Displaying reports 1681-1700 of 86330.Go to page Start 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 End
Reports until 16:30, Wednesday 24 September 2025
LHO General
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:30, Wednesday 24 September 2025 (87130)
Ops Day Shift Summary

TITLE: 09/24 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Earthquake
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
SHIFT SUMMARY: Very quiet day of H1 observing until an earthquake caused a lockloss in the late afternoon. Once the ground motion rings down, Ibrahim will start relocking.

LOG:

Start Time System Name Location Lazer_Haz Task Time End
16:48 VAC Pump LVEA N AIP pumping on HAM6 23:43
16:10 FAC Kim Opt Lab N Technical cleaning 16:26
17:02 SEI Jim, Mitchell Opt Lab N Taking parts out of clean bags 17:30
17:58 CAL Tony PCal Lab N Looking for a cable 18:34
20:08 ISC Jennie Opt Lab Local ISS array work 21:00
20:41 CAL Tony PCAL Lab N Dropping off supplies 21:25
20:49 AOS Betsy Opt Lab N Checking bag contents 21:16
21:26 SPI Jeff, RyanS Opt Lab N Looking at SPI optics 21:41
22:10 ISC Jennie Opt Lab Local ISS array work 00:09
22:54 VAC Gerardo LVEA N Checking on AIP 23:16
LHO General
ibrahim.abouelfettouh@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:22, Wednesday 24 September 2025 (87129)
OPS Eve Shift Start

TITLE: 09/24 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Earthquake
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan S
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: LARGE_EQ
    Wind: 6mph Gusts, 3mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.69 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.18 μm/s 
QUICK SUMMARY:

IFO is DOWN due to EARTHQUAKE

Just waiting for this 6.2 EQ from Venezuela to pass through and then back to LOCKING

 

H1 General (Lockloss, SEI)
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:39, Wednesday 24 September 2025 (87128)
Lockloss @ 22:31 UTC - EQ

Lockloss @ 22:31 UTC after 11.5 hours locked - link to lockloss tool

Caused by S-waves from a M6.1 EQ out of Venezuela. Happened less than a minute after the start of the transition to EQ mode, so I didn't get a chance to try the ASC Hi-Gain feature to ride through it (although, in this case I don't suspect it would have helped). Holding H1 in DOWN as it's still 10 minutes before the R-waves are supposed to hit.

LHO VE
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:38, Wednesday 24 September 2025 (87117)
Wed CP1 Fill

Wed Sep 24 10:08:21 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 8min 18secs

Gerardo confirmed a good fill curbside.

Images attached to this report
LHO General
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:39, Wednesday 24 September 2025 - last comment - 11:28, Wednesday 24 September 2025(87116)
Ops Day Shift Start

TITLE: 09/24 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 153Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Tony
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 2mph Gusts, 0mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.14 μm/s 
QUICK SUMMARY: H1 has been locked for 3.5 hours. One lockloss overnight with an unknown cause, but relocking seems to have gone without issue. We will have a short planned commissioning window from 16:00 to 17:00 UTC.

Comments related to this report
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - 11:28, Wednesday 24 September 2025 (87122)

The hour of commissioning time did not happen today due to calibration report issues at LLO. This has been added onto tomorrow's regularly scheduled commissioning time, so we will have a total of 4.5 hours (with the first 30 minutes dedicated to calibration sweeps, as usual).

LHO General
ibrahim.abouelfettouh@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:00, Tuesday 23 September 2025 (87115)
OPS Eve Shift Summary

TITLE: 09/24 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 150Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Tony
SHIFT SUMMARY:

IFO is in NLN and OBSERVING as of 22:59 UTC (6 hr lock)

We've been locked for the entirety of shift.

LOG:

None

H1 SUS (SEI)
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:23, Tuesday 23 September 2025 (87112)
H1SUSSRM OSEM Absolute Calibration Measurements

As the other half of Jeff's Side Quest 4 (87102), I took measurements for calculating the absolute calibration of SRM.

