Louis, Ibrahim

The test was successful and results can be found in:

/ligo/gitcommon/noise_recorder/data/pcaly_noise/

/ligo/gitcommon/noise_recorder/data/pcaly_noise/

with some variant of today's date (03/16/24) and the title SRCLOFFSET

Screenshots show trends of both the SRC Offset and the SQZ Phase over the course of the test.

Sat Mar 16 10:11:58 2024 INFO: Fill completed in 11min 54secs

Louis, Ibrahim

Both ran without successfully without lockloss.

Approximate Broadband Start Time: 16:00 UTC

Simulines Start Time GPS: 1394641120

Simulines End Time GPS: 1394642411

Files Written:

2024-03-16 16:39:53,184 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/DARMOLG_SS/DARMOLG_SS_20240316T161823Z.hdf5
2024-03-16 16:39:53,191 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/PCALY2DARM_SS/PCALY2DARM_SS_20240316T161823Z.hdf5
2024-03-16 16:39:53,196 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L1_SS/SUSETMX_L1_SS_20240316T161823Z.hdf5
2024-03-16 16:39:53,201 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L2_SS/SUSETMX_L2_SS_20240316T161823Z.hdf5
2024-03-16 16:39:53,205 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L3_SS/SUSETMX_L3_SS_20240316T161823Z.hdf5

IFO Calibration Screen and H1 Calibration Report are attached

DARM Offset Test:

Test was run without issues and upon checking the PCAL X and Y Excitation screens, the only differences I can see before vs. after are in the OSC_TRAMP Times:

PCALX: OSC TRAMP (sec) OSC1 was 3 and went to 5

PCALY: OSC TRAMP (sec) OSC1-9 were 10 and went to 5.

I reverted these to their before values - everything else is the same (screenshots below).

TITLE: 03/16 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Commissioning
OUTGOING OPERATOR: None
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 1mph Gusts, 0mph 5min avg
    Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.23 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

IFO is in NLN and COMISSIONING (9hr 44 min lock)

Other:

EX Pressure EX_X5_PT526 MOD1 PRESS TORR is showing a yellow alert on the vacuum alarm handler - will investigate.

*H1:PEM-CS_DUST_PSL101 - dust counts did not change, please investigate - showing same alert as yesterday.

The squeezers performed some optimization of the squeezing today (76426), and we have our New DARM control implemented (76420). The calibration has been updated (76406), so I think we have a reliable look at our current sensitivity. Our current range is just above 150 Mpc, going between 151 and 156 on the sensmon range. This is lower than our best O4a range. However, looking at a comparison from a good O4a time, you can see pretty well where we are missing sensitivity.

I have attached three plots, comparing the CAL_DELTAL_EXTERNAL trace that is calibrated and with no cal lines on from today, to GDS CALIB STRAIN NOLINES and CLEAN taken on Jan 7 when we had close to 160 Mpc. I made a plot each to compare DELTAL/NOLINES and DELTAL/CLEAN and all three together, so the differences are more evident.

Clearly the low frequency range has a big improvement, which I think is mostly attributable to the new DARM. It's also much more stationary (76341). Great work! There is an unfortunate peaky structure around 25-30 Hz; this was present in O4a too and I think we are just revealing more of it with the improvement. There's a chance these are triple suspension bounce modes (70778). There appears to be some extra peaks and noise between 40-50 Hz.

The jitter noise appears to have gotten worse around 100 Hz, and this is especially evident in the GDS CLEAN comparison because a large portion of what is subtracted in CLEAN during O4a was jitter noise. It is now worse and also unsubtracted at the moment. Also, it appears we have lost some sensitivity from 200-500 Hz, which I think we can attribute to squeezing not being exactly tuned for that region.

Meanwhile, the squeezing improvements are incredibly significant at 2 kHz and above, where the squeezing team says they are reaching 5 dB of squeezing! This is fantastic, but given the loss at 300 Hz, I wonder if it's possible to optimize for the bucket (just making this suggestion based on what I've heard from the sqz team in the past).

