Displaying reports 1221-1240 of 84484.Go to page Start 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 End
Reports until 20:20, Saturday 12 July 2025
H1 SUS (SUS)
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 20:20, Saturday 12 July 2025 (85715)
Second harmonic violin modes

I took some high resolution spectra in the 1460 - 1500 bandwidth of DARM to look at the second harmonic violin mode region, all of these might not be violin modes. I found 5 over 10^-16, 1468.4961 1472.7793, 1481.9717 (monitor filter on ETMY mode19), 1492.0198, and 1497.1934 (the worst offenders), these were reduced to 3 when I took another spectra with a smaller bw an hour later. There were also several above 10^-17, 1464.5293, 1464.0234, 1467.3916 1468.5879, 1471.2969, 1471.7012,  1472.9668, 1482.0117, 1494.3535, 1494.3711, 1499.5937, 1500.4248. The frequencies I saw don't match the old ones reported in the wiki's violin mode table or in T1800327 but I believe these documents were from pre-O3.

Images attached to this report
H1 General (Lockloss)
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 20:09, Saturday 12 July 2025 (85716)
Lockloss 02:56 UTC

Lockloss 02:56 UTC from an ETMX glitch just under 1/4 of a second before the LL

LHO General
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:35, Saturday 12 July 2025 (85712)
Ops Day Shift Summary

TITLE: 07/12 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 145Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan C
SHIFT SUMMARY: Pretty straightforward day of public site tours and only one lockloss with a fully automatic relock after. Planned calibration sweep was missed because of this; Ryan C. says he'll run it if L1 drops out of observing this evening. H1 has now been locked for 4.5 hours.

H1 General
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:06, Saturday 12 July 2025 - last comment - 17:07, Saturday 12 July 2025(85711)
OPS Saturday EVE shift start

TITLE: 07/12 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 144Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan S
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 14mph Gusts, 9mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.10 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - 17:07, Saturday 12 July 2025 (85713)SQZ
Link

We dropped observing from 00:01 - 00:05 UTC from the SQZer's PMC losing lock, it relocked with a much higher/better voltage. I wanted to adjust the OPO temp then run a scan SQZ_ANG but I didn't notice that GRD IFO was in AUTO so it brought us back as soon as the SQZer relocked after I had done a few steps of the OPO, the range is a couple Mpc better now though.

H1 PEM
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:58, Saturday 12 July 2025 (85587)
HVAC Fan Vibrometers FAMIS Check

Closes FAMIS26404, last checked in alog85561

Everything looks the same as it did last week.

Images attached to this report
H1 General (Lockloss)
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:30, Saturday 12 July 2025 - last comment - 12:28, Saturday 12 July 2025(85709)
Lockloss @ 17:23 UTC

Lockloss @ 17:23 UTC after 8 hrs locked - link to lockloss tool

Looks to be an ETMX glitch about a half second before the lockloss.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - 12:28, Saturday 12 July 2025 (85710)
Link

H1 back to observing at 18:54 UTC.

Fully automatic relock, but I ran an alignment first as things looked pretty far out at the start.

LHO VE
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:18, Saturday 12 July 2025 (85708)
Sat CP1 Fill

Sat Jul 12 10:08:39 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 8min 36secs

 

Images attached to this report
LHO General
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:46, Saturday 12 July 2025 (85707)
Ops Day Shift Start

TITLE: 07/12 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 150Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Tony
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 4mph Gusts, 1mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.11 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: H1 has been locked and observing for 5.5 hours. Looks like one automatic relock overnight, and currently in a stand down for a candidate event at 14:25.

H1 General
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:00, Friday 11 July 2025 (85705)
OPS Friday EVE shift summary

TITLE: 07/12 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 144Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Tony
SHIFT SUMMARY: One lockloss with an easy relock. We've been locked for just over 3.5 hours.
LOG:  

Start Time System Name Location Lazer_Haz Task Time End
22:56 LASER LVEA LVEA YES LVEA IS LASER HAZARD \u0d26\u0d3f(\u239a_\u239a) 14:34
23:03 ISC Keita OptLab N ISS array work 23:56
H1 SUS
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:36, Friday 11 July 2025 (85699)
Satamp swap OSEM noise part 2 (ITMX, ITMY, SR2)

I ran my damp_regression_compare script (85369) on the suspensions that we swapped the satellite amplifiers for today, BS, PRM, PR3, SRM, and SR3. The results show a decrease in the OSEM noise of at least 2x!