Doing this will make the estimator work for SRM easier later on. Like Jeff, I also took two sets of measurements, one with the offsets on (ALIGNED), and one with the offsets off (HEALTH_CHECK). The official measurements that we will be using for getting the OSEM absolute calibration are the ones where the optic is ALIGNED, since that's where it usually is. The set of measurements taken with the alignmet offsets off is to see how much of a difference we see between the two states.
The drive in ISO_{X,Y,Z} correlate with the same optic motion directions as they did when I was taking these same measurements for SR3: ISO_X -> SUS_DAMP_T, ISO_Y -> SUS_DAMP_L, ISO_Z -> SUS_DAMP_V.

These were the settings for the measurements:
- HAM5 in ISI_DAMPED_HEPI_OFFLINE
- SRM in ALIGNED or SRM in HEALTH_CHECK (with damping on)

SRM in ALIGNED (official measurements)
Found in /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SRM/Common/Data/
2025-09-23-1830_H1ISIHAM5_ST1_SRM_ALIGNED_WhiteNoise_ISO_X_0p05to40Hz_calibration.xml r12666
2025-09-23-1830_H1ISIHAM5_ST1_SRM_ALIGNED_WhiteNoise_ISO_Y_0p05to40Hz_calibration.xml r12666
2025-09-23-1830_H1ISIHAM5_ST1_SRM_ALIGNED_WhiteNoise_ISO_Z_0p05to40Hz_calibration.xml r12666

In ALIGNED, here are the suspension positions according to the OSEMs (in urads*, see Jeff's explanation):
    M1 OPTICALIGN sliders   M1 OSEM    M2 OSEM    M3 OSEM
P          +2520             +1071       +790       +837
Y          -3809              +40        -479       -397

The alignment slider calibrations for SRM are P = 1.875 [DAC ct/"urad"] and Y = 2.681 [DAC ct/"urad"]

SRM in HEALTH_CHECK with damping on (extra measurements for looking at difference)
Found in /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SRM/Common/Data/
2025-09-23-1810_H1ISIHAM5_ST1_SRM_NoOffsets_WhiteNoise_ISO_X_0p05to40Hz_calibration.xml r12666
2025-09-23-1810_H1ISIHAM5_ST1_SRM_NoOffsets_WhiteNoise_ISO_Y_0p05to40Hz_calibration.xml r12666
2025-09-23-1810_H1ISIHAM5_ST1_SRM_NoOffsets_WhiteNoise_ISO_Z_0p05to40Hz_calibration.xml r12666

Comparing the two sets of measurements, you can see that between both L's and both V's, the M1 OSEMs for the ALIGNED cases are closer to each other than the Offsets Off case, but they still need a calibration factor.

Images attached to this report
H1 ISC
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - posted 18:17, Tuesday 23 September 2025 - last comment - 16:36, Wednesday 24 September 2025(87114)
Modulation Depth test results - March vs September

Back in March, I ran a modulation depth test, with several goals in mind related to providing useful calibration information for modeling. That alog is still unfortunately sitting in my drafts. However, I was able to use the results to make a side-by-side comparison with a modulation depth test Sheila ran last Thursday, after the power outage. We are still trying to understand what the overall effect of the power outage was on the IFO. Namely, we have lost 1% of optical gain, 86964.

Some background: the modulation depth test aims to measure the fraction of carrier, 9 MHz and 45 MHz power at each port. This is done by measuring the powers at the nominal settings, and then individiually stepping the 9 and 45 MHz modulation up or down by a known value. Using a measured calibration of V/dBm and rad/V (see alog 62883), and using the bessel functions, the power fraction of each field can be measured at each diode based on how much the total diode power changes at each step. (note: I still have a to do list item to better calibrate the modulation depth in radians using OMC scan data).