Some additional notes for further commissioning work:

• we have found an AS A WFS DC offset that minimizes DHARD Y coupling, but creates a problem for the sqz ASC. We should evaluate whether the squeeze team can work around this, because it will likely help the low frequency sensitivity but not the squeezing. (76407)
• With the low frequency improvement, we are probably reaching the level of the ASC noise again. It is unlikely loop optimization will help us further, so adjustments like A2L gains and WFS offsets are a good way to go to improve sensitivity (76363, 76414)
• The LSC noise is more likely to limit us, and we may need a better understanding of where we are limited by LSC noise if our feedforward tuning cannot improve at all frequencies (76409)
• We should consider if changing the input pointing can lower the jitter noise. This will probably be a pain because this will change the alignment of the whole IFO (76359, 76417)

Georgia, Trent

To get the finesse of the omc as a function of the pzt voltage (in order to double check the pzt voltage calibration). OMCscan.py has shortcoming in that it doesn't like when there are more than three carrier 00 peaks so to get three carrier 00 peaks that were included in my initial scan I had to seperate the data into two "bins". I had the GPS time 1393542033 with a duration of 80 to get the first two peaks and the GPS time 1393542063 with a duration of 60 to get the second and third peaks. The links of the GPS times are the corresponding pzt calibrations. The links in the finesse are the zoomed in plots for the corresponsing peaks. To get the plots we ran OMCscan.py and fit_peak_w_args.py

Sweeps from /ligo/gitcommon/psl_measurements/templates:

IMC OLG UGF 69 kHz
CARM OLG UGF 17 kHz

(Jordan V., Gerardo M.)
Late entry.  Removed the old batteries for both stations, and installed new batteries with a larger capacity.
Both stations were tested after replacing the batteries, and the solar panel controllers were noted as charging the new batteries.  No issues noted with either station.

Graeme, Matt, Craig

Using our setup from yesterday (alog 76397), we injected into the common mode board and measured a CARM to DARM transfer function.
Matt will post plots, comparisons, and measurement times later.

I am posting the data now, it lives in /ligo/gitcommon/psl_measurements/data/carm_to_darm_tfs/.

Just to clarify what these measurements are, we injected a 600 mV broadband white noise injection from 51.2 kHz to 102.4 kHz frequency span into the common mode board excitation point.
We measured out at the REFL A 9 QMON at the PSL racks (which is actually REFL A 9 I used for frequency feedback) and out of the OMC DCPD whitening chassis A+ terminal, patched over to the PSL racks as described in alog 76397.

We saw a significant rise in the REFL A 9 QMON noise as we injected more (Matt's plots to come), but very little increase in the OMC DCPD noise.
We had around 5e-3 coherence between the two at best.
We took 10000 averages, so we believe that anything above 1e-4 is "well-resolved".

We did not have time to try injecting between 1 kHz and 51.2 kHz before we lost lock, or to try looking at OMC DCPD A / EXC
We were not injecting at the time of the lockloss.  
We left the SR785 out there but not plugged in to anything on the racks so we can relock peacefully.

EDIT:
We went back out, got some data betwen 1 kHz and 52 kHz, and then unplugged everything, including the SR785 and the HAM6 OMC DCPD A+ whitening chassis cable.  We didn't unplug the patch panel connection.

Jennie W, Craig C.

We paused the IFO at state 503 (CHECK_VIOLINS_BEFORE_POWERUP) and took another test where we looked at the power on POPAIR B RF18 and 90 while changing first the 9 and the 45 MHz modulation depths.

The times series of the two PDs readouts we care about and the guardian is the first image. the second image shows all the PDs in one document.

Results are:

