FAMIS26688
The EX fan2 is starting to get noisy. EY fan 1 is also starting to see some extra noise during the night (see the green trace on attachment 2).
Corner station and other outbuildings look good.
FAMIS26666
A few known blips from the power outage and the corrupted frames (alog86985), but it also looks like the temperature changed in both BRSs this week. I don't see any alogs on this, but it does seem to be putting it in the correct direction, leading me to think this was done by someone.
Other than that, the drift looks good.
Yesterday Gerardo instructed my to plug in the ion pump that's on top of HAM5 if we have a lock loss. The plug and recepticle are located on the NW corner of HAM5. Turning on the ion pump will help transition off of the carts that are pumping there sooner than waiting until a weekday.
21:34 UTC lockloss
As Ryan correctly identified, the issue to why the SQZ dropped was there was no enough green power to keep the OPO ISS locked. So he had to reduced the setpoint in sqzparams from 80uW to 75uW. It wouldn't surprise me if this happens again as we are still close to the botton of the ISS's range.
Tomorrow AM we'll check if we can get any more power with the SHG waveplate, otherwise we may need to realign through the AOM and into the fiber again as we last did in 86323 or move crystal spots.
We have been locked for around 29 hours at the start of the measurement.
Broadband:
Start: 2025-09-27 19:23:09 UTC
Stop: 2025-09-27 12:28:20 UTC
Files: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/PCALY2DARM_BB/PCALY2DARM_BB_20250927T192309Z.xml
Simulines: The SQZer lost lock in the middle of this at 19:33, and wasn't able to relock until the measurement completed.
Start: 2025-09-27 19:28:45 UTC // 1443036543.471832 GPS
Stop: 2025-09-27 19:52 UTC // 1443037941.223046 GPS
Files:
2025-09-27 19:52:03,067 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/DARMOLG_SS/DARMOLG_SS_20250927T192846Z.hdf5
2025-09-27 19:52:03,076 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/PCALY2DARM_SS/PCALY2DARM_SS_20250927T192846Z.hdf5
2025-09-27 19:52:03,081 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L1_SS/SUSETMX_L1_SS_20250927T192846Z.hdf5
2025-09-27 19:52:03,085 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L2_SS/SUSETMX_L2_SS_20250927T192846Z.hdf5
2025-09-27 19:52:03,089 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L3_SS/SUSETMX_L3_SS_20250927T192846Z.hdf5
I took Jeff's measruements for calibrating the PRM OSEMs [LHO: 87102] to calibrate the M1, M2 and M3 stages. [See similar calcs for SRM here: LHO: 87166]. I only analyzed the data for the ALIGNED position of the suspension.
The TL;DR is that the M1 calibrations are in line with expectations from PR3/SR3/SRM.
The M2 calibrations are all over the place, with the Left side OSEMs seeing the most chenges (factors of 3.6 for LL and 2.2 for LR)
The M3 calibrations are really off for the Left side OSEMs (factors of 10 (!) for LL and 4 for LR).
My expectation is that the yaw alignment is really pushing these OSEMs to a point where the nonlinear response has kicked in enough that the ir response is all wonky. I think we need to analyze this information more before drawing any snap conclusions. I will do this on Monday to be ahead of Tuesday maintenance
Here is the full output of the calibration script [see attached figures for the before and after comparison]:
______________________________________________________________________
OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-PRM
Frequency range for calibration: 6 to 15 Hz
Stages to be calibrated: ['M1' 'M2' 'M3']
Measurement date: 2025-09-23_1810 (UTC).