Procedure: I stepped both down and up in modulation depth, resulting in 5 different measurements (nominal, 9 down, 9 up, 45 down, 45 up). In March, I stepped down by 3 dBm and up by 2 dBm, but in September we were able to step both down and up by 3 dBm. I measured for 3 minutes at each step in March, and 1 minute at each step in September.

EDIT: I realized I made an error, and the first results I report below are actually from Feb 2025. The significant difference here is that in my February measurement I only stepped down by 3 dBm for 9 and 45 MHz each, so there is less data to fit. In my March measurement, I stepped up 2 dBm and down 3 dBm, getting 5 total different measurement times. There should be very little difference in the interferometer between February and March 2025, so the differences in the results I believe are due to the fact that more points (5 versus 3) gives you a much better fit to the data. I would compare March and now for a more accurate understanding of the differences.

February results, well before power outage, only fit from 3 data points:

Field Input POP REFL AS
carrier 0.9771 0.9842 0.9419 0.3386
9 MHz 0.01278 0.01527 0.02950 0.1787
45 MHz 0.01003 0.000474 0.02860 0.4827

March results, before power outage, fit from 5 data points:

Field Input POP REFL AS
carrier 0.9779 0.9831 0.9164 0.2134
9 MHz 0.01212 0.01332 0.04059 0.2761
45 MHz 0.009687 0.002302 0.04431 0.5413

September results, after power outage (and reduction of PSL power, attenuation at IMC REFL), fit from 5 data points:

Field Input POP REFL AS
carrier 0.9783 0.9833 0.9333 0.3556
9 MHz 0.01195 0.01325 0.02533 0.1852
45 MHz 0.009486 0.001909 0.04199 0.4641

EDIT: Including the March results (and trusting them more than the February results) changes the conclusion. The input ratios are very similar between all three measurements. This is also true for POP where carrier and 9 ratios are concerned. 45 MHz is the hardest field to measure because the 9 and carrier are so strong at POP. There may be less 45 MHz at POP, or this is just the measurement uncertainty. At REFL, there may be an increase in carrier light now after the power outage, and there may be half as much 9 MHz as in March.

The most dramatic differences are at the AS port. Just comparing the February and March measurements, there may be considerable uncertainty in how much of each field is at AS in general. However, if we choose to believe the March results, this would suggest a significant increase in carrier at AS, and a significant decrease in 9 and 45 MHz. However, comparing February and now, the 9 MHz and carrier are nearly the same, and the 45 seems to have decreased.

Comments related to this report
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 11:30, Wednesday 24 September 2025 (87123)

Rereading this alog, I see that I should say specifically which diodes measure these powers:

Input == IM4 trans

POP == POP A LF

REFL == REFL A LF

AS = AS_C DC NSUM

elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 16:36, Wednesday 24 September 2025 (87131)

Here are plots of various channels during the March and September mod depth tests. The shaded region indicates which step was being taken at the time, and the dotted line matching each shading color indicates the median of the channel at that time.

Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 General (CDS)
filiberto.clara@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:14, Tuesday 23 September 2025 (87113)
HAM5 Cable Tray and MER VDD Rack Work

S&K Electric onsite. Floor cable tray between SUS racks R4 and R7 installed. Isolated cable tray from supports with teflon. Insulated ground bar installed and tied to rack SUS-R7.

Work in the mechanical room mezzanine (power suppy and cabling for SUS-M2) caused h1sush7 IO chassis to glitch. See alog 87095 for details.

D. Barker, F. Clara, and S&K Electric

H1 PSL (IOO)
jennifer.wright@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:08, Tuesday 23 September 2025 (86378)
Data from ISS 18th Aug 2025

Jennie W, Rahul K, Keita K

Executive Summary: The measurements of ISS input beam dither coupling to the PDs need repeated as their may be some settings on the oscilloscope we didn't setup properly.


Measurement Theory:

To get a coupling measurement of the ISS diode array to input beam motion we need:

AC measurement for each of the 8 diodes (ACPD1, ACPD2, etc.).

simultaneous AC measurement for the X and Y channels of the QPD (X, Y).

