TITLE: 08/08 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 153Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
SHIFT SUMMARY:
Failrly quick shift due to all the Tours coming through.
Lockloss at 17:26:00 UTC alog 86264
GRB-Short E588408 at 18:26:03 UTC
Nominal_Low_Noise Reached at 19:21:18 UTC
Observing reached at 19:32:18 UTC
LOG:
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19:33 | SAF | Laser HAZARD | LVEA | YES | LVEA is Laser HAZARD | 11:33 |
| 17:04 | Tour | Jennie & Tour | Overpass | N | Running a tour | 17:34 |
| 17:29 | PEM | Sam | LVEA | Yes | Removing tape from accelerometers | 17:40 |
| 17:45 | Tour | Cassidy & Tour | Overpass | N | Running a tour | 18:45 |
| 19:53 | Tour | Cassidy & Tour | Control room & over pass | N | Running a tour | 20:53 |
| 22:32 | ISS | Jennie | Optics Lab | N | ISS Array Work | 23:32 |
Closes FAMIS 28417. Last checked in alog 86121.
Both IX and EX plots could not generate newest values due to insufficient coherence. EX is one Tuesday behind while IX is now 2 Tuesdays behind.
All plots attached.
After a Good run of 21 Hours and 48 minutes H1 was unlocked by an ETM Glitch at 17:26:01 UTC.
Closes FAMIS 26590. Last checked in alog 86188
Everything below threshold but:
- MY FAN 270 1 ACC jumped from 0.2 counts to ~0.35 counts 1.5 days ago.
- All active Corner Station fans turned on and off I presume due to the drill that happened on 08/05 at ~1PM PT
Plots attached.
TITLE: 08/08 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 151Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Tony
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 17mph Gusts, 11mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.04 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.07 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
IFO is in NLN and OBSERVING since 19:32 UTC (3hr 40 min lock)
Nothing else to report.
On tuesday Rick and I went into the PCAL lab to change the optical layout to assist with the SPI beam splitter characterization.
Everything outside of the TX module was changed.
The Spheres were lowered.
Periscopes were removed.
We are now just using 1 beam. (Inner beam.)
Which now hits a Polarizing Beam Cube before hitting a Beam Splitter that then splits the beam down one arm into an PCAL Power Sensor integration sphere.
The other beam is sent to an HF mirror which send the majority of the beam down to the other PCAL Power Sensor integrating Sphere. Some of the beam power goes through the back of that HR mirror and is ~ 153 uW according to our power meter.
I've updated the blend filter for the SR3 yaw estimator, v2 is called "skinnynotch". v1 was "doublenotch". I have not yet updated the installation scripts for it. It's based on the yaw fits by Ivey at the end of July. There are more recent fits, but they seem very similar, so I'm going to post this and let folks use if for the prediction calculations.
The new blend is a based on putting a simple notch in the model path at each lightly-damped resonance, and then rolling off the model at low frequency. The goal is to use the OSEM signal at the resonance and for the position info. (NOTE - The damping loop is AC coupled, so the estimator probably doesn't need the real OSEM signal at DC, but for now I'm leaving it in place so that the OSEM signal and the estimator signal will be as similar as possible for comparison reasons.)
Figure 1 shows the MODEL path of the blend vs. the plant model. The dashed lines are at the plant resonances. The notch width is chosen by-eye. The minimum notch transmission is 0.2, so we would expect 0.2 of the signal from the model, and 0.8 from the OSEM. However - note the phase at the botom of the third notch is about 15 deg, instead of 0. This means, see later, that the peak of the complimentary OSEM signal is slightly shifted. For -v3 I think we should try to make peaks for the OSEMs instead of notches for the models, because I think this will be better. Ivey and Edgard have some math to look at the performance
Figure 2 and 3 show the complementary filters, figure 3 is a zoom around the resonances
Figure 4 compares the plant model with the OSEM path.
I've also attached a pdf of the four plots.
Design script: Estimator_blend_skinnynotch_SR3yaw_20250723.m
in the SUS_svn at .../HLTS/Common/FilterDesign/Estimator/ (revision 12586)
The first blend and its installation are described in LHO log 84004.
Fri Aug 08 10:07:45 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 7min 41secs
TITLE: 08/08 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 156Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan C
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 1mph Gusts, 0mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.01 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.07 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
H1 Has been locked for 19 hours and is currently Observing.
CDS Overview screen has the same VAC channel alarm on that was listed in an alog 86186 from Monday.
