Closes FAMIS#26050, last checked 85408
HAM2 V1/V3 elevated between 50 - 60 Hz
HAM3 V2/V3 elevated between 50 - 60 Hz
BS St2 V2/V3 becomes elevated above 20 Hz and is sustained, but settles back down around 80 Hz
Last week Edgard and Ivey got new fits for the H1:SUS-SR3_M1_YAW_EST_MODL_SUSP_Y_2GAP and H1:SUS-SR3_M1_YAW_EST_MODL_DRV_Y_2GAP filter banks (85446). Now that we had those, it was time for us to try out the estimator damping again, putting into use all the measurements we did.
To take these regular damping vs estimator damping measurements for SR3 Y:
- I updated those filters in the filter banks listed above
- I exchanged the nominal OSEMINF gains with the gains from 84367
- I turned on the gain in FM7 of the DAMP filter bank that I had found a few weeks ago to counter the new OSEMINF gains (85288)
- Changed the Y damping gain to -0.1
- Additionally, last week we swapped out the SR3 satamp 85463, giving us better noise performance 85485
Measurement times
SR3 Y damp -0.1
2025-07-08 14:54:00 - 15:03:00 UTC
SR3 Y damp -0.1, OSEM damp -0.4
2025-07-08 15:03:15 - 15:48:00 UTC
SR3 Y damp -0.1, Estimator damp -0.4
2025-07-08 15:48:40 - 16:33:00 UTC
The transition between the OSEM damping and estimator damping went well and the estimator did a great job at lowering the noise (ndscope)!
The OSEMINF gain, DAMP Y gain, and DAMP filters have been set back to their nominal settings
The damaged filter housing described in alog 85121 was replaced with a new Donaldson "direct replacement" housing, which of course needed to have the piping modified since the new housing has a wider, thankfully not narrower, connection width than the old housing. The new housing and the 2 pre-existing housings were then fitted with new filter elements. Next week we plan to run the system, flush out the lines into the LVEA, and take FTIR samples to qualify the new Kobelco for acceptance.
EJ, Dave:
20:13:34 Mon 07jul2025 PDT h1susetmx had a single Dolphin receive error for a channel sent by h1isietmx.
This warrents an FRS ticket because the new RCG5.50 should actually be more tolerant of late IPCs and we expected H1's already miniscule IPC error rate (few per year) to go to zero.
WP 12655
ECR E2400330
Drawing D0901284-v5
Modified List T2500232
The following SUS SAT Amps were upgraded per ECR E2400330. Modification improves the whitening stage to reduce ADC noise from 0.05 to 10 Hz.
| Suspension | Old | New |
| ITMY MO | S1100071 | S1100155 |
| ITMY MO/RO | S1100150 | S1100175 |
| ITMY RO | S1100075 | S1100178 |
| ITMX MO | S1100163 | S1100136 |
| ITMX MO/RO | S1100147 | S1000275 |
| ITMX RO | S1100132 | S1100090 |
| SR2 TOP | S1100112 | S1000296 |
| SR2 TOP RT/SD | S1100121 | S1100067 |
F. Clara, J. Kissel, O. Patane, M.Pirello
ITMX ITMY Hardware Watchdog Countdowns, Test Mass Sat Amp swap-outs done in less than 20 minutes.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100155 , assigned to ITMY M0's F1F2F3SD OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just "ITMY MO" above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100155_ITMY_M0_F1F2F3SD_20250703.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design ITMY M0 S1100155 CH1 F1 0.0966:5.28 120.0 zpk([5.28],[0.0966],1,"n") CH2 F2 0.0961:5.25 120.0 zpk([5.25],[0.0961],1,"n") CH3 F3 0.0960:5.23 120.0 zpk([5.23],[0.0960],1,"n") CH4 SD 0.0951:5.18 120.5 zpk([5.18],[0.0951],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ As with LHO:85504 :: Even though I've fit for the transimpedance gain, I've elected *not* to include a gain in the foton design string relative to "ideal," as there are more scale factors in play that determine the overall [(meters)/(ADC cts)] scale in the calibration of the OSEMs (LED light power, PD response, any cable loss, ADC channel gain, etc.). Determining this overall scale is better left to different methods, a la LHO:84548, which we (eventually) anticipate doing for all SUS with ECR E2400330 upgraded satamps.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100175 , assigned to ITMY M0/R0's LFRT/LFRT OSEMs, respectively (Fil refers to this as just "ITMY MO/RO" above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100175_ITMY_M0R0_LFRTLFRT_20250703.