Part of what the script does is save the channel data as a .mat file so it's quicker to run next time, so I'll post that as well as the results.

On Tuesday Fil swapped the sat amps for ITMX, ITMY, and SR2 (85619). Like I did for the first set of satamp swaps (85485), I've used my damp_regression_compare script found in sustrunk to compare the noise performance (85369).

ITMX
M0
Results: /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMX_M0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
         r12442
Data: /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGM0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSITMX_M0_1435482383_1200.mat
      /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGM0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSITMX_M0_1436080373_1200.mat
      r12442
R0
Results: /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMX_R0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
         r12443
Data: /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGR0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSITMX_R0_1435482383_1200.mat
      /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGR0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSITMX_R0_1436080373_1200.mat
      r12443

ITMY
M0
Results: /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMY_M0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
         r12444
Data: /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGM0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSITMY_M0_1435482383_1200.mat
      /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGM0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSITMY_M0_1436080373_1200.mat
      r12444
R0
Results: /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMY_R0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
         r12445
Data: /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGR0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSITMY_R0_1435482383_1200.mat
      /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGR0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSITMY_R0_1436080373_1200.mat
      r12445

SR2
Results: /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SR2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSR2_M1_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
         r12446
Data: /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SR2/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSSR2_M1_1435482383_1200.mat
      /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SR2/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSSR2_M1_1436080373_1200.mat
      r12446

Non-image files attached to this report
allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMX_M0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMX_R0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMY_M0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMY_R0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSR2_M1_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
H1 General (Lockloss)
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:59, Friday 11 July 2025 - last comment - 18:28, Friday 11 July 2025(85704)
23:57 UTC lockloss

23:57 UTC lockloss

Comments related to this report
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - 18:28, Friday 11 July 2025 (85706)
Link

01:27 UTC Observing

LHO General
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:28, Friday 11 July 2025 (85701)
Ops Day Shift Summary

TITLE: 07/11 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Acquisition
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan C
SHIFT SUMMARY: Two locklosses this shift, but recovery so far has been straightforward. H1 is currently relocking and up to MAX_POWER.

LOG:

Start Time System Name Location Lazer_Haz Task Time End
22:56 LASER LVEA LVEA YES LVEA IS LASER HAZARD \u0d26\u0d3f(\u239a_\u239a) 14:34
18:26 ISC Keita OptLab N ISS array work 19:20
20:16 FAC Randy MY N Plug in forklift 20:31
20:17 ISC Jennie OptLab Local ISS array work 20:54
21:50 PEM RyanC VacPrepLab N Testing dust monitors 22:24
23:03 ISC Keita OptLab N ISS array work Ongoing
H1 General
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:01, Friday 11 July 2025 - last comment - 16:43, Friday 11 July 2025(85700)
OPS Friday EVE shift start

TITLE: 07/11 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Acquisition
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan S
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 10mph Gusts, 6mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.12 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

Comments related to this report
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - 16:43, Friday 11 July 2025 (85703)
Link

23:43 UTC Observing

H1 General (Lockloss)
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:36, Friday 11 July 2025 - last comment - 16:43, Friday 11 July 2025(85697)
Lockloss @ 22:23 UTC

Lockloss @ 22:23 UTC after 4.5 hours locked - link to lockloss tool

No obvious cause, but ETMX starts moving strangely about a half a second before the lockloss.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - 16:43, Friday 11 July 2025 (85702)
Link

23:43 UTC Observing

H1 ISC
jennifer.wright@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:33, Friday 16 May 2025 - last comment - 15:56, Friday 11 July 2025(84432)
OMC scans with SR3 heater on

Jennie W, Sheila, Elenna

 

In order to get data for mode-matching and for Elenna to get data to calibrate sideband heights we ran some mode scans after the SR3 heater was turned on last night.

16:55:24 UTC Carried out single bounce OMC scan at 10W PSL input with sensor correction on HAM6 on, high voltage on for PZT driver in HAM6, sidebands off , SRM mis-aligned, ITMY mis-aligned, DC 3 and 4 on, OMC ASC on.

Excitation freq changed to 0.005 Hz as the top peak of the TM00 mode looked squint so could have been saturating. Lowering this frequency prevented this.

Ref 15-17 corresponds to dcpd data, pzt exc signal, pzt2 dc monitor.

 

Then mis-aligned ITMX and aligned ITMY (Sheila had to re-align SR2 to centre on ASC-AS_C).

Measurement starts at 17:08:18 UTC.