All other systems look good.
TITLE: 08/08 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 147Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan C
SHIFT SUMMARY: Extremely quiet shift with H1 observing throughout; current lock stretch is at 9.5 hours. The wind picked up a couple hours ago and gusts have been peaking at around 30mph, but this hasn't appeared to have much of an impact.
Samantha Callos, Robert Schofield
There is a persistent peak at 20 Hz that has been appearing and disappearing intermittently for several months. I have found the times it existed corresponded to work hours during week days. Robert and I looked at the summary pages and DTT for the floor accelerometers and noted that the noise was most present in the area around YCRYO, we ruled out other locations around site and determined the source of the noise was coming from the Vacuum Prep Warehouse. We tested seismic isolation of the various HVAC units around the warehouse and found the Liebert AC unit inside the VPW which can manually be turned on and off and was moved there sometime in the last year.
I cycled through intervals of turning the Liebert unit off and on and checked the CS floor accelerometers for those times (see times below, Fig. 1, and blue arrows in Fig. 4). When the unit is off, the spike at 20 Hz in the accelerometers disappears. I then checked coupling to DARM and noted the noise at 20 Hz was present and that there was a harmonic at 40 Hz as well (see Fig. 2).
Additionally, for the external AC (Daikin), we noted that the springs it is mounted on are entirely compressed, so there is little to no seismic isolation for the entire unit. Noise from the previous unit has been found in DARM before (see alog 77477). The closest accelerometer to this HVAC unit is the YCRYO floor accelerometer and the shut down period can be seen in the spectrogram for it (see Fig. 3). It can also be seen automatically turning off and on the summary page 24-hour spectrogram (see Fig. 4). Comparing this shut down period to when it is on, it does not look like the noise is making its way into DARM for now, however, we recommend seismically isolating the Daikin as we have seen it couple to DARM before.
Liebert AC on/off times for 08-05-2025:
Liebert AC on/off times for 08-06-2025:
Liebert/Daikin on/off times 08-06-2025:
In the a-log 85984, we noted that in addition to the sharp line at 21.26 Hz in DARM there was also a ~1Hz broad feature around the 21.26 Hz line. At that time, it wasn't clear whether those two features were connected. Looking at the on/off times from this test, it seems they are connected. The first attached figure is the DARM (GDS STRAIN CLEAN) and the second figure is the LVEAFLOOR YCRYO accelerometer. The feature in accelerometer is sharp, while in DARM we see both the sharp as well as 1Hz broad feature. In the comment to the a-log 85984, we looked at different auxiallary and PEM channels to check if there are any other channels that show both these features. Among the channels we looked at, we saw both these featues in ASC-PRC1_{Y,P} signals. The third figure shows the spectrogram of ASC-PRC1_P_IN1_DQ during this on/off tests during which we see the sharp as well as ~1Hz broad feature in that channel. It is not clear whether this is just another witness of DARM feature or this is a place where it gets into the DARM.
The liebert unit was installed circa 2018. The outdoor unit was replace more recently.
I just want to add that we do not use PRC1 P/Y in loop in full IFO lock. However, the PRC1 error signal is the POP A DC signal from the POP QPD on HAM3. This means that the POP A QPD may be a good witness of this line, but is not the coupling source of the line.
Carlos Campos, Robert Schofield.
We had a faulty Guralp 3T seismometer that would not unlock the pendula. When we contacted the supplier, we were told we could send it back to be diagnosed and fixed, or we could open it up on site. We choice to ladder, as we thought it was a simply mechanical issue.
The seismometer is protected by a metal outer layer as well as two layers of shielding, to reduce noise affecting the system. Additionally, the internal components are made of brass to further limit noise.
While looking around at the internal structures, we found that a ball bearing had fallen onto the table. We then searched for where it came from, as it was most likely the cause of the failure.
The pendula that measure horizontal movement rest on a triangular base of two ball bearing and a drive screw. This drive screw is connected to a motor which can lock, unlock, and center the mass. This screw also sits on a ball bearing. This way, the pendula rock on the two free bearing, while the drive screw can control the movement of the masses.
This is a picture of how the mass system should look like. The screw presses on the bearing and will push the mass up or pull it down.
This is a picture of the problem pendulum. The ball bearing for the drive screw is missing. Meaning when the seismometer first tried to unlock and balance the mass, the motor drove the screw into the brass. This either caused damage to the screw, the bass, the motor, or all of the above.
The manufacture told us that we would have to ship it back so they could fix it.