Sideband and carrier powers at each diode

H1:IMC-PWR_IN_OUT16 9 power = 0.051 W
H1:IMC-PWR_IN_OUT16 45 power = 0.117 W
H1:IMC-PWR_IN_OUT16 carrier power = 1.834 W
H1:IMC-PWR_IN_OUT16 total DC power = 2.003 W
H1:IMC-IM4_TRANS_NSUM_OUT16 9 power = 0.047 W
H1:IMC-IM4_TRANS_NSUM_OUT16 45 power = 0.105 W
H1:IMC-IM4_TRANS_NSUM_OUT16 carrier power = 1.668 W
H1:IMC-IM4_TRANS_NSUM_OUT16 total DC power = 1.819 W
H1:LSC-REFL_A_LF_OUT16 9 power = 0.014 mW
H1:LSC-REFL_A_LF_OUT16 45 power = 0.028 mW
H1:LSC-REFL_A_LF_OUT16 carrier power = 0.210 mW
H1:LSC-REFL_A_LF_OUT16 total DC power = 0.252 mW
H1:LSC-REFL_B_LF_OUT16 9 power = 0.013 mW
H1:LSC-REFL_B_LF_OUT16 45 power = 0.026 mW
H1:LSC-REFL_B_LF_OUT16 carrier power = 0.193 mW
H1:LSC-REFL_B_LF_OUT16 total DC power = 0.231 mW
H1:LSC-POP_A_LF_OUT16 9 power = 34.865 uW
H1:LSC-POP_A_LF_OUT16 45 power = 28.588 uW
H1:LSC-POP_A_LF_OUT16 carrier power = 1027.882 uW
H1:LSC-POP_A_LF_OUT16 total DC power = 1091.334 uW
H1:ASC-POP_A_NSUM_OUT16 9 power = 8.372 cts
H1:ASC-POP_A_NSUM_OUT16 45 power = 6.709 cts
H1:ASC-POP_A_NSUM_OUT16 carrier power = 241.335 cts
H1:ASC-POP_A_NSUM_OUT16 total DC power = 256.416 cts
H1:ASC-POP_B_NSUM_OUT16 9 power = 7.685 cts
H1:ASC-POP_B_NSUM_OUT16 45 power = 6.310 cts
H1:ASC-POP_B_NSUM_OUT16 carrier power = 222.705 cts
H1:ASC-POP_B_NSUM_OUT16 total DC power = 236.701 cts
H1:ASC-AS_C_NSUM_OUT16 9 power = 0.019 W
H1:ASC-AS_C_NSUM_OUT16 45 power = 0.051 W
H1:ASC-AS_C_NSUM_OUT16 carrier power = 0.032 W
H1:ASC-AS_C_NSUM_OUT16 total DC power = 0.101 W
H1:ASC-OMC_A_NSUM_OUT16 9 power = 0.020 W
H1:ASC-OMC_A_NSUM_OUT16 45 power = 0.057 W
H1:ASC-OMC_A_NSUM_OUT16 carrier power = 0.032 W
H1:ASC-OMC_A_NSUM_OUT16 total DC power = 0.109 W
H1:ASC-OMC_B_NSUM_OUT16 9 power = 0.018 W
H1:ASC-OMC_B_NSUM_OUT16 45 power = 0.049 W
H1:ASC-OMC_B_NSUM_OUT16 carrier power = 0.031 W
H1:ASC-OMC_B_NSUM_OUT16 total DC power = 0.097 W
H1:ASC-X_TR_A_NSUM_OUT16 9 power = 45.016 W
H1:ASC-X_TR_A_NSUM_OUT16 45 power = 52.783 W
H1:ASC-X_TR_A_NSUM_OUT16 carrier power = 10961.375 W
H1:ASC-X_TR_A_NSUM_OUT16 total DC power = 11059.174 W
H1:ASC-X_TR_B_NSUM_OUT16 9 power = 57.131 W
H1:ASC-X_TR_B_NSUM_OUT16 45 power = 66.290 W
H1:ASC-X_TR_B_NSUM_OUT16 carrier power = 14355.521 W
H1:ASC-X_TR_B_NSUM_OUT16 total DC power = 14478.941 W
H1:ASC-Y_TR_A_NSUM_OUT16 9 power = -258.850 W
H1:ASC-Y_TR_A_NSUM_OUT16 45 power = 380.017 W
H1:ASC-Y_TR_A_NSUM_OUT16 carrier power = 14506.812 W
H1:ASC-Y_TR_A_NSUM_OUT16 total DC power = 14627.979 W
H1:ASC-Y_TR_B_NSUM_OUT16 9 power = -267.817 W
H1:ASC-Y_TR_B_NSUM_OUT16 45 power = 403.885 W
H1:ASC-Y_TR_B_NSUM_OUT16 carrier power = 15432.447 W
H1:ASC-Y_TR_B_NSUM_OUT16 total DC power = 15568.516 W

Power-recycling gains for sidebands and carrier

9 MHz PRG = 70.9
45 MHz PRG = 25.9
Carrier PRG = 58.4

Reflection ratios for sidebands and carrier

9 MHz reflection ratio = 0.176
45 MHz reflection ratio = 0.159
Carrier reflection ratio = 0.075
 

To run test make sure corner POP beam diverter is unshuttered (which it is in this guardian state) then run labutils/mod_depth_up_down_test/code/measure.py, then find the csv file with the correct GPS time in ../data and copy the start and stop times for the mod-depth changes into mod_depth_analysis.py and run this file.
The level on POP90 in the nominal blue region is not in a steady state which means we did not wait long enough at 2W when the measurement finished to get a good estimate of the nominal power on the diode before the IFO started powering up to 10W in the next guardian state.