%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M1
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The suggested (calibrated) M1 OSEMINF gains are
(new T1) = 1.365 * (old T1) = 1.646
(new T2) = 1.265 * (old T2) = 1.370
(new T3) = 1.544 * (old T3) = 1.727
(new LF) = 1.702 * (old LF) = 1.840
(new RT) = 1.499 * (old RT) = 1.504
(new SD) = 1.627 * (old SD) = 1.808
To compensate for the OSEM gain changes, we estimate that the H1:SUS-PRM_M1_DAMP loops must be changed by factors of:
L gain = 0.627 * (old L gain)
T gain = 0.614 * (old T gain)
V gain = 0.726 * (old V gain)
R gain = 0.726 * (old R gain)
P gain = 0.719 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.627 * (old Y gain)
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the M1 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process
The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * pinv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-09-23_1810 (UTC) as a reference, the new M1 apparent alignments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L -78.6 um -125.4 um -46.8 um
T 83.9 um 136.5 um +52.6 um
V 50.6 um 67.5 um +16.8 um
R 64.4 urad 115.3 urad +51.0 urad
P -1229.3 urad -1507.6 urad -278.4 urad
Y -45.2 urad 27.0 urad +72.2 urad
%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M2
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The suggested (calibrated) M2 OSEMINF gains are
(new UL) = 1.162 * (old UL) = 1.428
(new LL) = 3.622 * (old LL) = 4.249
(new UR) = 1.141 * (old UR) = 1.344
(new LR) = 2.281 * (old LR) = 2.589
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the M2 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process
The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * pinv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-09-23_1810 (UTC) as a reference, the new M2 apparent alignments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L 13.3 um 58.9 um +45.6 um
P -981.3 urad -2050.3 urad -1069.0 urad
Y 645.5 urad 905.7 urad +260.1 urad
%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M3
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The suggested (calibrated) M3 OSEMINF gains are
(new UL) = 1.368 * (old UL) = 1.645
(new LL) = 10.906 * (old LL) = 13.240
(new UR) = 1.522 * (old UR) = 1.709
(new LR) = 4.051 * (old LR) = 4.756
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the M3 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process
The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * pinv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-09-23_1810 (UTC) as a reference, the new M3 apparent alignments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L 68.5 um 551.8 um +483.3 um
P -1519.6 urad -11711.4 urad -10191.7 urad
Y -344.6 urad -6603.7 urad -6259.1 urad
We have calculated a GS13 to OSEM calibration of H1 PRM ['M1' 'M2' 'M3'] using HAM2 ST1 drives from 2025-09-23_1810 (UTC).
We fit the response PRM_OSEMINF/HAM2_SUSPOINT to unity between 6 and 15 Hz to get a calibration such that 1 [OSEM m] = [GS13 m]
This message was generated automatically by OSEM_calibration_master.py on 2025-09-27 02:12:10.458163+00:00 UTC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
EXTRA INFORMATION
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M1
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The H1:SUS-PRM_M1_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) T1: 1.206
(old) T2: 1.083
(old) T3: 1.119
(old) LF: 1.081
(old) RT: 1.003
(old) SD: 1.111
The matrix to convert from the old PRM M1 Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+1.601 -0.0 +0.0 +0.0 -0.0 -0.008
+0.0 +1.627 -0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0
+0.0 -0.0 +1.385 -0.001 +0.002 -0.0
-0.0 +0.0 -0.326 +1.385 -0.035 +0.0
+0.0 -0.0 +4.675 -0.28 +1.404 -0.0
-1.265 +0.0 -0.0 -0.0 +0.0 +1.601
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'T', 'V', 'R', 'P', 'Y')
%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M2
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The H1:SUS-PRM_M2_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) UL: 1.229
(old) LL: 1.173
(old) UR: 1.178
(old) LR: 1.135
To compensate for the M2 OSEM gain changes, any controllers using the M2 OSEMs as inputs must be compensated with gains of:
L gain = 0.611 * (old L gain)
P gain = 0.610 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.506 * (old Y gain)
The matrix to convert from the old PRM M2 Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+2.052 -0.043 -0.016
-18.856 +2.052 +0.33
-7.135 +0.33 +2.052
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'P', 'Y')
%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M3
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The H1:SUS-PRM_M3_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) UL: 1.202
(old) LL: 1.214
(old) UR: 1.123
(old) LR: 1.174
To compensate for the M3 OSEM gain changes, any controllers using the M3 OSEMs as inputs must be compensated with gains of:
L gain = 0.424 * (old L gain)
P gain = 0.431 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.272 * (old Y gain)
The matrix to convert from the old PRM M3 Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+4.462 -0.144 -0.08
-63.208 +4.462 +1.752
-35.107 +1.752 +4.462
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'P', 'Y')
Sat Sep 27 10:10:23 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 10min 19secs
At 00:27:47 Sat 27 Sep 2025 PDT we got a VACSTAT alarm for a HAM1 sensor glitch.