Tagging EPO for cool equipment pictures.
Firstly I am very sorry for the length of this alog
I needed to finish up the comparisons for the satamps that were swapped on Tuesday (86207), as well as rerun almost all of the other comparison damp regression plots for every suspension that has had its satamp swapped out for ECR E2400330, either with different times or with the loop suppression divided out. There were also multiple changes made to the damp_regression_compare.m file. So I've gone and done that, so here are the results in this master post. I will link to the old results when applicable. They are out of order as compared to when their satamps were swapped.
damp_regression_compare.m
Now creates a plot of the ratios, lists important IFO info, and saves some of the variables to a .mat file
found in /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/Common/MatlabTools/damp_regression_compare.m
newest version is r12583
Input
IM1
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM1/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM1_M1_NoiseComparison_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM1/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM1_M1_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM1/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM1_M1_1437330256_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM1/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM1_M1_1438626136_1200.mat
r12561
IM2
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM2_M1_NoiseComparison_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM2_M1_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM2/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM2_M1_1437330256_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM2/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM2_M1_1438626136_1200.mat
r12562
IM3
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM3_M1_NoiseComparison_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM3_M1_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM3/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM3_M1_1437330256_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM3/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM3_M1_1438626136_1200.mat
r12563
IM4
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM4/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM4_M1_NoiseComparison_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM4/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSIM4_M1_1437330256vs1438626136-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM4/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM4_M1_1437330256_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HAUX/H1/IM4/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSIM4_M1_1438626136_1200.mat
r12560
MC1(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC1_M1_NoiseComparison_1437192600vs1437240215-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC1_M1_1437192600vs1437240215-1200.mat
r12557
MC2(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC2_M1_NoiseComparison_1436631330vs1438441235-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC2/SAGM1/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC2_M1_1436631330vs1438441235-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC2/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSMC2_M1_1438441235_1200.mat
r12554
MC3(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC3/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC3_M1_NoiseComparison_1437115850vs1437282002-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/MC3/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSMC3_M1_1437115850vs1437282002-1200.mat
r12558
PRM(original results)(added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PRM/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPRM_M1_NoiseComparison_1435154988vs1435435046-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PRM/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPRM_M1_1435154988vs1435435046-1200.mat
r12559
PR2(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PR2/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPR2_M1_NoiseComparison_1435154988vs1436654703-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/PR2/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPR2_M1_1435154988vs1436654703-1200.mat
r12556
PR3(original results)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/PR3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPR3_M1_NoiseCompare_H1SUSPR3_M1_NoiseComparison_1435348334vs1435435046-1200.pdf
r12533
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/PR3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSPR3_M1_1435348334vs1435435046-1200.mat
r12565
BS(original results)(added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BSFM/H1/BS/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSBS_M1_NoiseComparison_1435062667vs1435435038-1200.pdf
r12535
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BSFM/H1/BS/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSBS_M1_1435062667vs1435435038-1200.mat
r12567
Data (new before time):
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/BSFM/H1/BS/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSBS_M1_1435062667_1200.mat
r12535
Output
SRM(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SRM/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSRM_M1_NoiseComparison_1435154988vs1435435046-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SRM/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSRM_M1_1435154988vs1435435046-1200.mat
r12568
SR2(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SR2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSR2_M1_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/SR2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSR2_M1_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.mat
r12569
