Sheila, Jennie, Camilla. Following 70642. Intensity noise measured in 76323.
Plot of laser noise budget attached. First conclusions: Frequency noise lower, Input Beam jitter slightly higher. Compare to O4a plot (Aug 20 data?) 74943 which is a factor of ~2 worse than Aug 10th 72140.
Jitter noise excitation gain, reduced from frequency range from10,000 to 2000, didn't mean to but reverted the templates and it doesn't matter.
Frequency_excitation.xml adjusted bandstop for dither lock from 4000-4200 to 4090-4290Hz (from 76587).
template: Frequency_excitation.xml
Adjusting 70642 for Switch CARM control from REFL A+B to REFL B only from 60W:
Instead of bringing back CARM control to REFL A and B, from 17:39UTC we left CARM control on REFL B only to look for some coherence.
Fri Mar 22 10:12:54 2024 INFO: Fill completed in 12min 50secs
Gerardo confirmed a good fill curbside.
Camilla, Sheila, Jennie W
After we restarted the SQZ MANAGER this morning we took the SQZ angle test to see how the squeezing changes with a thermalised IFO if we step through optimum squeezing through tuning the ADF phase. This ran into some problems when we tried to start at 85 and 90 degrees as the loop seemed to run through a really wide range of phases (we think the loop was diverging). Camilla manually changed the ADF phase to 110 degrees and we restarted the test so it stpped up in steps of 3 degrees every 2 minutes. We changed this halfway through to have a longer time between steps for the loop to follow. The test was stopped at 161 degrees.
We stepped SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE
GPS 1395157776 PHASE = 110
H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 113
H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 116
H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 119
H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 122
H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 125
H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 128
H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 131
H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 134
H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 137
H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 140
H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 143
H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 146
H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 149
H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 152
H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 155
H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 158
H1:SQZ-ADF_OMC_TRANS_PHASE = 161
Phase was put back to 130 degrees after the test at GPS 1395160576.
First image shows the SQZ BLRMS that show how squeezing gets better and worse during the test, calibrated in dBs. Then below this the CLF phase, the OMC trans phase which we are changing and the range at the bottom.
Second image attached shows the same BLRMS (in counts before and just after the test on the bottom left) and the CLF phase and OMC trans phase on the bottom right. From the blue trace just before the test you can see the sign flip when we tried to start the test at 100.
NB: we had been locked for over 6 hours when we started but squeezing wasn't injected until around 20 minutes before the test started.
TITLE: 03/22 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Acquisition
OUTGOING OPERATOR: None
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 4mph Gusts, 3mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.23 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: H1 has been locked at NLN for 6 hours, but it appears that there has been no SQZ (and thus, no observing) since the previous lock acquisition. Sheila and Jennie are debugging.
TITLE: 03/21 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Aligning
INCOMING OPERATOR: None
SHIFT SUMMARY:
H1's been having issues staying locked for more than 45-90 minutes in the last day. Acquisition is decent, although most lock attempts I have proactively went to CHECKMICHFRINGES + PRMI. LOCK CLOCK is not working. Automatic Operation appeared to not work once, but for other couple of attempts it worked.
LOG:
For the first lock of tonight's shift, noticed that the Lock Clock (or Lock Status) on nuc28would only go to "0:01" and stop during the entirety of the (45min lock). I tried running the Lock Status script on my local computer and it would do the same thing....so this is why I did not restart nuc28.
(Later I also noticed that for the next lock, when I set GRD_IFO to Automatic Operation, this node did not take H1 to OBSERVING.)
Just had almost 90min of a lock. And for this lockloss, ITMx ISI had a CPS watchdog trip. Winds are much more calmer tonight than last night.
As shown in the attachment, I turned on the beam spot control. The flag of the beam spot control in sqzparams is set to True. The beam spot control seems working well, but I feel the yaw was too slow so I removed the -20dB gain (FM7 in INJ_ANG_Y). I will tune the green QPD offset with FC2 dither tomorrow.
I tuned the green QPD offset as shown in the attachment. The FC IR trans is 0.1 with -12dBm CLF6 now, but it was 0.1 with -26dBm CLF6 in O4a so it is better to align the IR trans PD.
I tuned the green QPD offset a bit.
[Jennie, Gabriele]
We tried again to move the input beam.
For pitch, we directly ramped IM1, IM3, IM4, PRM and PR2 with sliders deltas measured from the test yesterday. IM1 and IM3 were the mirrors we move yesterday, while the other were moved by ASC loops. Today with the ramp we helped the ASC loops by moving those mirrors in the right direction too. We first diod one step 1/10th of the target step, then 2/10th and then the remaining 7/10th. All went well: IM4_TRANS increased, but we did not see much change in POP_LF. However ASC-POP_B dropped near the end of the ramp, while ASC-POP_A didn't, so maybe we were moving near the edge of B.
We then started a motion in yaw (both IM1 and IM3 negative). This seems a very good direction, and both IM4 and POP_LF got better quickly. However, right after we started the second step, we lost lock. This is similar to what happened in the previous test. We should probably move more slowly in yaw, but it worth repeating the test, since we are gaining power in POP_LF and arms.