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design ITMY M0 S1100175 CH1 LF 0.0947:5.18 120 zpk([5.18],[0.0947],1,"n") M0 CH2 RT 0.0969:5.30 120 zpk([5.30],[0.0969],1,"n") R0 CH3 LF 0.0969:5.29 120 zpk([5.29],[0.0969],1,"n") R0 CH4 RT 0.0965:5.28 120 zpk([5.28],[0.0965],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ See above comment LHO:85626 regarding the intentional exclusion of transimpedance gain in the foton design string.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100178 , assigned to ITMY R0's F1F2F3SD OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just "ITMY RO" above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100178_ITMY_R0_F1F2F3SD_20250703.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design ITMY R0 S1100178 CH1 F1 0.0966:5.29 120 zpk([5.29],[0.0966],1,"n") CH2 F2 0.0957:5.23 120 zpk([5.23],[0.0957],1,"n") CH3 F3 0.0978:5.36 120 zpk([5.36],[0.0978],1,"n") CH4 SD 0.0955:5.22 120 zpk([5.22],[0.0955],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ See above comment LHO:85626 regarding the intentional exclusion of transimpedance gain in the foton design string.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100136 , assigned to ITMX M0's F1F2F3SD OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just "ITMY MO" above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100136_ITMX_M0_F1F2F3SD_20250703.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design ITMX M0 S1100136 CH1 F1 0.0955:5.22 121.10 zpk([5.22],[0.0955],1,"n") CH2 F2 0.0980:5.35 121.25 zpk([5.35],[0.0980],1,"n") CH3 F3 0.0950:5.18 121.50 zpk([5.18],[0.0950],1,"n") CH4 SD 0.0977:5.34 121.50 zpk([5.34],[0.0977],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ See above comment LHO:85626 regarding the intentional exclusion of transimpedance gain in the foton design string.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1000275 , assigned to ITMX M0/R0's LFRT/LFRT OSEMs, respectively (Fil refers to this as just "ITMX MO/RO" above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1000275_ITMX_M0R0_LFRTLFRT_20250703.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design ITMX M0 S1000275 CH1 LF 0.0963:5.27 120 zpk([5.27],[0.0963],1,"n") M0 CH2 RT 0.0950:5.19 120 zpk([5.19],[0.0950],1,"n") R0 CH3 LF 0.0960:5.26 120 zpk([5.26],[0.0960],1,"n") R0 CH4 RT 0.0960:5.26 120 zpk([5.26],[0.0960],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ See above comment LHO:85626 regarding the intentional exclusion of transimpedance gain in the foton design string.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100090 , assigned to ITMX R0's F1F2F3SD OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just "ITMX RO" above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100090_ITMX_R0_F1F2F3SD_20250703.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design ITMX R0 S1100090 CH1 F1 0.0945:5.16 120.25 zpk([5.16],[0.0945],1,"n") CH2 F2 0.0963:5.26 120.00 zpk([5.26],[0.0963],1,"n") CH3 F3 0.0977:5.34 120.00 zpk([5.34],[0.0977],1,"n") CH4 SD 0.0950:5.19 120.00 zpk([5.19],[0.0950],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ See above comment LHO:85626 regarding the intentional exclusion of transimpedance gain in the foton design string.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1000296 , assigned to SR2 M1's T1T2T3LF OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just "SR2 TOP" above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1000296_SR2_M1_T1T2T3LF_20250703.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design SR2 M1 S1000296 CH1 T1 0.0955:5.22 122.00 zpk([5.22],[0.0955],1,"n") CH2 T2 0.0960:5.25 121.75 zpk([5.25],[0.0960],1,"n") CH3 T3 0.0969:5.28 122.25 zpk([5.28],[0.0969],1,"n") CH4 LF 0.0929:5.06 121.50 zpk([5.06],[0.0929],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ See above comment LHO:85626 regarding the intentional exclusion of transimpedance gain in the foton design string.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100067 , assigned to SR2 M1's RTSDxxxx OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just "SR2 RT/SD" above). The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100067_SR2_M1_RTSDxxxx_20250703.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design SR2 M1 S1100067 CH1 RT 0.0977:5.35 120 zpk([5.35],[0.0977],1,"n") CH2 SD 0.0975:5.34 120 zpk([5.34],[0.0975],1,"n") CH3 xx 0.0959:5.25 120 zpk([5.25],[0.0959],1,"n") CH4 xx 0.0969:5.31 120 zpk([5.31],[0.0969],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ See above comment LHO:85626 regarding the intentional exclusion of transimpedance gain in the foton design string.
