TITLE: 09/06 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Acquisition
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
SHIFT SUMMARY: Lots of locklosses but pretty easy relocks
LOG:
14:30 Observing and Locked for 30 mins
15:53 Lockloss after almost 2 hours locked https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=79946
16:06 Lockloss from TRANSITION_DRMI_TO_3F, starting initial alignment
16:29 Initial alignment done, relocking
17:20 NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE
17:23 Observing
18:51 Lockloss after 1.5 hours https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=79949
- Had to restore ETMY and TMSY to values from previous lock's LOCKING_ARMS_GREEN, and then had to still touch them up to get ALSY to lock
20:14 Observing
22:27 Lockloss after 2.25 hours https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=79954
22:28 Started an initial alignment
- Couldn't get to SRC_ALIGN, so I went to ACQUIRE_SRY and then moved SRM to minimize the error signals in SRC1. Then SRC locked and offloaded fine
22:56 Initial alignment done, relocking
23:42 NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE
Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
23:58 | SAF | H1 | LHO | YES | LVEA is laser HAZARD | 18:24 |
14:49 | FAC | Kim | OpticsLab | n | Tech clean | 15:05 |
15:38 | FAC | Mitchell | EX, EY | n | Dust monitor checks | 16:31 |
16:11 | FAC | Kim | OpticsLab | n | Tech clean - vacuuming up sand | 16:56 |
16:19 | PCAL | Francisco | PCAL Lab | y(local) | Checking for sand | 16:31 |
16:20 | OPT | Sheila | OptLab | n | Checking for sand | 16:31 |
18:37 | FAC | Kim | OptLab | n | Checking for more sand | 18:47 |
21:46 | FIT | Vicky | YARM | n | Running fast | 22:18 |
Closes FAMIS#27797, last checked 79723
Filled both to close to max. No leak in water cup
TCSX:
Before: 29.2
After: 30.5
Added 440mL of water
TCSY:
Before: 9.8
After: 10.6
Added 275mL of water
TITLE: 09/06 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Lock Acquisition
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Oli
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 11mph Gusts, 6mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.14 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
IFO is LOCKING and in PRMI_ASC
Closes FAMIS#26493, last checked 79438
T240 (channels averaged between 2024-09-06 22:13:59 - 22:14:09UTC)
There are 14 T240 proof masses out of range ( > 0.3 [V] )!
ETMX T240 2 DOF X/U = -0.705 [V]
ETMX T240 2 DOF Y/V = -0.571 [V]
ETMX T240 2 DOF Z/W = -0.543 [V]
ITMX T240 1 DOF X/U = -1.471 [V]
ITMX T240 1 DOF Y/V = 0.317 [V]
ITMX T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.42 [V]
ITMX T240 3 DOF X/U = -1.535 [V]
ITMY T240 3 DOF X/U = -0.753 [V]
ITMY T240 3 DOF Z/W = -1.878 [V]
BS T240 1 DOF Y/V = -0.404 [V]
BS T240 3 DOF Y/V = -0.321 [V]
BS T240 3 DOF Z/W = -0.504 [V]
HAM8 1 DOF Y/V = -0.512 [V]
HAM8 1 DOF Z/W = -0.824 [V]
All other proof masses are within range ( < 0.3 [V] ):
ETMX T240 1 DOF X/U = -0.108 [V]
ETMX T240 1 DOF Y/V = -0.111 [V]
ETMX T240 1 DOF Z/W = -0.191 [V]
ETMX T240 3 DOF X/U = -0.133 [V]
ETMX T240 3 DOF Y/V = -0.201 [V]
ETMX T240 3 DOF Z/W = -0.104 [V]
ETMY T240 1 DOF X/U = 0.013 [V]
ETMY T240 1 DOF Y/V = 0.097 [V]
ETMY T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.162 [V]
ETMY T240 2 DOF X/U = -0.094 [V]
ETMY T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.167 [V]
ETMY T240 2 DOF Z/W = 0.039 [V]
ETMY T240 3 DOF X/U = 0.175 [V]
ETMY T240 3 DOF Y/V = 0.036 [V]
ETMY T240 3 DOF Z/W = 0.096 [V]
ITMX T240 2 DOF X/U = 0.121 [V]
ITMX T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.24 [V]
ITMX T240 2 DOF Z/W = 0.204 [V]
ITMX T240 3 DOF Y/V = 0.106 [V]
ITMX T240 3 DOF Z/W = 0.108 [V]
ITMY T240 1 DOF X/U = 0.05 [V]
ITMY T240 1 DOF Y/V = 0.057 [V]
ITMY T240 1 DOF Z/W = -0.059 [V]
ITMY T240 2 DOF X/U = 0.044 [V]
ITMY T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.193 [V]
ITMY T240 2 DOF Z/W = 0.055 [V]
ITMY T240 3 DOF Y/V = 0.037 [V]
BS T240 1 DOF X/U = -0.179 [V]
BS T240 1 DOF Z/W = 0.082 [V]
BS T240 2 DOF X/U = -0.104 [V]
BS T240 2 DOF Y/V = 0.004 [V]
BS T240 2 DOF Z/W = -0.133 [V]
BS T240 3 DOF X/U = -0.211 [V]
HAM8 1 DOF X/U = -0.279 [V]
STS (channels averaged between 2024-09-06 22:21:52 - 22:22:02UTC)
There are 1 STS proof masses out of range ( > 2.0 [V] )!