During a previous alignment test aimed at reducing jitter (76461) we observed that a yaw input beam PZT excitation had the largest coupling to DARM. This is consistent with the observation here that a yaw motion of the input beam has a large effect on build-ups. We might have a yaw misalignment of the input beam.
I think we normally use a pitch IMC signal to subtract jitter, but both yaw and pitch IMC signals are coherent with DARM, so probably that's not telling us much and it is still consistent with a yaw misalignment.
During the pitch beam motion, we noticed that the PRM camera servo seems to overshoot the optimal buildups: so we might have to retune the camera offset once we find a better input beam aligment
H1 is now in NLN and I just ACCEPTED the one OMC diff (see attached) related to the OMC Frequency per (alog #76587 from Louis earlier today).
Updated notes from incorrect 73801 SQZ NLG instructions
To measure amplified signal for NLG:
To measure unampilifed signal for NLG:
Calculation for NLG:
TITLE: 03/21 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Commissioning
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Oli
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 12mph Gusts, 7mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.23 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
TITLE: 03/21 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Aligning
INCOMING OPERATOR: Corey
SHIFT SUMMARY: Five locklosses today, two known and three unknown.
LOG:
1500 Detector has been Locked for 9.5 hours
1555 Lockloss (unknown)
1633 We were going through CHECK_MICH_FRINGES so I took us to DOWN and then started an INITIAL_ALIGNMENT
1653 INITIAL_ALIGNMENT done, relocking
1738 NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE
1805 Lockloss (unknown)
1846 NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE
1934 Lockloss (unknown)
- Multiple locklosses from LOCKING_ALS and ENGAGE_DRMI_ASC, and DRMI/PRMI locklosses
- Ran MANUAL_INITIAL_ALIGNMENT for MICH, PRC, SRC
2041 NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE
2115 Lockloss (During InLock SUS Charge Measurements)
2158 NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE
2246 Lockloss (from commissioning)
- Running an INITIAL_ALIGNMENT
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15:30 | Richard | roof | n | Looking for a signal | 15:33 | |
| 15:41 | FAC | Karen | OptLab, VacPrep | n | Tech clean | 16:35 |
| 16:57 | SHG | Julian | OpticsLab | y(local) | SHG work | 19:24 |
| 18:13 | FAC | Eric | EY | n | Investigating excess noise | 18:35 |
| 18:16 | EE | Marc, Fil | EY | n | Swapping accelerometer connector&looking for noise | 19:58 |
| 18:44 | Janos, Gerardo | EY | n | Investigate noise | 19:32 | |
| 18:55 | SQZ | Camilla | CR | n | SQZ step tests | 19:25 |
| 20:45 | SHG | Julian | Optics Lab | y(local) | More SHG | 23:10 |
| 22:59 | VAC | Gerardo | MX | n | Check out cable trays | 00:29 |
| 23:14 | RUN | Gabriele | ARMS | n | Running 16km | 01:14 |
Looking at last night lock stretch [1395051437, 1800 seconds]
https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~gabriele.vajente/bruco_1395051437_GDS_CALIB/
Lot of coherence with CHARD_Y, maybe a consequence of 76541
Lot of coherence with MICH and PRCL. and SRCL. What changed in the feed forward?
Another BruCo using last night Observing mode period: https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~gabriele.vajente/bruco_1395052218_GDS_CALIB/
Results are similar, so it was not due to some bad period. There is high coherence with PRCL too: either that's due to MICH cross coupling, or as Elenna suggests there might be something wrong with PRCL that also increases the CHARD noise (we saw in the past that CHARD noise increased when PRCL optical gain dropped)
Artem, Jennie W., Gabriele Following up on alog 76516. We compared DARM for following configurations: * No squeezing O4a, 12/20/2023 18:10-18:20 * With squeezing O4a, 01/12/2024 01:35:15-01:45:15 * No squeezing now, 03/17/2024 04:45:31-04:55:31 * With squeezing now, 03/17/2024 08:18:46-08:28:46 Specifically, following ASDs were calculated: sqrt(abs(no_sqeezing_now^2 - no_squeezing_o4a^2)), and sqrt(abs(squeezing_now^2 - squeezing_o4a^2)). These are shown as blue and red traces on the attached plot. The original DARM traces are shown in gray. Our preliminary conclusion from this is that it appears that excess noise is ~same with and without squeezing. We'll make this plot with longer time series and do some more tests. Jupyter notebook is available here.
Here is my plot which is just binning calibrated CAL-DELTAL_EXTERNAL_DQ and then excluding all the ASD values where the noise now is better than the noise in 04a (these are at low frequency and this is where our noise has improved due to ASC control noise improvements and new DARM configuration).
Then I use the same maths as Artaem to get:
excess noise with no squeezing = sqrt( (ASD with no squeezing now)^2 + (ASD with no squeezing in 04a)^2)
excess noise with no squeezing = sqrt( (ASD with squeezing now)^2 + (ASD with squeezing in 04a)^2)
These also seem to be the same in my plot, which implies that the excess noise is indeed due to some correlated noise (i.e. non-quantum).
See evolution and reduction with ZM alignment: 76757