The gauge read a pressure increase from 1.20e-07 to 3.61e-07 as a square wave for 2 seconds. VACSTAT slope just tripped at 1.0e-09, the deta-p did not trip as its level had been increased to 3.0e-07 to prevent such false positive alarms.
I reset the alarm by restarting the vacstat_ioc.service on cdsioc0 at 09:20.
TITLE: 09/27 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 150Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 4mph Gusts, 2mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.33 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
TITLE: 09/27 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 149Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
SHIFT SUMMARY: Locked for 14.5 hours. There is a very slight trend downward to the range that is starting to show up, It's maybe showing up from around 100-1000Hz based on a DARM comparison and the range BLRMS. Might be too early to tell though.
ETMY roll mode has been stable, and violins looks great.
I used Oli's SRM OSEM calibration measurments from [LHO: 87112] to get the absolute calibration of the SRM OSEMs. I only bothered with the ALIGNED position because that's is the official set of measurements for calibration.
I also used a new, quasi-automated version of the calibration script used for the PR3 and SR3 suspensions. The script fits the 6-15 Hz data directly to 1 [OSEM m]/[GS13 m], no additional modelling is involved in the calibration.
The script's information, coordinates, and instructions will be the subject of a later logpost.
The results of the calibration are a mouthful because we are now doing M1, M2, and M3 all simultaneously.
The TL;DR is that the M1 OSEM calibrations seemed off by factors of 1.8 or so, larger than the SR3/PR3 averages, but not unexpected.
The M2 and M3 absolute calibrations were surprisingly good. They were all high from the GS13 measurments by a factor of 10% or so, which leads me to believe this is likely not a coincidence and someone may have previously done an absolute calibration of the SRM M2/M3 OSEMs. I would love to confirm these suspicions, but such work may be lost to time.
See the PDFs attached for the before and after calibration for all three stages.
Here is the full calibration script output:
___________________________________________
OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-SRM
Frequency range for calibration: 6 to 15 Hz
Stages to be calibrated: ['M1' 'M2' 'M3']
Measurement date: 2025-09-23_1830 (UTC).
%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M1
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The suggested (calibrated) M1 OSEMINF gains are
(new T1) = 1.756 * (old T1) = 1.958
(new T2) = 1.806 * (old T2) = 2.127
(new T3) = 1.761 * (old T3) = 1.842
(new LF) = 1.945 * (old LF) = 2.102
(new RT) = 1.593 * (old RT) = 1.819
(new SD) = 1.525 * (old SD) = 1.794
To compensate for the OSEM gain changes, we estimate that the H1:SUS-SRM_M1_DAMP loops must be changed by factors of:
L gain = 0.571 * (old L gain)
T gain = 0.656 * (old T gain)
V gain = 0.565 * (old V gain)
R gain = 0.565 * (old R gain)
P gain = 0.561 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.571 * (old Y gain)
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the M1 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process
The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * pinv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-09-23_1830 (UTC) as a reference, the new M1 apparent alignments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L -37.1 um -65.7 um -28.6 um
T 45.4 um 69.2 um +23.8 um
V 35.5 um 62.4 um +27.0 um
R -62.2 urad -112.0 urad -49.7 urad
P 1082.8 urad 1901.1 urad +818.3 urad
Y 3.9 urad 88.6 urad +84.8 urad
%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M2
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The suggested (calibrated) M2 OSEMINF gains are
(new UL) = 0.900 * (old UL) = 1.109
(new LL) = 0.838 * (old LL) = 1.082
(new UR) = 0.921 * (old UR) = 1.134
(new LR) = 0.939 * (old LR) = 1.293
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the M2 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process
The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * pinv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-09-23_1830 (UTC) as a reference, the new M2 apparent alignments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L -58.3 um -52.7 um +5.6 um
