PUM in this post. With a little more time, I can incorporate the drive to the top mass stage as well. Thinking only about the PUM makes this a "simple" problem:

I have done just this to achieve the four plots I have attached to this alog. These plots show the ITM and ETM test mass motion in rad/rtHz from each degree of freedom and the overall radian RMS value. That is, each trace is showing you exactly how much radians of motion each ASC degree of freedom is sending to the test mass through the PUM drive. The drive matrix value is the same in magnitude for each ITM and each ETM, meaning that the "ITM" plot is true for both ITMX and ITMY (the drives might differ by an overall sign though).

Since I am just looking at the PUM, I also didn't include the drive notches. Once I add in the top mass drive, I will make sure I capture the various drive filters properly.

Some commentary: These plots make it very evident how different the drive is from each ASC degree of freedom. This is confusing because in principle we know that the "HARD" and "SOFT" plants are the same for common and differential, and could use the same control design. However, we know that the sensor noise at the REFL WFS, which controls CHARD, is different than the sensor noise at the AS WFS that control DHARD, so even with exact same controller, we would see different overall drives. We also know that we don't use the same control design for each DOF, due to the sensor noise limitations and also the randomness of commissioning that has us updating each ASC controller at different times for different reasons. For example, the soft loops both run on the TMS QPDs, but still have different drive levels.

Some action items: besides continuing the process of getting all the drives from all stages properly calibrated, we can start thinking again about our ASC design and how to improve it. I think two standout items are the SOFT P and CHARD Y noise above 10 Hz on these plots. Also, the fact that the overall RMS from each loop varies is something that warrants more investigation. I think this is probably related to the differing control designs, sensor noise, and noise from things like HAM1 motion or PR3 bosems. So, one thing I can do is project the PR3 damping noise that we think dominates the REFL WFS RMS into test mass motion.

Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 14:05, Thursday 19 December 2024 (81912)

I have just realized I mixed up the DACs and ADCs (again) and the correct count-to-torque calibration should be:

  • for PUM: 20 V /2**20 ct [DAC] * 0.268 mA / V [drive strength] * 0.0309 N / A [force coeff] * 70.7 mm [lever arm], pit/yaw lever arm is the same for the PUM

So these plots are wrong by a factor of 2. I will correct this in my code and post the corrected plots shortly.

elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 15:58, Thursday 19 December 2024 (81915)

The attached plots are corrected by the erroneous factor of two mentioned above, which has an overall effect of reducing the motion by 2.

Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 SEI (DetChar-Request, PEM)
jenne.driggers@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:22, Wednesday 11 December 2024 (81771)
Glitch witnessed by HAM1 L4Cs causes range drop?

As part of a different investigation (still trying to understand why our range goes bad sometimes), I incidentally may have found a source for some glitches / range drops. 

I'm not going to look further into this, but instead tag detchar-request in hopes that someone else has some time to think about it.  I'll also directly send messages to Jim and Elenna, who manage this feedforward system.

In the attached screenshot there are a few channels that include 'TTL4C' - those are the tabletop L4C seismic sensors on HAM1.  There are also 'FFHAM1' channels that take a channel derived from those L4Cs, and feed it forward to the error signal of the ASC loop that is referred to in the name.  A moment or so after there is a glitch in those channels, there is a range drop in DARM. 

I will say that when I zoom in, it looks like the glitch appears in the FFHAM1 channel before it appears in the TTL4C channel, but based on my understanding of the signal flow, I'm not entirely sure how that's possible.  I'm hoping that Elenna (who knows much more than I do) can help think this through.

Images attached to this report
H1 General
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:27, Wednesday 11 December 2024 - last comment - 12:52, Wednesday 11 December 2024(81758)
OPS Wednesday DAY shift start

TITLE: 12/11 Day Shift: 1530-0030 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 156Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: TJ
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 5mph Gusts, 3mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.32 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

Comments related to this report
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - 07:39, Wednesday 11 December 2024 (81759)

I ran the lowrange coherence check for a good and bad range time during this current lock.

Images attached to this comment
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - 10:53, Wednesday 11 December 2024 (81761)

I looked through the suspension driftmon scopes from the medm IFO_ALIGN_COMPACTEST and most looked normal compared to other locks. The main thing I saw that looked strange was a small step in MC3_P at the same time as the range gets better, I didn't see this behaviour in previous locks with bad range stretches though.

