Displaying reports 1701-1720 of 85666.Go to page Start 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 End
Reports until 22:05, Monday 18 August 2025
LHO General
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - posted 22:05, Monday 18 August 2025 (86432)
Mon EVE Ops Summary

TITLE: 08/18 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 22Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan S
SHIFT SUMMARY:

Notable news H1 has now been locked 55+hrs.

For those keeping track:

LOG:

H1 General
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - posted 17:02, Monday 18 August 2025 (86433)
Locked for 50 Hours (so far!)

H1 just hit 50hrs with the current lock!!  (at about the same time a M5.6 Tonga earthquake passed by to add some drama!  See the cyan colored trace in the attached photo.)  :)

Images attached to this report
LHO General
corey.gray@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:50, Monday 18 August 2025 (86431)
Mon Eve Ops Transition

TITLE: 08/18 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 152Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan C
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: SEISMON_ALERT
    Wind: 10mph Gusts, 5mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.04 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.09 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

H1 is minutes away from a 50hr lock (just as a M5.6 EQ is rolling in....we look like we are fine).  Other than that, environmentally continues to get better with microseism coming down and winds also being low.

H1 General
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:33, Monday 18 August 2025 (86421)
OPS Monday day shift summary

TITLE: 08/18 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 150Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Corey
SHIFT SUMMARY: We're still locked! 49.5 hours now, high frequency SQZing was a little worse after commissioning.
LOG:

Start Time System Name Location Lazer_Haz Task Time End
18:49 LASER LVEA is LASER HAZARD LVEA YES LVEA IS LASER HAZARD 09:49
17:13 ISC Betsy Optics lab N Check for parts/tools 17:38
17:14 VAC Travis MidY N Check on pumps 17:27
17:19 CAL Tony PCAL lab LOCAL Start a measurement 18:22
18:55 CAL Tony PCAL lab LOCAL Look at beamspots 19:11
19:22 CAL Rick, Dripta PCAL lab LOCAL Checks 20:15
20:01 CAL Tony PCAL lab LOCAL Join team 20:15
20:13 ISC Betsy Optics lab LOCAL Parts/tools checks 21:15
20:14 ISC Camilla Optics lab LOCAL Join Betsy 21:15
20:31 ISC Keita Optics lab LOCAL Housekeeping, ISS array 21:24
20:46 ISC Rahul Optics lab LOCAL ISS Array work 22:30
20:51 ISC Jennie Optics lab LOCAL ISS array work 22:30
21:26 VAC Travis Ends N Moving equipment for tomorrow 23:02
23:18 CAL Rick, Dripta, Tony PCAL lab LOCAL Finish measurement Ongoing

15:36 - 18:33 UTC Comissioning

Images attached to this report
H1 SUS (SEI, SUS)
ivey.zhong@LIGO.ORG - posted 15:13, Monday 18 August 2025 (86430)
SR3 Pitch Estimator Fits

Last Tuesday, Oli took some pitch transfer functions for the pitch estimator (see LHO: 86203). 

The fits were added to the SVN and live inside '~/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/Common/FilterDesign/Estimator/Clean_fits_H1SR3_P-08-05.mat'. They are already calibrated to work on the filter banks for the estimator and can be installed using 'make_SR3_pitch_model.m', which is in the same folder.

Attached below are three images of the pitch estimator fits.

The first attachment shows the Suspoint P to M1 DAMP P fit. The zpk for this fit is:

    'zpk([-1.573-2.997i,-1.573+2.997i,-0.363-8.909i,-0.363+8.909i,-0.086-5.793i,-0.086+5.793i,-0.012-21.983i,-0.012+21.983i,0.391-14.449i,0.391+14.449i,1.12-1.455i,1.12+1.455i],[-0.421-1.748i,-0.421+1.748i,-0.193-10.021i,-0.193+10.021i,-0.145-13.141i,-0.145+13.141i,-0.115-4.125i,-0.115+4.125i,-0.093-4.667i,-0.093+4.667i,-0.061-21.579i,-0.061+21.579i],-0.001)'

The second attachment shows the M1 drive P to M1 DAMP P fit. The zpk for this fit is:

    'zpk([-0.226-4.432i,-0.226+4.432i,-0.008-5.377i,-0.008+5.377i,-0.001-20.571i,-0.001+20.571i],[-0.161-13.126i,-0.161+13.126i,-0.126-4.077i,-0.126+4.077i,-0.111-4.709i,-0.111+4.709i,-0.061-21.603i,-0.061+21.603i],75.096)'