P 861.7 urad 772.3 urad -89.4 urad
Y -518.0 urad -520.3 urad -2.2 urad
%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M3
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The suggested (calibrated) M3 OSEMINF gains are
(new UL) = 0.939 * (old UL) = 1.267
(new LL) = 0.875 * (old LL) = 1.138
(new UR) = 0.903 * (old UR) = 1.170
(new LR) = 0.939 * (old LR) = 1.351
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the M3 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process
The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * pinv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-09-23_1830 (UTC) as a reference, the new M3 apparent alignments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L -72.1 um -65.8 um +6.4 um
P 923.6 urad 845.0 urad -78.6 urad
Y -459.5 urad -453.6 urad +5.9 urad
We have calculated a GS13 to OSEM calibration of H1 SRM ['M1' 'M2' 'M3'] using HAM5 ST1 drives from 2025-09-23_1830 (UTC).
We fit the response SRM_OSEMINF/HAM5_SUSPOINT to unity between 6 and 15 Hz to get a calibration such that 1 [OSEM m] = [GS13 m]
This message was generated automatically by OSEM_calibration_master.py on 2025-09-27 00:50:36.037056+00:00 UTC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
EXTRA INFORMATION
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M1
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The H1:SUS-SRM_M1_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) T1: 1.115
(old) T2: 1.178
(old) T3: 1.046
(old) LF: 1.081
(old) RT: 1.142
(old) SD: 1.176
The matrix to convert from the old SRM M1 Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+1.769 -0.0 +0.0 +0.0 -0.0 -0.014
+0.0 +1.525 -0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0
+0.0 +0.0 +1.77 -0.001 -0.0 +0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.224 +1.77 +0.006 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.761 +0.046 +1.783 -0.0
-2.203 +0.0 -0.0 -0.0 +0.0 +1.769
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'T', 'V', 'R', 'P', 'Y')
%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M2
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The H1:SUS-SRM_M2_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) UL: 1.232
(old) LL: 1.291
(old) UR: 1.232
(old) LR: 1.377
To compensate for the M2 OSEM gain changes, any controllers using the M2 OSEMs as inputs must be compensated with gains of:
L gain = 1.113 * (old L gain)
P gain = 1.112 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 1.114 * (old Y gain)
The matrix to convert from the old SRM M2 Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+0.9 +0.001 +0.001
+0.227 +0.9 -0.02
+0.635 -0.02 +0.9
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'P', 'Y')
%%%%%%%%%%%%
Stage: M3
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The H1:SUS-SRM_M3_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) UL: 1.349
(old) LL: 1.300
(old) UR: 1.295
(old) LR: 1.439
To compensate for the M3 OSEM gain changes, any controllers using the M3 OSEMs as inputs must be compensated with gains of:
L gain = 1.094 * (old L gain)
P gain = 1.095 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 1.095 * (old Y gain)
The matrix to convert from the old SRM M3 Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+0.914 +0.0 +0.0
+0.147 +0.914 -0.025
+0.147 -0.025 +0.914
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'P', 'Y')
TITLE: 09/26 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 149Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 11mph Gusts, 6mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.04 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.33 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: Locked for 9 hours, calm environment. The ETMY roll mode seems to be under control. It does "breathe" up and down a bit, but it isn't growing.
TITLE: 09/26 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 150Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: TJ
SHIFT SUMMARY: We stayed locked the entire shift, 9 hours at the end of the shift. Secondary microseism is still rising.
LOG:
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16:48 | VAC | Pump | LVEA | N | AIP pumping on HAM6 | 23:43 |
| 16:27 | TCS | Camilla | VAP prep lab | N | Check on parts dimensions, cheeta | 16:39 |
| 23:20 | CAL | Dripta | Optics lab | LOCAL | PCAL checks | 23:29 |
Closes FAMIS 28424, last checked in alog 86887.