I looked at the OPLEV BLRMS as well, the main thing I saw on these scopes was that the BSs BLRM increased, largely in yaw, during the bad range times of this current lock. I don't see as obvious of a jump in other lock stretches.

Images attached to this comment
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - 11:49, Wednesday 11 December 2024 (81765)

Jenne suggested that we look at top mass Vertical osems to check for sagging that is causing touching. I check the quads, BS and output arm and see no drifts that correlate with the low range periods.

Images attached to this comment
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - 11:53, Wednesday 11 December 2024 (81766)

I looked at verticals for MC{1,2,3}, PR{M,2,3}, and FC{1,2} and the only thing I odd I noticed is that FC2 vertical seems to move more during the bad range times than the good range. Most of them see a seasonal small downward sag over the past 40 days.

jenne.driggers@LIGO.ORG - 12:27, Wednesday 11 December 2024 (81767)

I've looked at spectra (using 64 sec of data split into 16 second chunks with 50% overlap) of the top mass osems for all suspensions, comparing between start times of 1417933576 (bad time) and 1417950319 (a little while after the sharp improvement).  None of the spectra have any of the classic 'we're rubbing' peaks. I've noted a few that I want to re-plot and zoom in (RM1 L, RM2 L, OMC L P V, FC1 P Y R T).  I'll also re-look at MC3, since that one is one of our most 'suspicious' optics right now.

I attach the spectra that I made, of these potentially suspicious optics.  The main conclusion here is that none of these are actually very suspicious, so since these are my *most* suspicious, probably we are not rubbing.  But, I'll make a few more plots of these suspensions. In all of these plots the blue 'reference time' is when the IFO is locked with good sensitivity, and the orange 'check time' is when the IFO is locked with poor sensitivity.

Images attached to this comment
jenne.driggers@LIGO.ORG - 12:52, Wednesday 11 December 2024 (81768)

I replotted the 'suspicious' top mass spectra using DTT.  I don't find anything suspicious or interesting on FC1 or MC3.

OMC is a little strange, in that it has a set of peaks that all change frequency in the same way (first attachment).  I'm not sure that this is meaningful for today's investigation though.

RM1 and RM2 are both quite strange looking in the 5-9 Hz range.  They both pick up a forest of peaks in Length (and a little bit in Pit, and maybe a teeny bit in Yaw).  Second attachment.  Going to look further into these, maybe at other times as well. Robert said that these both saw some motion on the summary page, but their motion didn't seem to correlate with the reduction in range.

Images attached to this comment
H1 CAL
anthony.sanchez@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:40, Tuesday 10 December 2024 - last comment - 16:08, Wednesday 11 December 2024(81739)
PCAL End Y End station

PCAL team went to End Y today with PS4 to do a regular measurement and a "long measurement consisting of 15 minutes of time in each position instead of 240 seconds".

PS4 rho, kappa, u_rel on 2024-10-25 corrected to ES temperature 299.3 K : -4.71053733727373 -0.0002694340454223 4.653616030093759e-05
Copying the scripts into tD directory...
Connected to nds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu
martel run
reading data at start_time: 1417885234
reading data at start_time: 1417885750
reading data at start_time: 1417886151
reading data at start_time: 1417886600
reading data at start_time: 1417886970
reading data at start_time: 1417887305
reading data at start_time: 1417887420
reading data at start_time: 1417888020
reading data at start_time: 1417888356
Ratios: -0.5346804302935332 -0.543306389094602
writing nds2 data to files
finishing writing
Background Values:

bg1 = 18.604505; Background of TX when WS is at TX
bg2 = 5.391990; Background of WS when WS is at TX
bg3 = 18.556794; Background of TX when WS is at RX
bg4 = 5.396890; Background of WS when WS is at RX
bg5 = 18.642247; Background of TX
bg6 = -0.202112; Background of RX

The uncertainty reported below are Relative Standard Deviation in percent

Intermediate Ratios RatioWS_TX_it = -0.534680;
RatioWS_TX_ot = -0.543306;
RatioWS_TX_ir = -0.527163;
RatioWS_TX_or = -0.534899;
RatioWS_TX_it_unc = 0.055923;
RatioWS_TX_ot_unc = 0.051445;
RatioWS_TX_ir_unc = 0.062749;
RatioWS_TX_or_unc = 0.054710;