We have a calibration measured previously that tells us that the QPD calibration [Cal] is 45 V/mm when the input beam is dithered horizontally, and that the direction we dither the beam in is 14.9 degrees from the X axis of the QPD (presumably because the QPD is not quite aligned rotationally in its support).

To work out the movement in the actual horizontal plane on the QPD (R_QPD) we use:

Mag = sqrt(X^2 + Y^2)

theta = atan2(Y, X)

R_QPD = Mag * e^(i*theta)

Average DC voltage for each of the 8 PDs to normalise the coupling measurement (DC1, DC2, etc)

Coupling = (AC PDn / DCn)/ (R_QPD/Cal)


When Mayank and Shiva were here we were doing this measurement using the average and peak to peak values for the voltages of DC and AC signals respectively. This throws away the phase info, so now we are trying to do this using transfer functions between the motion of the input beam on the QPD and the PDs.


On August 18th we re-aligned the input to the ISS in the optics lab to minimise the coupling to each of the PDs by eye on the oscilloscope traces showing the AC coupled time series.

The dither used to measure the coupling is applied on a steering mirror after the mode-matching lens but before the PBS used to fix the polarisation of the beam.

The dither we used initially was 1Vpp, but we made some effort to reduce noise on the signal by tuning the resistance of the laser temperature controller.

The new dither is 40mVpp at 100 Hz, and has an offset of 2.5V to keep the mirror aligned into the ISS array input aperture.


All three oscilloscopes are synced via a square wave from the signal generator used for the dither and can be controlled by USB hookups to the opticslab PC.

The code to trigger them at once is from the ipython notebook saved on C:\Users\opticslab as meas_TF_osc.ipynb:

# %%
import pyvisa
rm = pyvisa.ResourceManager()
import numpy as np
import time
print(rm.list_resources())     ## This command list the available resources
# %%
delay = 4  # Allow a delay in query between write and read
scope1 = rm.open_resource('USB::0x0699::0x03A3::C060047::INSTR', query_delay=delay)      ## Instantiates the instrument
scope2 = rm.open_resource('USB::0x0699::0x03A3::C042270::INSTR', query_delay=delay)      ## Instantiates the instrument
scope3 = rm.open_resource('USB::0x0699::0x03A3::C042275::INSTR', query_delay=delay)      ## Instantiates the instrument
# %%
scope1.write(f'ACQUIRE:STATE OFF')
scope2.write(f'ACQUIRE:STATE OFF')
scope3.write(f'ACQUIRE:STATE OFF')
# %%
scope1.write(f'ACQUIRE:MODE SAMPLE')
scope2.write(f'ACQUIRE:MODE SAMPLE')
scope3.write(f'ACQUIRE:MODE SAMPLE')

scope1.write(f'ACQUIRE:STOPAFTER SEQUENCE')
scope2.write(f'ACQUIRE:STOPAFTER SEQUENCE')
scope3.write(f'ACQUIRE:STOPAFTER SEQUENCE')
#%% Acquire waveform data
scope1.write(f'ACQUIRE:STATE ON')
scope2.write(f'ACQUIRE:STATE ON')
scope3.write(f'ACQUIRE:STATE ON')

All this does is trigger the scopes, the channels have to be turned on manually and saved manually. Francisco has worked on a much better bersion of this code but I haven't had time to test it yet.

 


The data we gathered on the 18th is shown below.

The time series for X and Y is shown here.

The time series for ACPD1-8 is shown here.

One can not really see a coherence, this could mean the array is perfectly aligned, but this is not likely as we have not done very fine adjustments.

This is more obvious if one looks at the ASD of each of the PDs, I have just attached one of these but none of them show a signal above the surrounding noise at 100 Hz where the injection was.

We are seeing this signal on the X and Y ASDs.