SR3(original results)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/SR3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSR3_M1_NoiseComparison_1435348334vs1435435046-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/SR3/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSSR3_M1_1435348334vs1435435046-1200.mat
r12570
OMC
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/OMCS/H1/OMC/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSOMC_M1_NoiseComparison_1437330259vs1438454240-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/OMCS/H1/OMC/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSOMC_M1_1437330259vs1438454240-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/OMCS/H1/OMC/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSOMC_M1_1438454240_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/OMCS/H1/OMC/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSOMC_M1_1437330259_1200.mat
r12582
SQZ
FC1
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC1/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSFC1_M1_NoiseComparison_1437766177vs1438449277-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC1/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSFC1_M1_1437766177vs1438449277-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC1/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSFC1_M1_1437766177_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC1/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSFC1_M1_1438449277_1200.mat
r12572
FC2
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSFC2_M1_NoiseComparison_1437766177vs1438449277-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC2/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSFC2_M1_1437766177vs1438449277-1200.mat
Data:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC2/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSFC2_M1_1437766177_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HSTS/H1/FC2/SAGM1/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSFC2_M1_1438449277_1200.mat
r12573
ITMs
ITMX M0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMX_M0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMX_M0_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.mat
r12574
ITMX R0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMX_R0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMX/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMX_R0_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.mat
r12575
ITMY M0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMY_M0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMY_M0_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.mat
r12576
ITMY R0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMY_R0_NoiseComparison_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ITMY/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSITMY_R0_1435482383vs1436080373-1200.mat
r12577
ETMs
ETMX M0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_M0_NoiseComparison_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_M0_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.mat
r12578
ETMX R0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_R0_NoiseComparison_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_R0_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.mat
r12578
ETMX L1(original results)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGL1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_L1_NoiseComparison_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMX/SAGL1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMX_L1_1435060998vs1436769334-1200.mat
r12579
ETMY M0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMY_M0_NoiseComparison_1436521059vs1438453617-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGM0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMY_M0_1436521059vs1438453617-1200.mat
r12580
Data (new after time):
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGM0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSETMY_M0_1438453617_1200.mat
r12548
ETMY R0(original results) (added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMY_R0_NoiseComparison_1436521059vs1438453617-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGR0/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSETMY_R0_1436521059vs1438453617-1200.mat
r12580
Data (new before and after time):
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGR0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSETMY_R0_1436521059_1200.mat
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/H1/ETMY/SAGR0/Data/dampRegress_H1SUSETMY_R0_1438453617_1200.mat
r12550
TMSs
TMSX(original results)(added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/TMTS/H1/TMSX/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSTMSX_M1_NoiseComparison_1435150628vs1437199319-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/TMTS/H1/TMSX/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSTMSX_M1_1435150628vs1437199319-1200.mat
r12553
TMSY(original results)(added loop suppression)
Results:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/TMTS/H1/TMSY/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSTMSY_M1_NoiseComparison_1437213557vs1437257352-1200.pdf
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/TMTS/H1/TMSY/SAGM1/Results/allDampRegressCompare_H1SUSTMSY_M1_1437213557vs1437257352-1200.mat
r12581
More satamp comparison plots here: 87351
For PRM (M2, M3), SRM (M2, M3), BS (M2), ITMX (L1), ITMY (L1), ETMY (L1), SR2 (M2, M3), PR2 (M2, M3)
TITLE: 08/07 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 151Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan S
SHIFT SUMMARY: Locked for 4 hours, observing for 35min. Had a bit of a pivot today since we needed to clear some tumbleweeds from the overpass. This took up much of our commissoining time, as well as an earthquake delaying lock reacquistion, so we were approved for some afternoon commissioning.
LOG:
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19:33 | SAF | Laser HAZARD | LVEA | YES | LVEA is Laser HAZARD | 11:33 |
| 15:02 | SPI | Jeff | Opt Lab | YES | Fiber collimation | 18:41 |