STS EY DOF X/U = -2.402 [V]
All other proof masses are within range ( < 2.0 [V] ):
STS A DOF X/U = -0.521 [V]
STS A DOF Y/V = -0.829 [V]
STS A DOF Z/W = -0.536 [V]
STS B DOF X/U = 0.335 [V]
STS B DOF Y/V = 0.945 [V]
STS B DOF Z/W = -0.448 [V]
STS C DOF X/U = -0.764 [V]
STS C DOF Y/V = 0.766 [V]
STS C DOF Z/W = 0.563 [V]
STS EX DOF X/U = -0.17 [V]
STS EX DOF Y/V = -0.038 [V]
STS EX DOF Z/W = 0.075 [V]
STS EY DOF Y/V = 0.005 [V]
STS EY DOF Z/W = 1.225 [V]
STS FC DOF X/U = 0.24 [V]
STS FC DOF Y/V = -1.056 [V]
STS FC DOF Z/W = 0.622 [V]
Lockloss @ 09/06 22:27UTC after 2:13 hours locked. Not sure why these locks have been so short.
Closes FAMIS#26293, last checked 79718
Everything is looking normal. ISS diff power is a bit low but has been jumping up to ~2.5% every once in a while, and AMP1 output power is also a little low.
Laser Status:
NPRO output power is 1.827W (nominal ~2W)
AMP1 output power is 64.37W (nominal ~70W)
AMP2 output power is 137.4W (nominal 135-140W)
NPRO watchdog is GREEN
AMP1 watchdog is GREEN
AMP2 watchdog is GREEN
PDWD watchdog is GREEN
PMC:
It has been locked 10 days, 4 hr 35 minutes
Reflected power = 21.82W
Transmitted power = 105.0W
PowerSum = 126.8W
FSS:
It has been locked for 0 days 3 hr and 11 min
TPD[V] = 0.8249V
ISS:
The diffracted power is around 1.9%
Last saturation event was 0 days 3 hours and 11 minutes ago
Possible Issues:
AMP1 power is low
PMC reflected power is high
ISS diffracted power is low
Lost lock after 1.5 hours, similar to how long we had been locked last lock (1:47hours)
20:14 Observing
17:23 Observing
Fri Sep 06 08:07:47 2024 INFO: Fill completed in 7min 43secs
TITLE: 09/06 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 153Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan C
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 8mph Gusts, 4mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.18 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Observing and have been Locked for 30 mins. Everything normal
TITLE: 09/06 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 148Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan C
SHIFT SUMMARY:
IFO is in NLN and OBSERVING as of 2:46 UTC
Very quiet shift:
LOG:
None
Ibrahim, Oli, Jeff, Betsy, Joe, Others
alog 79079: Recent Post-TF Diagnostic Check-up - one of the early discoveries of the drift and pitch instability.
alog 79181: Recent M1 TF Comparisons. More recent TFs have been taken (found at: /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BBSS/X1/BS/SAGM1/Data on the X1 network). We are waiting on updated confirmation of model parameters in order to know what we should correctly be comparing our measurements to. We just confirmed d4 a few days ago following the bottom wire loop change and now seek to confirm d1 and what that means with respect to our referential calibration block.
alog 79042: First investigation into the BOSEM drift - still operating erroneously under the tmperature assumption.
alog 79032: First discovery of drift issue, originally erroneously thought to be part of the diurnal temperature driven suspension sag (where I though that blades sagging more than others contributed to the drift in pitch).