The csv files I saved for AC, DC and QPD all had different time steps, but the same span meaning they were all different lengths. We might need to retake this data and mess around with the display and save settings to fix this - Keita investigated earlier today and it is possible to change the save resolution to be larger and also to reduce the number of samples the oscilloscope saves via the trigger menu.

I might also try to increase the dither amplitude if this still doesn't help us do the measurement.


Once we have this measurement working we will need to iterate this measurement a few times while making small adjustments to the alignment into the array and possibly moving one or more of the PDs in their mounts.

The next steps are to repeat this measurement for vertical dither and then to do beam scans across each PD to see how well centred they are with respect to the beam.

Images attached to this report
H1 SUS
filiberto.clara@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:27, Tuesday 23 September 2025 - last comment - 11:48, Wednesday 24 September 2025(87103)
Sat Amps Modified: PRM, SRM, ITMY, ITMX, BS, and BS

WP 12802
ECR E2400330
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 OSEM
PRM M2 S1100080 S1100064 ULLLURLR
PRM M3 S1100106 S1000285 ULLLURLR
SRM M2 S1100078 S1100095 ULLLURLR
SRM M3 S1000274 S1100091 ULLLURLR
ITMY L1 UIM S1100070 S1100129 ULLLURLR
ITMX L1 UIM S1100141 S1000287 ULLLURLR
BS M2 S1000295 S1100117 ULLLURLR
ETMY UIM S1100159 S1100088 ULLLURLR

 

F. Clara, J. Kissel, O. Patane

Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 10:56, Wednesday 24 September 2025 (87118)ISC
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100064, assigned to PRM M2's ULLLURLR OSEMs.

This sat amp is a UK 4CH sat amp, D0900900 / D0901284.

The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 1 of the Measurement Diagrams from LHO:86807.

The data was processed and fit using
    ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/
         plotresponse_S1100064_PRM_M2_ULLLURLR_20250917.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
PRM      M2       S1100064         CH1                UL           0.0961:5.24     120.25        zpk([5.24],[0.0961],1,"n")
                                   CH2                LL           0.0950:5.18     120.25        zpk([5.18],[0.0950],1,"n")
                                   CH3                UR           0.0961:5.24     120.25	 zpk([5.24],[0.0961],1,"n")
                                   CH4                LR           0.0962:5.25     120.00	 zpk([5.25],[0.0962],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/Results/

Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- but after ruling out an adjustment in the zero frequency (by zeroing the phase residual at the lowest few frequency points), I nudged the transimpedance a bit to get the magnitude scale within the ~0.25%. shown in the attached results. Any scaling like this will be accounted for instead with the absolute calibration step, i.e. Side Quest 4 from G2501621, a la what was done for PR3 and SR3 top masses in LHO:86222 and LHO:84531 respectively.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 11:00, Wednesday 24 September 2025 (87119)
Here's the characterization data and fit results for  S1000285 , assigned to PRM M3's ULLLURLR OSEMs.

This sat amp is a UK 4CH sat amp, D0900900 / D0901284.

The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 1 of the Measurement Diagrams from LHO:86807.

The data was processed and fit using
    ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/
         plotresponse_S1000285_PRM_M3_ULLLURLR_20250917.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
PRM      M3       S1000285         CH1                UL           0.0956:5.22     120.250       zpk([5.22],[0.0956],1,"n")
                                   CH2                LL           0.0967:5.27     120.250       zpk([5.27],[0.0967],1,"n")
                                   CH3                UR           0.0955:5.21     120.375       zpk([5.21],[0.0955],1,"n")
                                   CH4                LR           0.0950:5.18     120.375       zpk([5.18],[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/Results/

Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- but after ruling out an adjustment in the zero frequency (by zeroing the phase residual at the lowest few frequency points), I nudged the transimpedance a bit to get the magnitude scale within the ~0.25%. shown in the attached results. Any scaling like this will be accounted for instead with the absolute calibration step, i.e. Side Quest 4 from G2501621, a la what was done for PR3 and SR3 top masses in LHO:86222 and LHO:84531 respectively.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 11:03, Wednesday 24 September 2025 (87120)
Here's the characterization data and fit results for  S1100095 , assigned to SRM M2's ULLLURLR OSEMs.