The third attachment shows the Suspoint L to M1 DAMP P fit. We tried to fit the zero at 3 Hz as best as possible without compromising the rest of the fit. The zpk for this fit is:

    'zpk([-1.395-60.783i,-1.395+60.783i,-0.941-7.056i,-0.941+7.056i,0.685-18.736i,0.685+18.736i,0.887-6.92i,0.887+6.92i,0,0],[-0.198-10.004i,-0.198+10.004i,-0.141-13.133i,-0.141+13.133i,-0.095-4.093i,-0.095+4.093i,-0.083-4.646i,-0.083+4.646i,-0.06-21.579i,-0.06+21.579i],0)'

Images attached to this report
H1 CDS
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:14, Monday 18 August 2025 (86427)
Power glitch Monday 13:49 18th August 2025 PDT

13:49:12 PDT power glitch. Lights flickered in OSB.

No UPS emails regarding this event. Attached CS mains mon trend shows issues with all 3 phases.

Images attached to this report
H1 SEI
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:38, Monday 18 August 2025 (86426)
HEPI Pump Trends Monthly FAMIS

Closes FAMIS#37208, last checked 85791
 
HEPI pump trends looking as expected.

Images attached to this report
H1 ISC
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:14, Monday 18 August 2025 (86423)
Improved MICH feedforward

Continuing work from 86370, I was able to refit the MICH feedforward and get improvement.

The SRCL coupling doesn't seem to be dependent on the SRC ASC offsets that were implemented in this alog, as I checked the coupling today and it was the same as I measured last week (forgot to properly save references before closing DTT so you will just have to take my word for it for now). I was unable to get enough time to measure the high frequnecy SRCL coupling better and refit, so that remains a future task.

Images attached to this report
H1 CAL (CAL)
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:29, Monday 18 August 2025 - last comment - 15:09, Monday 18 August 2025(86420)
Monday commissioning calibration measurement

Broadband:

Start:  2025-08-18 18:53:06 UTC

Stop:  2025-08-18 18:58:16 UTC
Files: 

/ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/PCALY2DARM_BB/PCALY2DARM_BB_20250818T175306Z.xml

Simulines:

Start:  2025-08-18 18:00:44.516123 UTC // GPS: 1439575262.516123

Stop:  2025-08-18 18:24:10.038319 UTC // GPS: 1439576668.038319

Files:

2025-08-18 18:24:09,876 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/DARMOLG_SS/DARMOLG_SS_20250818T180045Z.hdf5
2025-08-18 18:24:09,884 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/PCALY2DARM_SS/PCALY2DARM_SS_20250818T180045Z.hdf5
2025-08-18 18:24:09,889 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L1_SS/SUSETMX_L1_SS_20250818T180045Z.hdf5
2025-08-18 18:24:09,894 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L2_SS/SUSETMX_L2_SS_20250818T180045Z.hdf5
2025-08-18 18:24:09,900 | INFO | File written out to: /ligo/groups/cal/H1/measurements/SUSETMX_L3_SS/SUSETMX_L3_SS_20250818T180045Z.hdf5

Images attached to this report
Non-image files attached to this report
H1_calibration_report_20250818T180045Z.pdf
Comments related to this report
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 13:23, Monday 18 August 2025 (86424)
Link

Just adding some notes that this calibration measurement was taken with SRC ASC offsets, as detailed in this alog.

elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 15:09, Monday 18 August 2025 (86429)
Link

This report pulled a very old report for comparison, which is an error that Joe B is trying to work on fixing in the code. I regenerated the report so it could pull the most recent valid report, and the results are attached.

Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 SQZ
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:38, Monday 18 August 2025 - last comment - 12:16, Wednesday 27 August 2025(86414)
DHARD, SRCL1 anmd Camera Offset Changes with Mid-sqz at 5kHZ
Elenna, Jennie, Camilla. Contining from 86361
 
We saved  H1:OMC-DCPD_524K_A2_IN1 data with the PD sum, it was already changed from last week as in  85937. DTT saved as /ligo/home/camilla.compton/Documents/sqz/templates/dtt/20250819higher_order_modes.xml screenshot attached. Elenna opened POP beamdiv.
Changed DHARD/SRCL1 settings with H1:ASC-{SRCL1,DHARD}_{P,Y}_OFFSET and the camera offsets in steps of +/-1 as in 76695.  Didn't see a change with DHARD or camera offsets, found improvement with SRCL1 PIT and YAW,
 
Starting angle is (-)133, took SQZ_ANG SERVO to DOWN. After each step of SRCL1/camera offsets/DHARD, we changed SQZ angle to get level back to 4dB ASQZ, as our 5kHz modes look clearest here.
To get mean sqz, pause SQZ_MANAGER, SQZ_LO_LR to DOWN, ADF off, SQZ_FC to MISALIGNED.
 