We think that this issue is related to the height of the blades for these reasons:
We need to know how the calibration block converts to model parameters in d1 and whether that's effective or physical d1 in the model. Then we can stop using referential units.
Update to the triplemodelcomp_2024-08-30_2300_BBSS_M1toM1 file Ibrahim attached - there is an update to the legend. In that version I had the description for the July 12th measurement as 'New wire loop, d1=-1.5mm, no F1 drift', but there was actually F1 drift during that measurement - it had just started over a week before so the OSEM values weren't declining as fast as they had been earlier that week. I also want to be more specific as to what d1 means in that context, so in this updated version I changed July's d1 to be d1_indiv to hopefully better show that that value of -1.5mm is the same for each blade, whereas for the August measurements (now posted ) we have d1_net, because the blades heights differ by multiple .1 mms, but they still average out to the same -1.5mm.
Naoki, Vicky -
Had an SHG relocking issue just now, when the squeezer briefly dropped lock at 2024 Sept 5 22:46:16 UTC, for the PMC to relock (its PZT bottomed out, routine issue).
SHG guardian went into a weird locking loophole which we had not seen before, summarized in screenshot. The SHG IR trans PD locking beatnote strength goes high when the SHG is unlocked, aka see the H1:SQZ-SHG_TRANS_RF24_DEMOD_RFMON signal. Its threshold is nominally at H1:SQZ-SHG_TRANS_RF24_DEMOD_RFMAX = 0. But the SHG_GRD has a hardfault state that brings guardian down if this threshold is exceeded, so GRD would try to LOCK, then see this error message for RF power level overload, then it would go DOWN, and its stuck. See SHG guardian logs.
#FIXME: resolve this issue. Ideas- either remove this race condition from SHG guardian (send to IDLE if in fault?), changing RF threshold, etc.
To fix it this time, I manually changed the threshold H1:SQZ-SHG_TRANS_RF24_DEMOD_RFMAX = 5 (threshold was at 0, the demod beatnote was at 3.3), then brought SHG_GRD to LOCKED (worked fine), then reset threshold back H1:SQZ-SHG_TRANS_RF24_DEMOD_RFMAX = 0.
#TODO: decide whether this is a problem that needs fixing or just a weird one-off issue. Trending back, the RF demod power basically always goes high when unlocked, which often triggers this race condition. I'm not sure like 1) why was a problem this time, or 2) why it is not a problem every time.
We made some improvements today in the sensitivity, going from about 151 Mpc on GDS CLEAN to about 158 Mpc. However, our best range from April 11th (DARM FOM reference pre-OFI disaster) is around 165 Mpc. I made a comparison of that time and now with today's commissioning improvements to see where we are still missing range. I have attached the four plot results from the darm_integral_compare results (see alog 76935 for directions).
The range integrand plot makes it much easier to see that we are still missing sensitivity around the mid-frequency band. However, the sensitivity difference shows that we lose 5 Mpc of range by 40 Hz as well. Much of this range loss seems to come from a variety of peaks that have appeared since the OFI vent, such as the 20 Hz peak. We lose another ~3 Mpc between 40-200 Hz.
I ran a bruco with GDS CALIB STRAIN CLEAN on high range time after commissioning today: post-commissioning bruco
It looks like many of these new low frequency peaks (like the large 20 Hz peak) are well witnessed by things like PSL accelerometers, indicating that they could be from jitter: PEM-CS_ACC_PSL_TABLE1_Y_DQ
Generally, there is a lot of jitter coherence, and given that this is the CLEAN channel, that's probably a sign that the jitter cleaning could be improved, maybe making use of other witness channels if the current witnesses are insufficient to subtract the noise.
A peak at 30 Hz has some coherence with MAG sensor channels, here is one: PEM-CS_MAG_LVEA_VERTEX_X_DQ
Right around 35.4 Hz, there is a lot of coherence with various ISI HAM6 sensors and OMC ASC sensors. For example: ISI-HAM6_GS13INF_V1_IN1_DQ
There is also still a large amount of LSC REFL RIN coherence up to 1 kHz: LSC-REFL_RIN_DQ
I think we should test the PRCL offset again, especially because this will help reduce the CHARD Y noise coupling (ASC-CHARD_Y_OUT_DQ) and will also possibly help this HF noise (frequency noise? intensity noise?)