This sat amp is a UK 4CH sat amp, D0900900 / D0901284.

The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 1 of the Measurement Diagrams from LHO:86807.

The data was processed and fit using
    ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/
         plotresponse_S1100095_SRM_M2_ULLLURLR_20250917.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
SRM      M2       S1100095         CH1                UL           0.0955:5.22     120           zpk([5.22],[0.0955],1,"n")
                                   CH2                LL           0.0975:5.33     120           zpk([5.33],[0.0975],1,"n")
                                   CH3                UR           0.0951:5.19     120.25        zpk([5.19],[0.0951],1,"n")
                                   CH4                LR           0.0955:5.20     120.25        zpk([5.20],[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/Results/

Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- but after ruling out an adjustment in the zero frequency (by zeroing the phase residual at the lowest few frequency points), I nudged the transimpedance a bit to get the magnitude scale within the ~0.25%. shown in the attached results. Any scaling like this will be accounted for instead with the absolute calibration step, i.e. Side Quest 4 from G2501621, a la what was done for PR3 and SR3 top masses in LHO:86222 and LHO:84531 respectively.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 11:08, Wednesday 24 September 2025 (87121)
Here's the characterization data and fit results for  S1100091 , assigned to SRM M3's ULLLURLR OSEMs.

This sat amp is a UK 4CH sat amp, D0900900 / D0901284.

The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 1 of the Measurement Diagrams from LHO:86807.

The data was processed and fit using
    ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/
         plotresponse_S1100091_SRM_M3_ULLLURLR_20250917.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
SRM      M3       S1100091         CH1                UL           0.0983:5.37     120.25        zpk([5.37],[0.0983],1,"n")
                                   CH2                LL           0.0959:5.23     120.25        zpk([5.23],[0.0959],1,"n")
                                   CH3                UR           0.0955:5.23     120.00        zpk([5.23],[0.0955],1,"n")
                                   CH4                LR           0.0957:5.24     120.00        zpk([5.24],[0.0957],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/Results/

Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- but after ruling out an adjustment in the zero frequency (by zeroing the phase residual at the lowest few frequency points), I nudged the transimpedance a bit to get the magnitude scale within the ~0.25%. shown in the attached results. Any scaling like this will be accounted for instead with the absolute calibration step, i.e. Side Quest 4 from G2501621, a la what was done for PR3 and SR3 top masses in LHO:86222 and LHO:84531 respectively.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 11:35, Wednesday 24 September 2025 (87124)
Here's the characterization data and fit results for  S1100129 , assigned to ITMY L1 (UIM) ULLLURLR OSEMs.

This sat amp is a UK 4CH sat amp, D0900900 / D0901284.

The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 1 of the Measurement Diagrams from LHO:86807.

The data was processed and fit using
    ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/
         plotresponse_S1100129_ITMY_L1_ULLLURLR_20250916.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     L1       S1100129         CH1                UL           0.0956:5.23     121.75        zpk([5.23],[0.0956],1,"n")
                                   CH2                LL           0.0966:5.28     120.00        zpk([5.28],[0.0966],1,"n")
                                   CH3                UR           0.0978:5.34     120.00        zpk([5.34],[0.0978],1,"n")
                                   CH4                LR           0.0966:5.27     120.00        zpk([5.27],[0.0966],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/Results/

Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- but after ruling out an adjustment in the zero frequency (by zeroing the phase residual at the lowest few frequency points), I nudged the transimpedance a bit to get the magnitude scale within the ~0.25%. shown in the attached results. Any scaling like this will be accounted for instead with the absolute calibration step, i.e. Side Quest 4 from G2501621, a la what was done for PR3 and SR3 top masses in LHO:86222 and LHO:84531 respectively.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 11:41, Wednesday 24 September 2025 (87125)
Here's the characterization data and fit results for  S1100287 , assigned to ITMX L1 (UIM) ULLLURLR OSEMs.
	(Note the typo in Fil's main entry -- he quotes S1000287, but it's S1100287.

