These are the plots for HAM2, only did X,Z,RY, and RZ. X and Z injections were ~2/3rds the amplitude of the LLO injections.

HAM3.

Here's pictures of WHAM1-D4

Here's pictures of WHAM1-D5

Here's pictures of WHAM1-D6

Here's pictures of WHAM1-D1

Here's pictures of WHAM1-D2
(which is in-between and beneath HAM1 and HAM2 which butt up against each other, so the pictures kinda stink. Sorry! But, it looks like there's quite litte on this feedthru anyways).

Here's pictures of WHAM1-D3

Here's pictures of WHAM1 "East" (-Y) door

Here's pictures of WHAM1 "South" (-X) door

Here's pictures of WHAM1 "West" (+Y) door
(with a lot of bellows going to ISCT1.)

Thanks Jeff for those pictures. I added a link to this alog from the WHAM1 flange layout: https://dcc.ligo.org/D1002872-v8 for reference.
If you spot any additional redlines from the posted -v8 'D1002872-v7-redline.pdf', please add them to the DCC.

Here's pictures of the feedthrus on the top WHAM1
The first three pictures (619-621) are viewed on a ladder in front of the "East" (-Y) door, looking toward the +Y direction.
The second two pictures (622-623) are viewed on a ladder in front of the the "South" (-X) door, looking toward the +X direction.

Here's the measurement of the DHARD_Y plant, together with a fit. The peak at 2.6 Hz is not yet well resolved, so we should target it with some additional noise injections.

Z, P, K of the fir in s-domain:

z = [-0.95136101+11.64945547j, -0.95136101-11.64945547j,
     -0.36478703 +3.20366341j, -0.36478703 -3.20366341j,
     -1.14203036 +0.27714772j, -1.14203036 -0.27714772j]
p = [-0.59076912+17.94263255j, -0.59076912-17.94263255j,
     -0.52161196+15.28151683j, -0.52161196-15.28151683j,
     -0.18999281 +6.5798622j , -0.18999281 -6.5798622j ,
     -0.41593773 +2.9252335j , -0.41593773 -2.9252335j ,
     -2.64441872 +0.j        , -0.0852773  +0.j        ]
k = -129105.8425258189

Here is a scope showing some OMC ASC signals during this test. 

The bottom left 4 plots show the output of the OMC ASC loops, so you can use these to judge when the OMC ASC was off.  The third column bottom 4 plots show witness sensors for OMC and OM3 motion, they move a lot less when the ASC is off.  Please ignore the plots of the error signals (4th row, POS and ANG INMONs), these are after the MASTERGAIN so they were zero when Ryan turned off the ASC.  The top row right two plots show the QPD signals that are used as error signals, no clear change in their rms with the ASC on or off, but tomorow we should plot their spectra.

Here's a comparison of several channels with the OMC ASC on and off. Conclusions: the OMC shakes a lot more when the OMC ASC is on, but this has no effect on DHARD or DARM at low frequency (below a few Hz).

So the OMC ASC loops are not responsible for the 2.6 Hz peak

There's also no evidence at this point that the OMC moving more is having an effect on DARM noise. 

I attach here the omicron transients during this test from  2023-07-17 23:31:39 to  2023-7-18  00:03:01.  The first figure is the time-frequency plot and second figure shows the rate of these transients per 300 seconds. 

We do not see any noticeable change during this on/off test in the rate of these transients.

P.S. Thanks to Joe Areeda for running Omicron on this data. 

Here are the plots of ASC-AS_C_NSUM, OMC-QPD_A_NSUM, OMC-QPD_B_NSUM and OMC-REFL_A_LF, during these measurements. ASC-AS_C_NSUM shows between 22.8 and 32.1mW, OMC-QPD_A_NSUM 23.4mW, OMC-QPD_B_NSUM 23.0mW, and OMC-REFL_A_LF 24.8mW. According to Keita OMC-REFL_A_DC has an incorrect calibration and shows 25.2mW. The average of the 2 QPDs would be 23.2mW, which is about 6.5% lower than 24.8mW.

Second screen shots shows a time when the IMC was unlocked. The DC offsets are in the 10s of uW at most.

Using data from the scan I adapted labutils/OMCscan class to plot the fitted scan and adapted labutils/fit_two_peaks.py to fit a sum of two lorentzians functions for distinguishing carrier 20/02 modes.

The first graph is the OMC scan plot, the second is the curvefit for the second order carrier modes.

We expect the HOM spacing to be 0.588 MHz as per this entry and DCC T1500060 Table 25.

The spacing for the modes measured is 0.592 MHz.

From the heights of the two peaks this suggests mode-mismatch of the OMC to be C02+C20/C00 = (0.83+1.158)/(15.32+0.83+1.158) = 11.0% mode mis-match.

From the locked/unlocked powers on the OMC REFL PD the visibility on resonance is 1-(3.51+0.03/24.73+0.03) = 85.7% visibility.

If the total loss is 14.3%, this implies that the other non mode-matching losses are roughly 1.3%.

To run the OMC scan code go to 

/ligo/gitcommon/labutils/omc_scan/ and run 

python OMCscan_nosidebands.py 1370712036 100 "Sidebands off, 10W input" "single bounce" --verbose --make_plot -o 2
in the labutils conda environment and on git branch dev.

To do the double peak fitting run:

python fit_two_peaks_no_sidebands.py  
in the labutils conda environment and on git branch dev.

These scans were done with OM2 cold.

For comparison with new OMC measurements I used Sheila's code to process the visibility, but updated dit to use nds2utils instead of gwpy as I was having trouble using it to get data.

The code is attached and should be run in the nds2utils conda environment on the CDS workstations.

Power on refl diode when cavity is off resonance: 24.757 mW

Incident power on OMC breadboard (before QPD pickoff): 25.239 mW

Power on refl diode on resonance: 3.525 mW

Measured effiency (DCPD current/responsivity if QE=1)/ incident power on OMC breadboard: 70.4 %

assumed QE: 100 %

power in transmission (for this QE) 17.760 mW

HOM content infered: 13.472 %

Cavity transmission infered: 82.111 %

predicted efficiency () (R_inputBS * mode_matching * cavity_transmission * QE): 70.367 %

omc efficency for 00 mode (including pick off BS, cavity transmission, and QE): 81.323 %

round trip loss: 1605 (ppm)

Finesse: 371.769