Measurements did not seem to run last week (and couldn't find an alog for it), but did this week.
ITMX did not run this week - just like the previous check on 09/09.
I didn't capture a screenshot in time but I recall the same message from the last check:
"Cannot calculate beta/beta2 because some measurements failed or have insufficient coherence!
Cannot calculate alpha/gamma because some measurements failed or have insufficient coherence!
Something went wrong with analysis, skipping ITMX_13_Hz_1440859844"
Plots attached.
It seems like the charge on ETMX is increasing as seen by a few different metrics...
Currently the 'ETMX_L3_LOCK_BIAS_OFFSET' we use while locked is +6.05425, the sign is flipped when we are down. Specifically in the PREP_FOR_LOCKING main() fx it's set to -8.9, and it looks to be switching the value as expected.
There's not all that much we can do about this right now, we should keep an eye on it and make sure the values are flipped during maintenance windows (they should be since it's in GRD).
This errata is the SR3 version of [LHO: 87160] that dealt with PR3.
While double-checking the PR3/SR3 OSEM calibration script, I noticed a typo on the printing output of the function that generated the logpost [LHO: 85907].
No changes need to be made because the calculated M1 OSEM calibrations and M1_DAMP gains are both correct. Plots and other visual documentation is all correct too.
However, the expected alignments posted in [LHO: 85907] were wrong, as the (old EUL) to (new EUL) transformation matrix was accidentally inverted.
I post here the corrected script output for the SR3 OSEM calibration for the sake of documentation and transparency. Note that the theoretically calculated alignment values match the observed ones for SR3 too [see attached screenshot]
_____________________________________________________
OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-SR3
Stage: M1
2025-07-22_1530 (UTC).
The suggested (calibrated) M1 OSEMINF gains are
(new T1) = 2.174 * (old T1) = 3.213
(new T2) = 1.610 * (old T2) = 1.517
(new T3) = 1.569 * (old T3) = 1.494
(new LF) = 1.331 * (old LF) = 1.733
(new RT) = 1.374 * (old RT) = 1.494
(new SD) = 1.390 * (old SD) = 1.793
To compensate for the OSEM gain changes, we estimate that the H1:SUS-SR3_M1_DAMP loops must be changed by factors of:
L gain = 0.740 * (old L gain)
T gain = 0.719 * (old T gain)
V gain = 0.545 * (old V gain)
R gain = 0.545 * (old R gain)
P gain = 0.629 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.740 * (old Y gain)
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the at the M1 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process
The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * inv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-07-22_1530 (UTC) as a reference, the new apparent alingments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L -5.0 um -7.7 um -2.8 um
T -21.6 um -30.0 um -8.4 um
V 11.8 um 10.6 um -1.2 um
R -576.3 urad -1036.9 urad -460.6 urad
P -266.5 urad -447.4 urad -180.8 urad
Y -585.0 urad -792.6 urad -207.6 urad
We have estimated a OSEM calibration of H1 SR3 M1 using HAM5 ST1 drives from 2025-05-21_0000 (UTC).
We fit the response M1_DAMP/HAM5_SUSPOINT between 5 and 15 Hz to get a calibration in [OSEM m]/[GS13 m]
This message was generated automatically by OSEM_calibration_SR3.py on 2025-09-26 21:16:58.591270+00:00 UTC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
EXTRA INFORMATION
The H1:SUS-SR3_M1_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) T1: 1.478
(old) T2: 0.942
(old) T3: 0.952
(old) LF: 1.302
(old) RT: 1.087
(old) SD: 1.290
The matrix to convert from the old Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+1.353 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.002
+0.0 +1.39 +0.0 -0.0 -0.0 +0.0
+0.0 +0.0 +1.882 +0.02 -0.0 -0.0
+0.0 -0.0 +4.175 +1.882 +0.007 +0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.454 +0.032 +1.59 +0.0
+0.27 -0.0 -0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +1.353
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'T', 'V', 'R', 'P', 'Y')
J. Kissel
In prep for measuring the absolute calibration PRM and SRM OSEMs, I've changed the ISI HAM2 / HAM5 suspension point drive matrices to project from the PRM and SRM suspension points rather than PR3 and SR3 what we used when calibrating those top mass OSEMs.