Optical Efficiency
OE_Inner_beam = 0.986010;
OE_Outer_beam = 0.984479;
Weighted_Optical_Efficiency = 0.985245;
OE_Inner_beam_unc = 0.044504;
OE_Outer_beam_unc = 0.041112;
Weighted_Optical_Efficiency_unc = 0.060587;

Martel Voltage fit:
Gradient = 1637.914766;
Intercept = 0.150812;
Power Imbalance = 0.984123;

Endstation Power sensors to WS ratios::
Ratio_WS_TX = -0.927655;
Ratio_WS_RX = -1.384163;

Ratio_WS_TX_unc = 0.044122;
Ratio_WS_RX_unc = 0.042178;

=============================================================
============= Values for Force Coefficients =================
=============================================================

Key Pcal Values : GS = -5.135100; Gold Standard Value in (V/W)
WS = -4.710537; Working Standard Value

costheta = 0.988362; Angle of incidence
c = 299792458.000000; Speed of Light
End Station Values : /ligo/gitcommon/Calibration/pcal
TXWS = -0.927655; Tx to WS Rel responsivity (V/V)
sigma_TXWS = 0.000409; Uncertainity of Tx to WS Rel responsivity (V/V)
RXWS = -1.384163; Rx to WS Rel responsivity (V/V)
sigma_RXWS = 0.000584; Uncertainity of Rx to WS Rel responsivity (V/V)

e = 0.985245; Optical Efficiency sigma_e = 0.000597; Uncertainity in Optical Efficiency

Martel Voltage fit :
Martel_gradient = 1637.914766;
Martel to output channel (C/V)
Martel_intercept = 0.150812;
Intercept of fit of Martel to output (C/V)

Power Loss Apportion : beta = 0.998844; Ratio between input and output (Beta)
E_T = 0.992021; TX Optical efficiency
sigma_E_T = 0.000301; Uncertainity in TX Optical efficiency
E_R = 0.993169; RX Optical Efficiency
sigma_E_R = 0.000301; Uncertainity in RX Optical efficiency

Force Coefficients :
FC_TxPD = 9.138978e-13; TxPD Force Coefficient
FC_RxPD = 6.216600e-13; RxPD Force Coefficient
sigma_FC_TxPD = 4.923605e-16; TxPD Force Coefficient
sigma_FC_RxPD = 3.250921e-16; RxPD Force Coefficient
data written to ../../measurements/LHO_EndY/tD20241210/

Before beam spot looking a little oblonged but not too bad.

Martel Voltage Test plots
WS_at_RX plots
WS at RX Side with Both Beams   
WS at Transmitter Module

PCAL ES procedure & Log DCC T1500062 ( Modified for long measurement)

After beam spot

The analysis for the long measurement is still pending.

This adventure was brought to you by Dripta & Tony S.

Images attached to this report
Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
anthony.sanchez@LIGO.ORG - 16:08, Wednesday 11 December 2024 (81773)
H1 AOS
jonathan.hanks@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:40, Tuesday 10 December 2024 - last comment - 14:06, Wednesday 11 December 2024(81737)
WP 12239 Moving EPICS related processes to other hardware in order to do a rebuild of a VM hypervisor
As part of WP 12239 we moved h0epics, cdsvmscript1, epics-burt, autoburt off of the cds0proxmox hypervisor.  This resulted in a few minutes of down time for the dust monitor IOC around 8:19am localtime.

After this we done we were able to look at cdsproxmox.  Its boot drive had failed.  After some help from Fil we got the drives replaced and reinstalled proxmox ve on cdsproxmox.  We adjusted DNS and renamed the box cdsproxmox0.

Some notes:

 * This is now in a temporary state.  We aim to retire this hardware by or at the end of O4.  New hypervisor computers are being procured.  As such we did not provision much storage on this.  Just enough to run the hypervisor, relying on the shared storage layer to handle the VM.

 * As per the proxmox administrators guild we removed cdsproxmox from the cluster prior to attaching it back as cdsproxmox0.
Comments related to this report
erik.vonreis@LIGO.ORG - 14:06, Wednesday 11 December 2024 (81770)

to change a disk image name in proxmox,

Get the numeric id for the VM from the web interface

Turn off the VM

edit /etc/pve/nodes/<hypervisor hostname>/qemu-server/<id>.conf

Change the disk image name and save the file.

Find the disk image file and change its name also.

Restart the VM. It will load from the renamed file.

Displaying reports 1201-1220 of 80620.Go to page Start 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 End