Closes FAMIS27661
For the CS dust monitors:
LVEA:
5: It passed the zero count test after 3 rounds, there were 2 and 1 cts of 0.3 before which is still a pass, the flow was 2.6 and I adjusted it up to 2.8. PASS
6: It passed the zero count test after 2 rounds, there was 1 count of 0.3 before which is a pass, the flow was 2.8. PASS
10: It passed the the zero count test first round and had a flow of 2.8. PASS
Diode Room: It has a slightly high flow of 2.9 (within 5% of 2.8, acceptable) and I was not able to adjust it down from the dust monitor but it passed the zero count test. PASS
Labs:
Lab1: The optics lab passed the zero count test on the second round and has a flow rate of 2.7 which is within the 5% error stated in the manual. PASS
Lab2: The Clean and Bake lab passed the zero count tests first round and has a flow of 2.8. PASS
Lab3: The PCAL lab dust monitor is still being troubleshooted.
I did not enter the PSL enclosure or anteroom, RyanS will check them during the next incursion.
For the OUT building dust monitors:
FCES: There is no longer a dust monitor setup here, I borrowed it for the vent work as theres no vacuum pump out there so during observing its nominally off.
EndX: It passed the zero count test on the first round, the flow was 2.6 (just outside 5% out of range) and I went to check the vacuum pump at it was at -14.5 mmHg and it was at the end of its upper adjustable range. This may mean the vacuum pump is nearing time for a rebuild as I was not able to increase it from the dust monitor. Tentative PASS
EndY: It passed its zero count on the second round, and its flow was 2.75. PASS
J. Kissel, O. Patane We've completed our campaign of gathering open loop gain, loop suppression, and closed loop gain transfer functions of the top mass damping loops for all SUS that we expect to upgrade with ECR E2400330, which improves the whitening the OSEM sensors read out by UK satamps. Here's the updated inventory originally posted to LHO:85289. Optic aLOG Templates ETMX M0 LHO:85460 2025-07-01_1530_H1SUSETMX_M0_WhiteNoise_*_0p01to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml QUAD L2 to QUAD R0 or TMTS M1 Tracking OFF ETMX R0 LHO:85608 2025-07-08_1630_H1SUSETMX_R0_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml | ETMY M0 LHO:85618 2025-07-08_1630_H1SUSETMY_M0_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml | ETMY R0 LHO:68405 2023-04-04_1731_H1SUSETMY_R0_WhiteNoise_*_0p01to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml | ITMX M0 LHO:85470 2025-07-01_1645_H1SUSITMX_M0_WhiteNoise_*_0p01to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml | ITMX R0 LHO:85605 2025-07-08_1530_H1SUSITMX_R0_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml | ITMY M0 LHO:85470 2025-07-01_1700_H1SUSITMY_M0_WhiteNoise_*_0p01to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml | ITMY R0 LHO:85606 2025-07-08_1510_H1SUSITMY_R0_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml | TMSX LHO:85604 2025-07-08_1525_H1SUSTMSX_M1_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml | V TMSY LHO:85467 2025-07-01_1645_H1SUSITMX_M0_WhiteNoise_*_0p01to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml _ BS LHO:71269 2023-07-12_2000_H1SUSBS_M1_CDBIOState_1_WhiteNoise_*_0p01to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml Oplev damping OFF LHO:71465 2023-07-18_1740_H1SUSBS_M1_CDBIOState_1_OLDampingON_WhiteNoise_*_0p01to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml Oplev damping ON MC1 LHO:85610 2025-07-08_1636_H1SUSMC1_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml MC2 LHO:85610 2025-07-08_1615_H1SUSMC2_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml MC3 LHO:85610 2025-07-08_1703_H1SUSMC3_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml PRM