Here's the method for installing these matrices:
>> addpath /ligo/svncommon/SeiSVN/seismic/Common/MatlabTools/
>> load /opt/rtcds/userapps/trunk/isc/common/projections/ISI2SUS_projection_file.mat;
>> ham2 = ISI2SUSprojections.h1.prm.EUL2CART;
>> fill_matrix_values('H1:ISI-HAM2_SUSPOINT_EUL2CART',ham2)
>> ham5 = ISI2SUSprojections.h1.srm.EUL2CART;
>> fill_matrix_values('H1:ISI-HAM5_SUSPOINT_EUL2CART',ham5)
Attached are screenshots of the matrix MEDM screens themselves and the SDF accept in the OBSERVE .snap files.
Since these are used and moved around to calibrate each of the SUS in the chamber, and it's so simple to restore if lost, I'm not bothering to save the values in the ISI's safe.snap.
WARNING: We need to check this before we use it again. These projections were done for the sensors, not the actuators.
The EUL basis -> ISI drives actuator matrix needs to be calculated and added to the suspoint projections script and data in the repo. Edgard says this should be the transpose of the sensor matrix, not the inverse. Documentation is in progress.
(EUL2CART and CART2EUL are both for the sensor projection, and are inverses of each other)
Ohp. I made a mistake here.
The drive matrix calculation bit is true about applied drives. However, because the ISI drive requests here are made at the error point of the ISO loops, the inverse is actually correct. Nevermind what I said before.
Apologies for the confusion.
Oli, Ivey, Edgard.
We used Oli's measurements from [LHO: 86204] to do an OSEM calibration for the PR3 M1 OSEMs. Here are the outputs of the calibration script.
_______________________________________
OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-PR3
Stage: M1
2025-08-05_1700 (UTC).
The suggested (calibrated) M1 OSEMINF gains are
(new T1) = 1.770 * (old T1) = 2.055
(new T2) = 1.547 * (old T2) = 1.544
(new T3) = 1.443 * (old T3) = 1.511
(new LF) = 1.590 * (old LF) = 1.862
(new RT) = 1.774 * (old RT) = 2.063
(new SD) = 1.543 * (old SD) = 1.639
To compensate for the OSEM gain changes, we estimate that the H1:SUS-PR3_M1_DAMP loops must be changed by factors of:
L gain = 0.596 * (old L gain)
T gain = 0.648 * (old T gain)
V gain = 0.617 * (old V gain)
R gain = 0.617 * (old R gain)
P gain = 0.670 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.596 * (old Y gain)
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the at the M1 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process
The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * inv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-08-05_1700 (UTC) as a reference, the new apparent alingments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L -57.1 um -33.6 um +23.5 um
T -101.3 um -65.6 um +35.7 um
V 62.4 um 36.6 um -25.8 um
R 433.5 urad 225.7 urad -207.8 urad
P -631.8 urad -406.5 urad +225.2 urad
Y -166.7 urad -76.1 urad +90.5 urad
We have estimated a OSEM calibration of H1 PR3 M1 using HAM2 ST1 drives from 2025-05-21_0000 (UTC).
