Bubba, Richard, Patrick, Dave:
The reverse osmosis system in the woodshop has been in alarm for over 24 hours, which has caused cell phone alarms to be sent.
While this issue is being worked, Bubba has requested the cell alarms to be bypassed.
Bypass will expire:
Sun 20 Aug 2023 11:32:36 AM PDT
For channel(s):
H0:FMC-CS_WS_RO_ALARM
Thu Aug 10 10:25:32 2023 INFO: Fill completed in 25min 27secs
Note that TC-A was hovering close to the -130C trip point, and this fill was close to being timed-out at 30mins.
Follow up on previous tests (72106)
First I injected noise on SR2_M1_DAMP_P and SR2_M1_DAMP_L to measure the transfer function to SRCL. The result shows that the shape is different and the ratio is not constant in frequency. Therefore we probably can't cancel the coupling of SR2_DAMP_P to SRCL by rebalancing the driving matrix. Although I haven't thought carefully if there is some loop correction I need to do for those transfer functions. I measured and plotted the DAMP_*_OUT to SRCL_OUT. transfer functions. It might still be worth trying to change the P driving matrix while monitoring a P line to minimize the coupling to SRCL.
Then I reduced the damping gains for SR2 and SR3 even further. We are now running with SR2_M1_DAMP_*_GAIN = -0.1 (was -0.5 for all but P that was -0.2 since I reduced it yesterday). Also SR3_M1_DAMP_*_GAIN = -0.2 (was -1). This has improved a lot the SRCL motion and also improved DARM RMS. It looks like it also improved the range.
Tony has accepted this new configuration in SDF.
Detailed log below for future reference.
Time with SR2 P gain at -0.2 (but before that too)
from PDT: 2023-08-10 08:52:40.466492 PDT
UTC: 2023-08-10 15:52:40.466492 UTC
GPS: 1375717978.466492
to PDT: 2023-08-10 09:00:06.986101 PDT
UTC: 2023-08-10 16:00:06.986101 UTC
GPS: 1375718424.986101
H1:SUS-SR2_M1_DAMP_P_EXC butter("BandPass",4,1,10) ampl 2
from PDT: 2023-08-10 09:07:18.701326 PDT
UTC: 2023-08-10 16:07:18.701326 UTC
GPS: 1375718856.701326
to PDT: 2023-08-10 09:10:48.310499 PDT
UTC: 2023-08-10 16:10:48.310499 UTC
GPS: 1375719066.310499
H1:SUS-SR2_M1_DAMP_L_EXC butter("BandPass",4,1,10) ampl 0.2
from PDT: 2023-08-10 09:13:48.039178 PDT
UTC: 2023-08-10 16:13:48.039178 UTC
GPS: 1375719246.039178
to PDT: 2023-08-10 09:17:08.657970 PDT
UTC: 2023-08-10 16:17:08.657970 UTC
GPS: 1375719446.657970
All SR2 damping at -0.2, all SR3 damping at -0.5
start PDT: 2023-08-10 09:31:47.701973 PDT
UTC: 2023-08-10 16:31:47.701973 UTC
GPS: 1375720325.701973
to PDT: 2023-08-10 09:37:34.801318 PDT
UTC: 2023-08-10 16:37:34.801318 UTC
GPS: 1375720672.801318
All SR2 damping at -0.2, all SR3 damping at -0.2
start PDT: 2023-08-10 09:38:42.830657 PDT
UTC: 2023-08-10 16:38:42.830657 UTC
GPS: 1375720740.830657
to PDT: 2023-08-10 09:43:58.578103 PDT
UTC: 2023-08-10 16:43:58.578103 UTC
GPS: 1375721056.578103
All SR2 damping at -0.1, all SR3 damping at -0.2
start PDT: 2023-08-10 09:45:38.009515 PDT
UTC: 2023-08-10 16:45:38.009515 UTC
GPS: 1375721156.009515
If our overall goal is to remove peaks from DARM that dominate the RMS, reducing these damping gains is not the best way to acheive that. SR2 L damping gain was reduced by a factor of 5 in this alog, and a resulting 2.8 Hz peak is now being injected into DARM from SRCL. This 2.8 Hz peak corresponds to a 2.8 Hz SR2 L resonance. There is no length control on SR2, so the only way to suppress any length motion of SR2 is via the top stage damping loops. The same can be said for SR3, whose gains were reduced by 80%. It may be that we are reducing sensor noise injected into SRCL from 3-6 Hz by reducing these gains, hence the improvement Gabriele has noticed.