Dhruva, Naoki, Sheila, Trent, Camilla

This afternoon we tried some SQZ optimization, left SQZ ASC on while squeezing.

Edit: Going back to 120/120 after the IFO has been locked for 2.5 hours we see a lot less frequency dependent rotation. The rest of the team is continuing PSAMS optimization now.

Dhruva measured is NLG is 17. sqzparams.opo_grTrans_setpoint_uW is at 80uW, giving us 21.4 SHG Launch. OPO temperature optimized during this measurement.

TITLE: 03/15 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Commissioning
INCOMING OPERATOR: None
SHIFT SUMMARY:

IFO is in NLN and COMISSIONING

Control Room Operation Log 03/15

 ———————————————————— Shift begin to Nominal Low Noise

15:42 UTC - NLN

16:30 UTC - Erik rebooting Nuc29 due to it flipping on and off - successful

 ———————————————————— Nominal Low Noise to Lockloss/Lock Attempt 1

17:03 UTC - Lockloss ISI EX Stage 1, 2, SUS EX, SUS TMSX WD tripped due to commissioning (known reason)

17:34 - Resetting WDs reset - Counts got to 136 for LL AC on L2.

• EX bottom 2 stages have not leveled off below the new arbitrary 25 (micron) value. We have contacted Jeff to ask if we can raise the thresholds
• After 30 minutes and still no ringing, thresholds are still above 100 but oscillating lower
• We are thinking of adjusting the threshold to get to locking, due to commissioning. (screenshot below).
  • Pressed the reset button again and values went from 100s to sub unity very quickly
    • I wonder if pressing it initially tried damping and then when in a more damped state, re-pressing was much more effective? (screenshot 2)
    • I didn’t know nor think that the reset button activates damping? What’s going on here?
  • Issue passed off to Jeff and Oli, who worked on this change (data counts to micron units) recently.
  • Jeff responded saying that the damping loops do take care of the ring-up after the WD is tripped - just need to press it sooner.

17:36 -  Started locking - stopping at Damp Bounce for some commissioning tests (Jennie and Craig)

17:55 - Guardian restarted with NEW_DARM being the new (nominal) DARM.

18:02 - BS touched by Georgia in order to improve BS - but went into MICH_FRINGES before much movement

18:05 - Lockloss at CHECK_MICH_FRINGES - relocking now.

18:07 - Pointed out by TJ, and trended to confirm - the ALS X TRX is much lower than the last few lock attempts. It was hovering around 1.2 yesterday and is maxing at 0.7 today despite a high comm beat note (~6). This might warrant an initial alignment if the current lock attempt fails. 

18:25 - BS moved by Georgia to acquire PRMI - success 

18:26 - DRMI Locked

18:32 - Lockloss DRMI

 ———————————————————— Lock Attempt 1 to Init Align

18:32 - Initial Alignment Started 

18:40 - Initial Alignment Strangeness - while ALS locked for both arms, the WFs took a while to offload, keeping us in this state for longer than expected - alogged by Camilla (alog 76423)

18:47 - ALSX Transmission values are back to what they were yesterday - around 1.2. Expecting this to fix DRMI locking issues.

19:02 - Initial Alignment Complete - requested CHECK_VIOLINS_BEFORE_POWERUP for Jennie/Craig to run their tests.

 ———————————————————— Init Align to Lock Attempt 2

19:21 - Reached CHECK_VIOLINS_BEFORE_POWERUP for Jennie to take her measurements.

19:26 - Tests done, NLN requested

19:29 - HAM7 WD Tripped - potentially due to SQZ work - requested pre-squeeze state - ADS_TO_CAMERAS. Camilla letting Naoki and Nutsinee know - checking WD now.

19:34 - WD reset successfully.

19:40/1 - Requested and reached TRANSITION_FROM_ETMX for commissioning work.

19:54 - Lockloss - DRMI unlocked (reason not immediately apparent)

 ———————————————————— Lockloss to Lock Attempt 3

20:30 - Lockloss - DRMI unlocked at LOWNOISE_ASC (Alenna caused via changes made in that state)

20:47 - Gerardo informed the control room that the computing room across from the control room had a loud fan and that the back wall was vibrating - informed facilities and Tyler is investigating. Nothing was wrong according to Tyler and Eric.