Type Time (UTC) Angle DTT Ref Notes
SQZ 15:30:00 - 15:35:00 (-)133 ref 0  
FDS Mid - SQZ 15:37:00 - 15:39:00 (-)111 ref 1 At 4dB ASQZ
FDS Mid SQZ, SRM YAW -1urad (offset -0.3) 15:47:00 - 15:49:00 (-)108 ref 2 Made better today and in 86363
Mid SQZ, , SRM YAW -1urad,  +8cts DHARD YAW 15:51:30  - 15:53:30 (-)108 ref 3 No change at 5 or 10kHz
Mid SQZ, , SRM YAW -1urad,  CAM3Y -1count 16:04:30 - 16:06:30 (-)108 ref 4 Loop takes ~5 minutes to converge, buildups worse. No change at 5 or 10kHz.
Mid SQZ, , SRM YAW -1urad,  CAM3Y +1count 16:15:30 - 16:16:30 (-)108 not taken Builds-ups same as normal. No change at 5 or 10kHz.
Mid SQZ, , SRM YAW -1urad, SRM PIT +2urad (offset +0.6) 16:23:00 - 16:25:00 (-)110 ref 5 Buildups worse, saw 5kHz was a little worse at 5kHz with +0.3 so went further. DHARD PIT started to grow at 1Hz.
Mid SQZ, , SRM YAW -1urad, SRM PIT -1urad (offset -0.3) 16:27:00 - 16:29:00 (-)107 ref 6 5kHz better
Mid SQZ, SRM YAW -1urad, SRM PIT -2urad (offset -0.6) 16:30:00 - 16:32:00 (-)106 ref 7 5kHz slightly worse
Mean SQZ 16:35:00 - 16:37:00 N/A ref 8  
 
Best for 5kHz is -0.3 on both SRCL PIT and YAW. We then took the data for the SRCL offset SQZ brontosaurs plots at these (-0.3,-0.3) SRCL1 offsets, as in 84794,  85362. Plot saved in camilla.compton/Documents/sqz/templates/dtt/20250818_SQZdata.xml and attached.
 
Type Time (UTC) SRCL Offset Angle DTT Ref
FIS SQZ 16:42:30 - 16:45:30 -382 (-)124 ref 1
FIS SQZ 16:48:30 - 16:51:30 -200 (-)153 ref 2
FIS SQZ 16:58:30 - 17:01:30 0 (-)224 ref 3
No SQZ 17:02:30 - 17:05:30 -382 N/A ref 0

Took above data at NLG of 16.0, checked and improved the NLG after data taken 76542.

OPO Setpoint Amplified Max Amplified Min UnAmp Dark NLG Note
80 0.108523 0.00199724 0.0067894 -1.22e-5 16.0 Without Optimizing Temp
80 0.154115 0.00199724     22.7 After Optimizing Temp
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 11:53, Monday 18 August 2025 (86422)
Link

I think we like these SRC ASC offsets, so I set up the guardian to keep them. While the overall effect is minimal, there was a small increase in the buildups that was repeatable: we switched these offsets on and off a few times as we were commissioning today and the buildups got slightly worse when they went off and slightly better when they went on. I tried to process the FIS data, and I think it shows that the overall change in the SRCL offset is minimal, but maybe someone else can confirm. Similarly, the calibration report show the fit of the sensing function is very good in the current model.

Now the guardian engages these SRC ASC offsets in the LOWNOISE_ASC state.

I have attached the results (plot one and plot two) from the FIS measurement, and the fit indicates that our current SRCL offset is fine (I think that's the correct interpretation here).

Here is a trend of the buildups and SRC ASC offsets (pitch and yaw are right on top of each other in the bottom plot). The plot shows that the buildups increase when we add these offsets and decrease when we disengage these offsets.