LHO:85292 2025-07-01_1815_H1SUSPRM_M1_CDBIOState_1_WhiteNoise_L_0p01to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml PR2 LHO:85616 2025-07-08_1748_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml PR3 LHO:64152 2022-07-26_1820_H1SUSPR3_M1_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml SRM LHO:85285 2025-07-01_1645_H1SUSITMX_M0_WhiteNoise_*_0p01to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml SR2 LHO:85618 2025-07-08_1645_H1SUSSR2_M1_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml SR3 LHO:85255 2025-05-21_1800_H1SUSSR3_M1_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml FC1 LHO:85618 2025-07-08_1730_H1SUSFC1_M1_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGain.xml FC2 LHO:85618 2025-07-08_1745_H1SUSFC2_M1_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGain.xml OMC LHO:60054 2021-09-28_1640_H1SUSOMC_M1_WhiteNoise_*_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGain_2014vs2021Designs.xml IM1 LHO:64039 2022-07-19_H1SUSIM1_M1_WhiteNoise_*_OLG.xml IM2 LHO:64039 2022-07-19_H1SUSIM2_M1_WhiteNoise_*_OLG.xml IM3 LHO:64039 2022-07-19_H1SUSIM3_M1_WhiteNoise_*_OLG.xml IM4 LHO:64039 2022-07-19_H1SUSIM4_M1_WhiteNoise_*_OLG.xml
I've taken open loop transfer functions for the rest of the suspensions that we didn't have any (or had very old) for: ETMY M0, SR2, FC1, and FC2
These were all taken before the sat amp swap (0.4:10 satamp)
ETMY M0
- Measurements taken with suspension in HEALTH_CHECK but with damping loops on
- optic align offsets off, L2->R0 damping off, etc
*Templates copied from ETMX M0
- V excitation amplitude had to be reduced from 5 to 1
- Y excitation amplitude had to be reduced from 25 to 5
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGM0/Data/2025-07-08_1630_H1SUSETMY_M0_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml r12399
SR2
- Measurements taken with suspension in HEALTH_CHECK but with damping loops on
- optic align offsets off
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SR2/SAGM1/Data/2025-07-08_1645_H1SUSSR2_M1_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml r12401
FC1
- Measurements taken with suspension in HEALTH_CHECK but with damping loops on
- optic align offsets off
- *Measurements taken with HAM7 tripped because it was tripping all morning and I didn't want it to trip during measurements
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC1/SAGM1/Data/2025-07-08_1730_H1SUSFC1_M1_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGain.xml r12402
FC2
- Measurements taken with suspension in HEALTH_CHECK but with damping loops on
- optic align offsets off
*Templates were copied over from FC1
- R excitation amplitude had to be reduced from 20 to 10
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC2/SAGM1/Data/2025-07-08_1745_H1SUSFC2_M1_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz_OpenLoopGain.xml r12404
Adjusted the SQZ FSS beat note by moving the waveplates. The RF demod siganl went from -3.2dBm to +6.5dBm.
J. Kissel
Continuing on the campaign of gathering open loop gain (and loop suppression & closed loop gain TFs), I measured H1SUSPR2's M1 damping loops this morning -- see
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PR2/SAGM1/Data/
2025-07-08_1748_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1748_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1748_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1748_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1748_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1748_H1SUSPR2_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
SUS was in new HEALTH_CHECK state, but damping loops are *on.*
SEI / HPI / ISI was FULLY_ISOLATED, in its best performing state.
Data analysis and commentary to come.