Ref 18-20 corresponds to dcpd data, pzt exc signal, pzt2 dc monitor.

 

Traces saved in 20250516_OMC_scan.xml. The top left plot is the first scan bouncing beam off ITMX, the second scan is the bottom right bouncing off ITMY.

The top right is the two plots of the PZT2 DC voltage monitor. That is, the current voltage applied to the PZT. The bottom left is the plot of the voltage ramp applied to the PZT2 on the OMC for this measurement.

 

The ndscope attached shows the power in mA transmitted through the OMC on the top, then the PZT used for the scan DC voltage underneath, then the input PZT voltage underneath that, then the reflected power from the OMC in mW, then at the bottom the SR3 heater element temperature in degrees.

 

Elenna did two more scans in single bounce with sidebands back on and different modulations depths in each.

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jennifer.wright@LIGO.ORG - 10:38, Friday 16 May 2025 (84433)
Link

See Elenna's comment on her previous measurement where this saturation happened.

Turn off the sidebands - instructions in this alog.

elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 16:51, Friday 16 May 2025 (84441)
Link

Sheila and I ran one more OMC scan with sidebands off after OM2 heated up. Attached is the screenshot with scans off both ITMX and ITMY, data is saved in [userapp]/omc/h1/templates/OMC_scan_single_bounce_sidebands_off.xml

 

Images attached to this comment
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 17:02, Friday 16 May 2025 (84442)
Link

I also ran two OMC scans, single bounce off ITMY, 10 W input, with the sidebands ON. One measurement I ran with the sidebands set to 23 dBm and 27 dBm (9 and 45 MHz) and another set to 20 dBm and 21 dBm (9 and 45 MHz). I will use these measurements to calibrate the modulation depth. Data saved in /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/omc/h1/templates/OMC_scan_single_bounce_RF_cal.xml

SR3 heater was on for this measurement but it should have little effect on my results.

camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - 11:40, Tuesday 03 June 2025 (84749)
Link

Looked closer at these HWS signals during SR3 heater heat up and cool down. In all these plots, the two t-cursors are used as the reference and shown HWS live image.

  • Heat up plot attached
  • Cool down plot attached (ITMX was misaligned so there's no HWS data)

Some strange things:

  • ITMX heat up ndscope spherical power looks the opposite direction of ITMY, this isn't physical. Looking at the HWS Live plot, this isn't really want's happening, it appears that the SR3 signal just appears if the edge of ITMX is heating up so the center that the calculations are made from isn't correct, making the calculated spherical power wrong.
  • In both the heat up and cool down of the ITMY signal, there appears to be two steps with a flat region in the middle. Looking at the the flat region only, attached, it appears that the spherical power is continuing to change in the expected direction, unsure why this change isn't shown in the calculated spherical power.
Images attached to this comment
jennifer.wright@LIGO.ORG - 12:09, Thursday 10 July 2025 (85661)
Link

Finally got round to fitting the two single bounce mode scans done with SR3 hot and OM2 cold. The first we had ITMX aligned, the second we switched to ITMY aligned.

These can currently be processed using OMCscan.py in the /dev branch for the labutils/omcscan repository at /ligo/gitcommon/labutils/omc_scan, you need to have activated the labutils conda environment to do so.

The call statements for the data processing are:

python OMCscan.py 1431449762 130 "1st 1431449762 - SR3 hot, 10W PSL, ITMY mis-aligned" "single bounce" -s -v -o 2 -m 

python OMCscan.py 1431450536 140 "2nd 1431450536 - SR3 hot, 10W PSL, ITMX mis-aligned" "single bounce" -s --verbose -m -o 2

For each measurement the tag -s specifices that the sidebands were not on and so in order to calibrate the PZT the code uses the two TM00 modes and then you have to tell it in what height order the 10 and 20 modes appear relative to the highest peak which will be one of the 00 modes.

def identify_C02(self):

"""If in single bounce configuration, and with sidebands off,

identify 10 and 20 modes in order to improve fit.

Assumes that

OMCscan.identify_peaks()

and

OMCscan.identify_carrier_00_peaks()

have already been run.

 

Output:

-------

self.peak_dict: dictionary

first set of keys are carrier, 45 upper, 45 lower

second set of keys are TEM mode, e.g. "00", "01", "20", etc.

third set of keys is the fsr number

"""

 

# Create temporary dictionary to combine into self.peak_dict

peak_dict = {}

peak_dict["carrier"] = {"10": {}, "20": {}}

#print(peak_dict)

nn = [2, 1]

mm = 0

#freq_diff = np.empty(np.size(self.peak_frequencies)) not sure why this line here.