Comparing a DARM spectrum before and after this change to the damping gains, you can see that the reduction in the damping gain did reduce DARM and SRCL above 3 Hz, but also created a new peak in DARM and SRCL at 2.8 Hz. I also plotted spectra of all dofs of SR2 and SR3 before and after the damping gain change showing that some suspension resonances are no longer being suppressed. All reference traces are from a lock on Aug 9 before these damping gains were reduced and the live traces are from this current lock. The final plot shows a transfer function measurement of SR2 L taken by Jeff and me in Oct 2022.
Since we fell out of lock, I took the opportunity to make SR2 and SR3 damping gain adjustments. I have split the difference on the gain reductions in Gabriele's alog. I increased all the SR2 damping gains from -0.1 to -0.2 (nominal is -0.5). I increased the SR3 damping gains from -0.2 to -0.5 (nominal is -1).
This is guardian controlled in LOWNOISE_ASC, because we need to acquire lock with higher damping gains.
Once we are back in lock, I will check the presence of the 2.8 Hz peak in DARM and determine how much different the DARM RMS is from this change.
There will be SDF diffs in observe for all SR2 and SR3 damping dofs. They can be accepted.
SR2 and SR3 damping gains changes that Elenna made have been accepted
The DARM RMS increases by about 8% with these new slightly higher gains. These gains are a factor of 2/2.5 greater than Gabriele's reduction. The 2.8 Hz peak in DARM is down by 21%.
This is a somewhat difficult determination to make, given all the nonstationary noise from 20-50 Hz, but it appears the DARM sensitivity is slightly improved from 20-40 Hz with a slightly higher SR2 gain. I randomly selected several times from the past few locks with the SR2 gains set to -0.1 and recent data from the last 24 hours where SR2 gains were set to -0.2. There is a small improvement in the data with all SR2 damping gains = -0.2 and SR3 damping gains= -0.5.
I think we need to do additional tests to determine exactly how SR2 and SR3 motion limit SRCL and DARM so we can make more targeted improvements to both. My unconfirmed conclusion from this small set of data is that while we may be able to reduce reinjected sensor noise above 3 Hz with a damping gain reduction, we will also limit DARM if there is too much motion from SR2 and SR3.
Spoke to Gabriele about these SDF Diffs and we are accepting them now.
Current IFO Status:
Since Livingston is down for Logging, H1 Has intentionally dropped into commissioning.
TITLE: 08/10 Day Shift: 15:00-23:00 UTC (08:00-16:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 145Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Corey
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 4mph Gusts, 2mph 5min avg
Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.08 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
IFO H1 is locked in NOMINAL_LOW_NOISE and OBSERVING
Following up on 71969, here are two examples of times where the bumps at multiples of 10 Hz were very visible. This seems to be the largest source of non-stationary noise and glitches at low frequency.
H1 had a lockloss at 7:05utc (1205amPT)---which was fairly close to lockloss with L1 which had all the earmarks of an earthquake, but did not see any signs on the SEI FOM.
Automation tried to bring H1 back, but unfortunately, it did not look good, so an Initial Alignment was automatically run from 733-759. From 800-850 H1 worked on getting to NLN (received operator alert at 851utc)---because H1 was waiting for the CAMERA SERVO to get to OBSERVING. At 910utc the CAMERA SERVO completed and H1 automatically taken to OBSERVING with little fanfare.