Tue Jul 08 10:07:26 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 7min 22secs
J. Kissel
Continuing on the campaign of gathering open loop gain (and loop suppression & closed loop gain TFs), I measured the IMC suspension's MC1, MC2, and MC3 M1 damping loops this morning -- see
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/
MC1/SAGM1/Data/
2025-07-08_1636_H1SUSMC1_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1636_H1SUSMC1_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1636_H1SUSMC1_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1636_H1SUSMC1_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1636_H1SUSMC1_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1636_H1SUSMC1_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
MC2/SAGM1/Data/
2025-07-08_1615_H1SUSMC2_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1615_H1SUSMC2_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1615_H1SUSMC2_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1615_H1SUSMC2_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1615_H1SUSMC2_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1615_H1SUSMC2_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
MC3/SAGM1/Data/
2025-07-08_1703_H1SUSMC3_M1_WhiteNoise_L_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1703_H1SUSMC3_M1_WhiteNoise_P_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1703_H1SUSMC3_M1_WhiteNoise_R_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1703_H1SUSMC3_M1_WhiteNoise_T_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1703_H1SUSMC3_M1_WhiteNoise_V_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
2025-07-08_1703_H1SUSMC3_M1_WhiteNoise_Y_0p02to100Hz_OpenLoopGainTF.xml
The IMC was brought to OFFLINE beforehand, and I unmanaged the SUS_MC2 guardian to be sure the IMC guardian wouldn't override my wishes.
Each SUS was then brought to the new HEALTH_CHECK state but damping loops are *on.*
SEI / HPI / ISI was FULLY_ISOLATED, in its best performing state.
Data analysis and commentary to come.
Last week I measured the AS RF72 WFS with and without whitening while the IMC was offline. The first attached plot compares the reference traces with the nominal one stage of whitening, and the live traces with no whitening. Based on that result, I determined that we probably should apply another stage of whitening to AS A RF72. Today I applied the second stage of whitening and saw that it makes a small improvement in the dark noise, again taken with the IMC offline. The second attached plot compares the reference traces with one stage of whitening and the live traces with two stages of whitening.
While changing the whitening, I noticed that the overall offsets of each segment change, each one by a different amount. I averaged the input signals over 30 seconds and used those values to update the dark offsets. Some segments are about the same, while others have changed. This SDF screenshot compares the old and new dark offsets for each segment. I also SDFed the second stage of whitening and anti-whitening compensation for all segments.
I also increased the whitening gain of AS A RF72 by 6 dB (from 12 to 18 dB). I compensated that gain change in the anti-whitening filter bank FM6 with a -6 dB gain filter. I'm less certain of the overall effect this will have, but I hope it will help amplify the signal further relative to any ADC noise (see my alog here for reference). We use very little range on these PDs in full lock and during acquisition, so I don't think this will impact locking.
I reran the dark offsets after this change, and have SDFed them below. These diffs appear in both the ASC and CS ISC models. There will be observing diffs that should be accepted!
Got a notification for H1 assistance. H1 dropped from observing just under 3.5hrs ago. After a couple of PRMI cycles, DRMI did lock within 40min, but immediately lost lock at DRMI LOCKED CHECK ASC. Then an Initial Alignment was immediately run in just under an hour @1024UTC. At this point, H1 attempted lock but had another lockloss at DRMI LOCKED CHECK ASC again, but after this lockloss H1 made it up to CARM 5PicoMeters for the next lockloss. Next attempt made it to a CARM OFFSET Reduction Lockloss. Then after no luck locking PRMI and it being over 3hrs, I got the wake up call.
It's sounding like H1 has been having this Locking ailment as of late.
Going to let it finish a 2nd IA I started at @1253UTC after seeing that PRMI looked fine (flashes looked good on camera and are over 100 counts for POP18/90). Initial Alignment just completed and locking clock is restarting.
(Which is good, because my NoMachine is having the symptom that the mouse pointer does not match it's location in my No Machine session intermittantly (basically I'll have the mouse pointer over a spot, i.e. "X" to close an MEDM window, but when I try to click the "X" with the pointer, the pointer is actually, in the No Machine session, about 10" to the left (or right---basically somewhere else!), so it's hard to operate in my NoMachine session. The mouse would be fine on my laptop's monitor. I've had this issue off and on for a few months. With that said, ....after about 15min, my mouse now works OK in NoMachine!)
H1 is now back to DRMI (after the recent Alignment). Camera flashes look centered and POP18/90 flashes are just under 200. Leaving H1 for automatic operations while I see if I can get return to sleep. At 1325UTC/625amPDT, DRMI locked, btw.
It looks like before Corey was called, there were some locking attempts that got up past DRMI. Before he was called, there were two locklosses from DRMI_LOCKED_CHECK_ASC (which we have figured out was due to some SRC1 offsets being turned on by accident), then one lockloss from CARM_5_PICOMETERS, then two lockloss from CARM_OFFSET_REDUCTION. So that makes a lot more sense as to why it didn't call for three hours!