The calibration report is linked in this alog, and shows that the calibration model is still very good. (There are some strange errors in the report generation, but they are unrelated to this change).

Images attached to this comment
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 15:08, Monday 18 August 2025 (86428)
Link

Here is a more to-the-point executive summary of what these results today are indicating:

  • the lower frequency mode seems to be most effected by yaw SRM offsets
  • the higher frequency mode seems to be the most effected by pitch SRM offsets
  • DHARD pitch and yaw offset seem to have no effect on these modes
  • Y-arm yaw camera offsets (effectively a DSOFT offset) seem to have no effect on these modes
    • stepping both up and down by 1 ct camera offsets also made the buildups worse

A large positive SRM pitch offset caused a growing 1 Hz oscillation in DHARD pitch as well. I'm not sure what to make of that yet, but I wanted to re-emphasize for future moves.

Since we are seeing an improvement in the buildups when adding SRM offsets, I think some of the prevalence of these modes could be related to some uncontrolled AS 72 offset which is changing the SRM alignment offset. We reran dark offsets when coming back from the vent, so the dark offset change on AS 72 could be effecting the SRM alignment in some way.

elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 12:16, Wednesday 27 August 2025 (86598)
Link

In a follow up discussion, Sheila and I referring Matt's slides regarding the HOMs here.

Based on Matt's work, we think that the lower frequency mode is the Y-arm mode, and the higher frequency mode is the X arm mode.

Therefore, this indicates that the SRM yaw alignment offset effected the Y arm mode and the SRM pitch alignment offset effected the X arm mode.

Also, as a follow up test, we should try CAM2 offsets, which is the X arm soft degree of freedom.

We could also try MICH alignment offsets.

LHO VE
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:32, Monday 18 August 2025 (86419)
Mon CP1 Fill

Mon Aug 18 10:06:54 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 6min 50secs

 

Images attached to this report
H1 SEI
anthony.sanchez@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:37, Monday 18 August 2025 (86417)
BSC & HAM CPS Spectra

H1 ISI CPS Noise Spectra Check FAMIS 26545

HAM 5 Looks slightly quieter across most frequencies  above 10Hz exceot 55 hz.
ETMY Looks like like it's seen an slight increase in motion around 85 Hz in both ST1 and ST2 when compairing to the last Famis Entry. 

Non-image files attached to this report
CPS_spectra_08:55-08_18_2025.pdf
H1 PSL
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:27, Monday 18 August 2025 (86418)
PSL 10-Day Trends

FAMIS 31099

Jason's FSS alignment in the enclosure last week (alog86315) is clearly seen on several trends. PMC transmitted power has also been getting lower seemingly due to the average ISS diffracted power making a few steps up over the past week; not sure if I have an explanation at this point for that. Next time the IFO is unlocked I can double-check the diffracted power and make sure it's staying at the desired 4.0%; right now it's a little high at 4.2%.

Images attached to this report
H1 PSL
anthony.sanchez@LIGO.ORG - posted 08:50, Monday 18 August 2025 (86416)
Weekly PSL Status Report FAMIS 26548

Weekly PSL Status report FAMIS 26548

Laser Status:
    NPRO output power is 1.864W
    AMP1 output power is 70.19W
    AMP2 output power is 141.5W
    NPRO watchdog is GREEN
    AMP1 watchdog is GREEN
    AMP2 watchdog is GREEN
    PDWD watchdog is GREEN

PMC:
    It has been locked 5 days, 23 hr 21 minutes
    Reflected power = 23.79W
    Transmitted power = 105.2W
    PowerSum = 129.0W

FSS:
    It has been locked for 1 days 18 hr and 55 min
    TPD[V] = 0.8324V

ISS:
    The diffracted power is around 4.4%
    Last saturation event was 1 days 18 hours and 56 minutes ago


Possible Issues:
    PMC reflected power is high

H1 General
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:27, Monday 18 August 2025 - last comment - 08:37, Monday 18 August 2025(86413)
OPS Monday day shift start

TITLE: 08/18 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 153Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Oli
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
    SEI_ENV state: CALM
    Wind: 1mph Gusts, 0mph 3min avg
    Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
    Secondary useism: 0.10 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:

Comments related to this report
ryan.crouch@LIGO.ORG - 08:37, Monday 18 August 2025 (86415)
Link

15:36 UTC Dropped observing to start planned commissioning.