We fit the response M1_DAMP/HAM2_SUSPOINT between 5 and 15 Hz to get a calibration in [OSEM m]/[GS13 m]
This message was generated automatically by OSEM_calibration_SR3.py on 2025-08-06 01:07:57.985744+00:00 UTC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
EXTRA INFORMATION
The H1:SUS-PR3_M1_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) T1: 1.161
(old) T2: 0.998
(old) T3: 1.047
(old) LF: 1.171
(old) RT: 1.163
(old) SD: 1.062
The matrix to convert from the old Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+0.596 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.003
+0.0 +0.648 -0.0 +0.0 +0.0 -0.0
-0.0 +0.0 +0.617 -0.004 +0.001 +0.0
+0.0 +0.0 -0.748 +0.617 -0.007 -0.0
+0.0 +0.0 +0.517 -0.036 +0.67 -0.0
-0.407 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.596
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'T', 'V', 'R', 'P', 'Y')
The calibration values posted here are correct, but the theoretical alignment values are incorrect. See the corrected post from Sep 26th, 2025.
[CORRECTED LOGPOST LHO: 87160]
OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-SR3
Stage: M1
2025-07-22_1530 (UTC).
The suggested (calibrated) M1 OSEMINF gains are
(new T1) = 2.174 * (old T1) = 3.213
(new T2) = 1.610 * (old T2) = 1.517
(new T3) = 1.569 * (old T3) = 1.494
(new LF) = 1.331 * (old LF) = 1.733
(new RT) = 1.374 * (old RT) = 1.494
(new SD) = 1.390 * (old SD) = 1.793
To compensate for the OSEM gain changes, we estimate that the H1:SUS-SR3_M1_DAMP loops must be changed by factors of:
L gain = 0.740 * (old L gain)
T gain = 0.719 * (old T gain)
V gain = 0.545 * (old V gain)
R gain = 0.545 * (old R gain)
P gain = 0.629 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.740 * (old Y gain)
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the at the M1 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process
The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * inv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-07-22_1530 (UTC) as a reference, the new apparent alingments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L -5.0 um -3.1 um +1.8 um
T -21.6 um -15.5 um +6.1 um
V 11.8 um 9.8 um -2.0 um
R -576.3 urad -327.5 urad +248.9 urad
P -266.5 urad -158.3 urad +108.2 urad
Y -585.0 urad -431.9 urad +153.1 urad
We have estimated a OSEM calibration of H1 SR3 M1 using HAM5 ST1 drives from 2025-05-21_0000 (UTC).
We fit the response M1_DAMP/HAM5_SUSPOINT between 5 and 15 Hz to get a calibration in [OSEM m]/[GS13 m]
This message was generated automatically by OSEM_calibration_SR3.py on 2025-07-22 16:24:05.000267+00:00 UTC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
EXTRA INFORMATION
The H1:SUS-SR3_M1_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) T1: 1.478
(old) T2: 0.942
(old) T3: 0.952
(old) LF: 1.302
(old) RT: 1.087
(old) SD: 1.290
The matrix to convert from the old Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+0.74 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.001
+0.0 +0.719 -0.0 +0.0 +0.0 -0.0
-0.0 +0.0 +0.545 -0.006 +0.0 +0.0
+0.0 +0.0 -1.209 +0.545 -0.003 -0.0
+0.0 +0.0 +0.18 -0.013 +0.629 -0.0
-0.148 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.74
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'T', 'V', 'R', 'P', 'Y')
Please see the attached images of before calibrating and after calibrating.
Comparing these new OSEMINF gains to the gains we got last time we did this (84367) (before the satamp swap), they are pretty similar:
| OSEM | Previous Calculated OSEMINF gains (84367) | New Calculated OSEMINF gains (85907) | Percent difference (%) |
| T1 | 3.627 | 3.213 | 12.1 |
| T2 | 1.396 | 1.517 | 8.3 |
| T3 | 1.345 | 1.494 | 10.4 |
| LF | 1.719 | 1.733 | 0.8 |
| RT | 1.490 | 1.494 | 0.2 |
| SD | 1.781 | 1.793 | 0.6 |
So that's another indicator that the sat amp swap did not have much of an effect on the suspension response to suspoint excitations
The calibration values posted here are correct, but the theoretical alignment values are incorrect. See the corrected post from Sep 26th, 2025.
[CORRECTED LOGPOST LHO: 87162]