TITLE: 08/10 Eve Shift: 23:00-07:00 UTC (16:00-00:00 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 151Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Corey
SHIFT SUMMARY:
Lock#1:
Relocking from the lockloss right before I arrived, couldn't get DRMI or PRMI (No good flashes), went through CHECK_MICH then back to PRMI which loss lock, we then ran an initial alignment which went very smoothly. Back up to NLN at 00:16.
We noticed there was a large line at 102.1Hz upon getting to NLN which seemed to be lowering our range by 5-15 Mpc. It's shrinking as time goes on and our range is increasing as it comes down. There's also something on the 100-450Hz BLRMs during the same time frame, also decreasing. After 2 hours it was back down around if not below the reference
We had a range of 159.15 Mpc for a minute!
We dropped out of Observing due to the squeezer losing lock at 03:47UTC, back into Observing 03:50UTC.
The ISS diffracted power is low, DIAG_MAIN flashes a message about it every few minutes
LOG:
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23:38 | PEM | Robert | LVEA ->EX | N | Move an amplifier | 00:00 |
| 00:22 | ASC | Elenna | CR | N | Measurement | 00:48 |
Closes FAMIS 25078
The charge measurements were not run this past Tuesday the 8th due to a lockloss and ALS-X issue, alog72054.
STATE of H1: Observing at 144Mpc
Wind: 29mph Gusts, 23mph 5min avg
We've been locked for 2:45, we reached 159.15 Mpc for a minute! The wind and accompanying ground motion has been increasing the past 2 hours.
Dropped out of observing at 03:47UTC from the squeezer losing lock, back into observing 03:50UTC after it relocked
This SQZ lockloss was because the OPO PZT bottomed out ~40V, so this is an known/expected reason for the squeezer to relock. See attached trends of squeezer relocking.
Today I took "unbiased" OLGs of MICH P and MICH Y (see 67187 for a discussion of unbiased measurements and methods). These loops have not been measured since Gabriele and I updated the loop design in May (69370).
The templates for the these measurements are saved in [userapps]/asc/h1/templates/MICH as 'MICH_{P,Y}_olg_broadband_shaped.xml'. I obtained 40 averages at a 0.015 Hz bandwidth, so it took about 20 minutes to run each measurement.
I have plotted the open loop gain with error shading in the attached plots. You can find the same measurement templates, exported data, and processing code in '/ligo/home/elenna.capote/DRMI_ASC/MICH'.
MICH P appears to have a UGF of 1 Hz with a phase margin of 46 deg. MICH Y appears to have a UGF of 0.55 Hz with a phase margin of 35 deg.
I believe Gabriele and I sought to reduce the UGF of MICH Y more than MICH P because at the time, MICH Y contributed more to the ASC subbudget from 10-30 Hz. However, we are now seeing significant upconversion of low frequency motion in DARM that limits the sensitivity from 20-40 Hz. I will revisit this loop design and prioritize more low frequency suppression to see if we can reduce the DARM RMS further.
Based on this measurement of MICH Y, it appeared the loop is stable for a 13 dB increase in gain, which would put the UGF closer to 1 Hz like MICH P. I raised the gain by a factor of 4, and the loop is stable and there doesn't appear to be excess noise in DARM. I ran a quick injection to check the level of MICH Y relative to DARM.
MICH Y gain is now -2.4 (was -0.6). This is updated in the guardian (lownoise ASC) and SDFed.
A few minutes after posting, Sheila and I noticed CSOFT Y motion increased significantly and the noise in DARM between 20-30 Hz worsened. This extra noise and motion reduced as I reduced the MICH Y gain back to -0.6. Looking at the spectra and RMS of both MICH Y IN1 and LSC DARM IN1, it appears that although the overall RMS of both decreases with the higher gain, the higher gain also increases a 1.3 Hz peak in both MICH Y and DARM. I am undoing these changes and keeping the MICH Y gain nominal (-0.6).
The changes in environmental coupling with the change from 75W to 60W ( https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=70808 ) require that we re-measure some of the coupling functions that were measured in the pre-run set of PEM injections in May. Today I began those injections by injecting acoustically in the LVEA, as well as shaking HAM6 and the ITMY cryopump. I also set up for acoustic injections at EX.