H1 SUS
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:11, Tuesday 12 August 2025 - last comment - 13:30, Monday 18 August 2025(86319)
SR3 Y damping estimator test

Ivey, Edgard, and Brian have created new estimator fits (86233) and blend filters (86265) for the SR3 Y estimator, and we have new rate channels (86080), so we were excited to be able to take new estimator measurements (last time 85615).

Unfortunately, there were issues with installing the new filters, so I had to make do with the old filters: for the for the estimator filters, I used the fits from fits_H1SR3_2025-06-30.mat, and the blend filters are from Estimator_blend_doublenotch_SR3yaw.m, aka the DBL_notch filter and not the new skinny notch. These are the same filters used in the testing from 85615.

So the only difference between the last estimator test and this one is that the last test had the generic satamp compensation filters (85471), and this measurement has the more precise 'best possible' compensation filters (85746). Good for us to see how much of a difference the generic vs best possible compensation filters make.

Unfortunately, due to the filter installation issues as well as still trying to re set up the estimator channels following the channel name changes, I also didn't have much time to run the tests, resulting in the actual test with the estimator being only 5 minutes. Hopefully this is okay enough for at least a preliminary view of how it's working and then next week we can run a full test with the more recent filters. Like last time, the transition between the OSEM damping and the estimator damping was very smooth and the noise out of the estimator was visibly smaller than with the regular damping (ndscope1).

Measurement times
SR3 Y damp -0.1
2025-08-12 18:28:00 - 18:44:00 UTC

SR3 Y damp -0.1, OSEM damp -0.4
2025-08-12 18:46:46 - 19:03:41 UTC

SR3 Y damp -0.1, Estimator damp -0.4
2025-08-12 19:09:00 - 19:16:51 UTC

Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
ivey.zhong@LIGO.ORG - 14:20, Friday 15 August 2025 (86379)SEI, SUS
Link

Attached below are plots of the OSEM yaw signal, the M3 yaw optical lever witness sensor signal, and the drive request from light damping, full damping (current setting), and estimator damping modes from Oli's recent estimator test.

The blue trace is the light damping mode, the red trace is the full damping mode, and the yellow trace is the estimator damping.

The first plot is of the OSEM signal. The spectrum is dominated by OSEM noise. The blue, light damping trace shows where the suspension resonances are (around 1, 2, and 3 Hz). Under estimator damping, the resonances don't show up as expected.

This second plot is of the OPLEV signal. It is much more obvious from this plot that the estimator is damping at the resonances as expected. Between the first and second, as well as the second and third peaks, the yellow trace of the estimator damping mode is below the red trace of the full damping mode. This is good because it is expected that the estimator damping is better than the current full damping mode between the peaks. There is some estimator noise between 3 and 4 Hz from the estimator. The light damping trace also sees a noticeable amount of excess noise between 10 to 15 Hz. We suspect this is due to ground motion from maintenance: third, fourth, and fifth plots show comparisons between ground motion in July (when the light damping trace was 'normal') and August. There is excess noise in X, Y, and Z in August when compared to July.

The sixth plot is of the drive requests. This data was pulled from a newly installed 512 samples/sec channel, while the previous analysis for a test in July (see: LHO: 85745) was done using a channel that was sampling at 16 samples/sec. The low frequency full damping drive request differs significantly between July and August, likely because aliasing effects caused the July data to be unreliable. Otherwise, the estimator is requesting less drive above 5 Hz as expected. We note that the estimator rolls off sharply above 10 Hz.

The last plot is of the theoretical drive requests overlaid onto the empirical drive requests. We see that the major features of the estimator drive request are accounted for, as expected.

Oli intends to install the filter and the new, clean fits (see LHO: 86366) next Tuesday to test the yaw estimator once more. Hopefully the installation is smooth!

Non-image files attached to this comment
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 13:30, Monday 18 August 2025 (86425)
Link

I would like to clarify from my initial alog that when I said that "the only difference between the last estimator test and this one is that the last test had the generic satamp compensation filters", that was a lie!! The measurements taken for calibrating and figuring out the correct response drives were taken before the satellite amplifiers were swapped for SR3, so even just the OSEMINF calibration was not done with the new satellite amplifiers in mind, so the calibration we had in there at the time was not very accurate to what we had going on, so we can't really compare this measurement to the last one.

Displaying reports 1701-1720 of 85666.Go to page Start 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 End