SRCL is better than before, but maybe has more room for improvement between 10-25 Hz: LSC-SRCL_OUT_DQ
DHARD Y coherence is low, but still present, so we should be careful with the WFS offset: ASC-DHARD_Y_OUT_DQ
There is still PRCL coherence: LSC-PRCL_OUT_DQ which is likely coupling through a combination of CHARD Y, SRCL, and LSC REFL RIN. Again a PRCL offset will help. Other strategies are to check POP phasing, POP sensing, etc. Reminder: PRCL feedforward failed, so we need to consider other avenues for noise reduction.
To summarize some strategies to get back to April sensitivity:
Editing because I went back to check the previous PRCL offset work and found this comment: 76818, in short, we can fix the REFL RIN coherence, but it has no effect on the sensitivity. However, it can improve CHARD Y noise, although at the time I don't think we were limited by CHARD Y enough to see the low frequency benefit.
Regarding the 20 Hz line, this line disappeared from DARM yesterday (Sept 5) from roughly 12:45 - 14:15 UTC. Matching Elenna's note about coherence with PSL environmental channels, the same line disappears from the PSL microphones and accelerometers at the same time. Furthermore, there are short time windows where this line dissapears from PSL channels. This behavoir happens roughly (not the exact same gap each time) at 2 hour intervals.
These clues may be helpful for any investigation into the source of this line.
Another note about PRCL Offsets and CHARD Y:
I have attached a screenshot plot comparing the PRCL offset on/off times with the noise in CHARD Y (I used the on/off times from this April alog: 76814). The PRCL offset did reduce the noise in CHARD Y a small amount, and also reduced the CHARD Y coherence with DARM. I don't think at the time of this test we were limited by CHARD Y, so we didn't actually see a change in sensitivity from this test. Therefore, it's worth trying the offset again since we seem to have more CHARD Y noise coupling right now.
Here is a comparison of a longer-span time from April and from last night's lock. Using 2 hour blocks of no-glitch time I created these darm comparison plots.
There were further small improvements in the sensitivity from when these plots were last made, so they are not completely comparable to the plots in the original alog.
These plots indicate that we have actually gained some low frequency sensitivity since April, although we are definitely seeing more peaks around low frequency than before the emergency vent. We are still missing some range around 100 Hz.
Naoki, Sheila, Vicky - FIS Measurements at different SRCL offsets
Setup steps:
Measurement steps:
All spans 60s
FIS original SRCL offset @ -175 1409509282 (reference, orginal FDS settings). Span 60s, brown
FIS SRCL offset @ -100 1409509687 (worse SRCL detuning), pink
FIS SRCL offset @ -250 1409510096 (better SRCL detuning, closer to 0), green
FIS SRCL offset @ -325 1409510096 (even better SRCL detuning), yellow
FIS SRCL offset @ -400 1409510673 (still better SRCL detuning), blue
FIS SRCL offset @ -475 1409511323 (very interesting, flipped around / crossed zero with SRCL detuning), black
No SQZ beam diverter closed 1409511600 - 1409511717
Posting the analysis for this FIS + SRCL offset data, where we can compare FIS + SRCL data to QN models, to try inferring the physical SRCL detuning (in degrees) for each offset value (in counts).
Comparing data + models for FIS at different SRCL detunings, with kHz sqz optimized - Attachment 1. This seems like a reasonable way to estimate SRCL detuning.
Comparing FIS models at various SRCL detunings + fit how SRCL offset scales from counts to degrees - Attachment 2
So far this code is living here.
Here also reproducing the list of times I used for the analysis, all span = 120 seconds. Also including the SRCL offset in counts of the filter bank, and the corresponding estimated SRCL detuning based on FIS quantum noise models, with khz squeezing angle minimized.
nosqz: 1409511600
FIS -100: 1409509687, pink. ~~> +0.9 deg
FIS -175: 1409509282, brown. ~~> +0.3 deg
FIS -250: 1409510096, green. ~~> +0.1 deg
FIS -325: 1409510392, orange. ~~> -0.1 deg
FIS -400: 1409510673, blue. ~~> -0.5 deg
FIS -475: 1409511323, black. ~~> -1.1 deg
23:44 Observing