This sat amp is a UK 4CH sat amp, D0900900 / D0901284.

The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 1 of the Measurement Diagrams from LHO:86807.

The data was processed and fit using
    ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/
         plotresponse_S1100287_ITMX_L1_ULLLURLR_20250916.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     L1       S1100287         CH1                UL           0.0958:5.23     120           zpk([5.23],[0.0958],1,"n")
                                   CH2                LL           0.0966:5.28     120           zpk([5.28],[0.0966],1,"n")
                                   CH3                UR           0.0941:5.14     120           zpk([5.14],[0.0941],1,"n")
                                   CH4                LR           0.0955:5.23     120           zpk([5.23],[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/Results/

Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- but after ruling out an adjustment in the zero frequency (by zeroing the phase residual at the lowest few frequency points), I nudged the transimpedance a bit to get the magnitude scale within the ~0.25%. shown in the attached results. Any scaling like this will be accounted for instead with the absolute calibration step, i.e. Side Quest 4 from G2501621, a la what was done for PR3 and SR3 top masses in LHO:86222 and LHO:84531 respectively.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 11:45, Wednesday 24 September 2025 (87126)
Here's the characterization data and fit results for  S1100117 , assigned to BS M2 ULLLURLR OSEMs.

This sat amp is a UK 4CH sat amp, D0900900 / D0901284.

The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 1 of the Measurement Diagrams from LHO:86807.

The data was processed and fit using
    ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/
         plotresponse_S1100117_BS_M2_ULLLURLR_20250917.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
BS       M2       S1100117         CH1                UL           0.0970:5.31     120           zpk([5.31],[0.0970],1,"n")
                                   CH2                LL           0.0975:5.33     120           zpk([5.33],[0.0975],1,"n")
                                   CH3                UR           0.0967:5.30     120           zpk([5.30],[0.0967],1,"n")
                                   CH4                LR           0.0955:5.22     120.375       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/Results/

Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- but after ruling out an adjustment in the zero frequency (by zeroing the phase residual at the lowest few frequency points), I nudged the transimpedance a bit to get the magnitude scale within the ~0.25%. shown in the attached results. Any scaling like this will be accounted for instead with the absolute calibration step, i.e. Side Quest 4 from G2501621, a la what was done for PR3 and SR3 top masses in LHO:86222 and LHO:84531 respectively.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 11:48, Wednesday 24 September 2025 (87127)
Here's the characterization data and fit results for  S1100088 , assigned to ETMY L1 (UIM) ULLLURLR OSEMs.

This sat amp is a UK 4CH sat amp, D0900900 / D0901284.

The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 1 of the Measurement Diagrams from LHO:86807.

The data was processed and fit using
    ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/
         plotresponse_S1100088_ETMY_L1_ULLLURLR_20250916.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
ETMY     L1       S1100088         CH1                UL           0.0968:5.29     120           zpk([5.29],[0.0968],1,"n")
                                   CH2                LL           0.0956:5.23     120           zpk([5.23],[0.0956],1,"n")
                                   CH3                UR           0.0955:5.22     120           zpk([5.22],[0.0955],1,"n")
                                   CH4                LR           0.0959:5.24     120           zpk([5.24],[0.0959],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/Results/

Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- but after ruling out an adjustment in the zero frequency (by zeroing the phase residual at the lowest few frequency points), I nudged the transimpedance a bit to get the magnitude scale within the ~0.25%. shown in the attached results. Any scaling like this will be accounted for instead with the absolute calibration step, i.e. Side Quest 4 from G2501621, a la what was done for PR3 and SR3 top masses in LHO:86222 and LHO:84531 respectively.
Non-image files attached to this comment
Displaying reports 1681-1700 of 86330.Go to page Start 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 End