Today while in DRMI ASC, and while trying to debug other problems with DRMI acquisition, Ryan, Tony, and I saw that the DRMI ASC starting pulling the buildups in a bad direction, which made no sense. We were trying to figure out which loops were the culprit, when I saw that the SRC1 offsets were engaged. These offsets had been put in place during the problems with the OFI, and we don't run with these offsets in full lock anymore. I turned the offsets off and the buildups starting moving in the good direction again. This is very confusing, because we've been running like this for ages probably without a problem. Today it was suddenly a problem. I commented out the lines in the ISC_DRMI guardian state PREP_DRMI_ASC where these offsets are turned on and loaded.
I made a minor mistake here- I only commented out the lines in ISC_DRMI where the offset is SET, but I didn't comment out lines where the offset is turned ON. However, ISC_LOCK sets a random offset in SRC1 as well, and doesn't turn it on, but then we were in a situation where ISC_LOCK sets a weird offset, and then ISC_DRMI turns it ON. This meant today the DRMI ASC came on in a very strange way and pulled the alignment far off. I have now commented out all lines in both ISC_DRMI and ISC_LOCK that set these offsets, and turn the offsets on. Hopefully, this won't be an issue again.
Thought I had posted this before, but couldn't find it, so here it is. Attached plots compare L2L measurements of the HAM1 GS13s on May 21 during corner pumpdown before adding the periscope viton and June 6 the afternoon after we added viton. The Q and frequency of the 71.8hz mode is somewhat reduced, but the neighboring 69.9hz mode is sharper now, so I'm not sure we gained much. The June 6 measurement was collected in air, so I would still like to collect a set of in-vac measurements. This could probably be done on a Tuesday if there isn't too much activity around HAM1.
I took 5-200hz matlab tfs this morning to compare to the 2 previous measurements above. It seems that the damping is quite effective now. I will try to look at the effect on the isolation filter design, maybe we can get some of the loop gain back. It would still be better to move these modes up above 100hz if possible.
TITLE: 06/27 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Acquisition
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan S
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 9mph Gusts, 4mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.05 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
14:46 UTC DRMI is struggling when ASC starts, I'm going to run a manual_IA
At the time of the request for help 10:22 UTC, we were in in CHECK_AS_SHUTTER where it was presumably stuck at SHUTTER_FAIL which I've encountered again at 15:22 UTC. It's been in that state since 09:05 UTC when we lost lock from 25Ws and the SHUTTER GRD reported "No kick... peak GS13 signal = 51.226"
The shutter did not trigger in this last lockloss, it looks like the light heading to the AS port was not high enough to trigger the shutter.
The lockloss_shutter_check guardian check for a kick in the HAM6 GS 13s anytime that we loose lock with more than 25kW circulating power in the arms. In this case we had just reach 100kW circulating power, so the guardian expected the shutter to trigger. This lockloss looks unusual in that there isn't a increase in the power going to the AS port right before the lockloss.
Ryan ran the shutter test and the shutter is working correctly now.
I think that this is probably the result of an usual lockloss happening at somewhat lower circulating power than usual. We should probably edit the logic in IFO notify to call for operator assistance whenever the shutter is in the failed state.
This is OK, the AS port went dark and stayed there for about 70ms or so after the lockloss and there was no excessive power surge that would have caused the fast shutter to be triggered.
The maximum power of ~1.4W was observed ~160ms after the lockloss, which is well below the threshold for the analog FS trigger (3 to 4W, I don't remember the exact number).
If something similar happened with 60W, though, FS might have been triggered.
Attached is the estimate of the power coming into HAM6 using two different sensors (PEM-CS_ADC_5_19 = HAM6 power sensor in the AS camera can which monitors power before the fast shutter, and ASC-AS_A_DC_NSUM after). Neither of these have hardware whitening, neither saturated (ASA was close to saturation but the HAM6 power sensor saturation threshold is about 570W when beam diverter is open, 5.7k if closed).
Note that the calibration of the PEM channel is a factor of 10 smaller than that in the observation mode (0.177W/ct, see alog 81112 and git repo for lock loss tool) because the beam diverter (90:10) was open.
I made a timeline of what ISC_LOCK was doing during this event.