In addition Sheila and I did some bias manipulation for ETMX. I injected currents onto the EX building ground and swept the ETMX bias as I had in January (https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=67075). The figure shows that there has not been much change in the bias setting that minimizes grounding noise.
Reducing the SR2 M1 DAMP P gain from -0.5 to -0.2 and the SRM M1 DAMP L gain from -0.5 to -0.25 did reduce the noise in SRCL and DARM between 3 and 8 Hz.
The main improvement was obtained reducing SR2 damping gain, When reducing the SRM L gain, the 1.3 Hz line appears to get larger. It's worth taking a look at the SRM damping loop and its interaction with the ASC and LSC loops to ttry to track donw the 1.3 Hz peak.
So SRCL and DARM are limited by SR2 P damping noise between 3 and 8 Hz. This change reduced DARM RMS by 20%.
I SDFed the SR2 P gain to -0.2 in observe.snap. I tried to update this in the safe.snap file by changing to the "SDF to safe" guardian state, however, it did not show an SDF diff. This is something to keep an eye out for just in case it gets reverted in safe. Tagging OpsInfo so operators are aware.
Confirmed during this relock that the SR2 M1 DAMP P gain was set to -0.2 in both safe and observe, and SRM M1 DAMP L gain was set to -0.5 in both safe and observe.
The SR2 SAFE and OBSERVE tables are the same, as seen in this table of SDF_REVERT models; alog 69140. As far as I know, no changes have been made since this table was created, except for Daniel's comment.
Tagging OpsInfo to remind people of its existence.
After the SR2_P gain reduction, it looks like the SRCL RMS between 2 and 8 Hz is now equally limited by SR2_M1_DAMP_P and SR3_M1_DAMP_L. Below 2 Hz and in particular at the 1.3 Hz peak SRCL is coherrent wiith SRM_M1_DAMP_L, however that could be recoil from the SRCL lock to M1.
Taking advantage of the fact that we're not locked, I put the missing ETMX "HFPole" filter module (LHO:72030) back in theH1CAL-CS_DARM_ANALOG_ETMX_L3filterbank. From inspecting the filter archive, it looks like the "HFpole" ETMX filter module was removed on 4/25/2023. This is around the time we were rolling out the cmd-dev infrastructure for the calibration group. The plan is to follow up with a Broadband measurement later tonight or at the earlier opportunity to establish whether or not to keep this filter in place. The zpk string I used iszpk([], [3226.75],1,"n"). The value3226.75was calculated by summing the poles for all four ESD quadrants from LHO:46773 as per LHO:27150. I've attached screenshots of the ETMX filterbank and the GDS TP window. GDS table diff324c324 < # DESIGN CS_DARM_ANALOG_ETMX_L3 2 zpk([],[3226.75],1,"n") --- > # DESIGN CS_DARM_ANALOG_ETMX_L3 2 zpk([],[],9.787382864894167e-13,"n") 343c343 < CS_DARM_ANALOG_ETMX_L3 2 21 1 0 0 HFPole 4.158812836234200838170239e-01 -0.1682374327531596 0.0000000000000000 1.0000000000000000 0.0000000000000000 --- > CS_DARM_ANALOG_ETMX_L3 2 21 1 0 0 TEST_Npct_50W 9.787382864894166725851836e-13 0.0000000000000000 0.0000000000000000 0.0000000000000000 0.0000000000000000
The above aLOG covers another *solution* top the on-going studies about the ~5-10% systematic error in the calibration -- namely, what's unique to LHO and *left over* after the flaw in GDS filters that was fixed in LHO:71787. The filter was loaded by 2023-08-07 17:15 UTC.
This change has been added to the LHO record of calibration pipeline changes for O4, DCC:T2300297
Correction to the timing of this filter update -- The filter was loaded by 2023-08-07 17:15 PDT -- i.e. 2023-08-08 00:15 UTC