21:18 - Locked and in NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE

 ———————————————————— Nominal Low Noise to Shift End

22:38 - Craig Running CARM Injection Tests

22:48 - Craig’s Tests done - preparing for future injections

LOG:

[Elenna, Louis]

We reduced the amplitudes of the L2 and L3 SUS calibration lines. Both lines were way too loud after moving to the new DARM loop offloading configuration. The settings we ended up on are below:


Line | Freq | Gain | DELTA_L/SUS_EXC uncertainty 

L2   | 16.4 Hz | 1.5 | 0.0058
L3   | 17.6 Hz | 0.061 | .0046


For each step I changed all of the following channels:
H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_CLKGAIN, H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_SINGAIN, H1:SUS-ETMX_L2_CAL_LINE_COSGAIN, H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_CLKGAIN, H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_SINGAIN, H1:CAL-CS_TDEP_SUS_LINE2_COMPARISON_OSC_COSGAIN

I'm attaching the CAL-CS SUS Line screens for both lines. Red boxes highlight the gains that we adjusted.

With the offset on the AS_A WFS centering, that should lower DHARD_Y coupling to DARM:

https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~gabriele.vajente/bruco_1394535464_DARM

Indeed, DHARD_Y coherence with DARM is much lower. Interestingly, now CHARD_Y coherence seems higher.

In other news, there is some coherence with MICH, but hopefully the retuned FF filter will help with that.

Coherence with input jitter witness is also large, see for example the PSL periscope

[Louis, Gabriele]

We did again the noise injections for retuning the MICH FF, analysis and fit will follow tomorrow.

[Louis, Gabriele]

The DHARD_Y to DARM coupling always showed two regimes: a steep coupling below 20-30 Hz, and a flatter coupling above 20-30 Hz. We've been able to change the flatter coupling above 20-30 Hz by changing the ITMT Y2L coefficient.

Today we confirmed a suspicion: the steep low frequency coupling is due to length to angle coupling at the AS WFS. We changed the beam position on the WFS by adding an offset to the WFS centering (H1:ASC-AS_A_DC_YAW_OFFSET) and saw a change in the DHARD_Y to DARM coupling.

A value close to -0.14 gives the minimum coupling below 20 Hz. we now have two independent knobs to minimize the DHARD_Y to DARM coupling at all frequencies.

Incidentally, the higher frequency couping is now lower than yesterday, with the same ITMY Y2L coefficient of -1.65

We did a scan of the AS_A_WFS Y centering from -0.2 to -0.1 in steps of 0.01, an analysis will follow tomorrow:

-0.200: 1394510627 - 1394510727
-0.190: 1394510777 - 1394510877
-0.180: 1394510927 - 1394511027
-0.170: 1394511077 - 1394511177
-0.160: 1394511227 - 1394511327
-0.150: 1394511377 - 1394511477
-0.140: 1394511527 - 1394511627
-0.130: 1394511677 - 1394511777
-0.120: 1394511827 - 1394511928
-0.110: 1394511978 - 1394512078
-0.100: 1394512128 - 1394512228
 0.000: 1394512278 - 1394512378

We are leaving a value of -0.14 in the WFS offset

Naoki, Dhruva, Nutsinee

Yesterday we had only 3dB squeezing at IFO so we checked squeezing at homodyne. Although the visibility is good (98.5%), the squeezing was only 4.5dB at homodyne with 6dBm CLF6. We reduced the CLF power and recovered 8dB squeezing as shown in the attached figure.

The CLF6 was reduced from 6dBm to -42dBm and the 8dB squeezing was obtained with -38dBm CLF6. The CLF6 between -38 and -20 dBm gave similar squeezing so we set it at -24dBm, which is similar to O4a value and corresponds to 8uW CLF_REFL_LF_OUTPUT. The squeezing at IFO is recovered to 4.5dB with -24dBm CLF6.

Note that the LLO also saw the better squeezing at IFO with less CLF power in LLO70072.

We had 6.5dB squeezing at homodyne in 76040 and 4.5dB squeezing at IFO in 76226 with 6dBm CLF6 before. The question is why we lost squeezing at homodyne and IFO this week with same CLF power? The commissioning list in 76369 might give us a clue.