#set frequency to be that of third largest peak.

first_order = np.argsort(self.peak_heights)[-4]#-4 for second meas.

second_order = np.argsort(self.peak_heights)[-3]#change index to match where 20 is in terfirst meas if measuring from start of scan.ms of peak height.

#print(third_larg)

for ii, peak_freq in enumerate(self.peak_frequencies):

if peak_freq == self.peak_frequencies[second_order]:

#print("found C02")

#print(f"List fields in IFO {self.fields_MHz}")

#print(type(self.fields_MHz))

#print(f"OMC HOM spacing {self.omc_hom} MHz")

#print(type(self.omc_hom))

field = f"carrier"

#print(f"mode {field}{nn[0]}{mm}")

peak_dict[field]["20"][-1] = {

"height": self.peak_heights[ii],

"voltage": self.peak_pzt_voltages[ii],

"frequency": self.peak_frequencies[ii],

"true_frequency": np.mod((self.fields_MHz - (nn[0] + mm) * self.omc_hom), self.omc_fsr),

"label": r"$c_{20}$",

}

self.peak_ided[ii] = 1

elif peak_freq == self.peak_frequencies[first_order]:

field = f"carrier"

peak_dict[field]["10"][-1] = {

"height": self.peak_heights[ii],

"voltage": self.peak_pzt_voltages[ii],

"frequency": self.peak_frequencies[ii],

"true_frequency": np.mod((self.fields_MHz - (nn[1] + mm) * self.omc_hom), self.omc_fsr),

"label": r"$c_{10}$",

}

self.peak_ided[ii] = 1

else:

continue

# Merge dictionaries

#if not "20" in peak_dict["carrier"].keys():

self.peak_dict["carrier"] = {**self.peak_dict["carrier"], **peak_dict["carrier"]}

#print(self.peak_dict)

#print(self.peak_ided)

return

 

For both measurements I only took slightly over 1 FSR of the data, this is because in order to fit a polynomial to the known peaks (allowing us to calculate the PZT non-linearity), the code assumes the 1st order is the 3rd highest and 2nd order is the 4th highest.  In the code above you need to change the indexes in the below lines to match the height order of the peaks (ie. and index of -4 is fourth highest peak).

first_order = np.argsort(self.peak_heights)[-4]

second_order = np.argsort(self.peak_heights)[-3]

When the mode-matching is bad this may not be true, also if there are multiple FSRs in the scan this also may not be true.

 

First measurement 1st order mode is fifth highest, 2nd order mode is third highest. The scan is here. I took 130 s of data. The PZT fit is here.

Second measurement the 1st order mode was the 4th highest, 2nd order mode was the third highest. The scan is here. I took 140s of the scan data. The PZT fit is here.

 

Non-image files attached to this comment
jennifer.wright@LIGO.ORG - 11:52, Friday 11 July 2025 (85693)
Link

First measurement has 

1.69/(1.69+15.86) = 9.63 % mode mis-match.

 

Second measurement has 

1.25*100/(1.25 + 16.46) = 7.06 % mode mis-match

 

jennifer.wright@LIGO.ORG - 15:56, Friday 11 July 2025 (85698)
Link

I also analysed the single bounce measurements Elenna and Sheila made after OM2 was heated up. So these have both SR3 and OM2 hot.

For both these measurements C02 was the third highest mode and C01 was the fourth highest. I took 120s starting 45s into the scan.

 

Measurement 1: 23:40:38 UTC on 2025/05/16 with ITMX aligned and ITMY mis-aligned.

See the spectrum with labelled peaks here.

And the PZT calibration here.

Mode mis-match is: 

0.93/( 0.93 + 17.29 ) = 5.10 %

 

Measurement 2: 23:46:48 UTC on 2025/05/16 with ITMY aligned and ITMX mis-aligned.

See the spectrum with labelled peaks here.

And the PZT calibration here.

100 * 0.56/( 0.56 + 17.62 ) = 3.08 %

Bear in mind that this is assuming that there is no astigmatism in the OMC (since there is but we cannot resolve 02 vs 20 modes). This requires some careful analysis of uncertainties to get useful info about how we should tune for better mode-matching. Watch this space.

Non-image files attached to this comment
Displaying reports 1221-1240 of 84484.Go to page Start 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 End