| 15:35 | PEM | Robert | LVEA | YES | Measurement setup and peeking through viewports | 18:34 |
| 15:42 | FAC | Chris, Randy | Overpass | n | Tumbleweed clearing | 18:35 |
| 16:09 | VAC | Janos, Anna | MX, MY | n | Taking a look | 16:37 |
| 16:13 | FAC | Kim, Nelly | OSB rec. | n | Opening rollup door and driving out stuffs | 16:53 |
| 18:05 | ISC | Jennie, Francisco | Opt Lab | YES | Using laser and oscilliscope | 18:05 |
| 18:48 | VAC | Gerardo | LVEA | yes | Checking on turbo pumps | 18:58 |
| 19:34 | PEM | Robert | LVEA | YES | Pictures at view ports | 21:34 |
| 20:38 | ISC | Elenna | LVEA | YES | Plugging in cable at PSL racks | 20:58 |
| 20:58 | FAC | Tyler | EY | n | Chiller yard check | 21:28 |
| 22:00 | ISC | Elenna | LVEA | YES | Unplugging cable at PSL racks | 22:05 |
| 22:27 | PEM | Robert | LVEA | YES | Shutting measurements down | 22:33 |
| 22:28 | PCAL | Francisco | PCAL lab | Yes | PCAL or SPI | 22:31 |
| 23:05 | ISC | Jennie | Opt Lab | YES | ISS array work | 23:24 |
J. Kissel I'm are trying to figure out the best metrics for showing off the improvements to the OSEM PD's satellite amplifier's whitening improvements. Thus far, Oli's been using the input to the damping loops as the metric, using a regression of the corresponding ISI's GS13s to subract out a fit of how much of that sensor signal is seismic noise, and dividing out the loop suppression -- see LHO:86149 for the most recent examples comparing before vs. after the sat amp upgrade. Without the presence of any other noise or control signals, that should be a fair comparison of the OSEM PD's sensor noise improvement. However, for a lot of these comparisons ISC control signals are complicating the comparison -- usually at low frequency where ISC control is typically distributed to the top masses. I use this aLOG as an example of how to better understand this contribution breakdown for a relatively simple suspension -- H1SUSMC1 -- which only has P and Y ISC control from the IMC WFS. (Longitudinal control for IMC L is fed to MC2). This will also be interesting in the future :: in the context of how SPI and other sensors may improve the cavity motion, :: in terms of what DOFs and loop's worth of control drive at which frequencies -- important for discussions along the lines of "DOF [blah] is dominating the control signal, and the actuator cross-coupling for M1 drive of DOF [blah] to M3 optic DOF [blorp] is large, so let's reduce the DOF [blah] drive," and :: in terms of whether/where implementing ISI GS13 estimator feedforward will improve things. To understand how much of the damping loop *error* signal is composed of ISC *control* signal, I look compare the - the ISC control signal, - the DAMP *control* signal, against the - the MASTER total control request, all calibrated to the same point in the control system -- where the control output is summed and in the OSEM basis; just down-stream of the EUL2OSEM matrix, and just upstream of the COILOUTF filters which compensate for the coil driver frequency response (uninteresting for this study). Pitch -- the T1T2T3 actuators (3) Attachment 3 Pitch Noise Comparison excerpt from Oli's LHO:86149. These are times when the IMC was LOCKED, so there should be ISC control. But, see the expected factors of 2x-to3x improvement in the OSEM noise below ~5 Hz. So, maybe the ISC control is so low in bandwidth that its affect isn't impacting this study. But, we can see that there's clearly some other loop suppression that has not been accounted for, so maybe it *is* high bandwidth? Let's find out. (1) Attachment 1 Comparison of ISC pitch, DAMP pitch, as well as the other DAMP DOFs that use the T1, T2, and T3 actuators -- Vertical and Roll -- control signals. Here, we can clearly see that the damping loops are dominating the T2 (and thus T3) control signal above ~ 0.5 Hz, or conversely, the IMC WFS DC coupled control is dominating below 0.5 Hz. (2) Attachment 2 shows that the T2 and T3 sensors receive identical request (mostly an out-of-phase combination of Pitch and Roll damping request, as expected from the EUL2OSEM matrix), and T1 drives mostly Roll damping request. The vertical drive request is subdominant at all frequencies. (3) Attachment 4 shows the open loop gain and loop suppression TF magnitudes for pitch. The loop suppression here looks very much like the inverse of the shape of the ASD left in the pitch regression, making me worried that Oli's automated regime for removing the loop suppression isn't perfect... I'll ask. Yaw -- the LFRT actuators (7) Attachment 7 The before vs. after comparison of OSEM noise (5) Attachment 5 Similar comparison of ISC vs. relevant DAMP control -- showing IMC WFS control dominating only below ~0.2 Hz. (6) Attachment 6 As expected from the EUL2OSEM matrix, the LF and RT actuators receive the same control. (8) Attachment 8 Shows the open loop gain and loop suppression TF magnitudes for the Yaw damping loop.
"[...] Attachment 4 shows the open loop gain and loop suppression TF magnitudes for pitch. The loop suppression here looks very much like the inverse of the shape of the ASD left in the pitch regression, making me worried that Oli's automated regime for removing the loop suppression isn't perfect... I'll ask. Followed up wth Oli on this, and indeed there was a bug in the application of the loop suppression -- a blind python "dir" of the optic's directory for exported loop suppression text files returned the list of files alphabetically (L,P,R,T,V,Y) rather than in the canonical order of (L,T,V,R,P,Y) so that means the P suppression was taken out of the T ASD, etc. They've fixed that now (and added the loop suppression itself to the ASD plot as a visual aide) -- here's a sample of the improved MC1 P and Y, before vs. after plot.
The actual full results for MC1 can be found in 86253
(Jordan V., Tony S., Gerardo M.)
Late entry
To get the gauge working at the filter cavity tube cross C7 we pulled the EtherCAT cable from cross C7 to cross D1, this allowed us to daisy chain the gauges at both crosses. To land the EtherCAT cable both ends were terminated, thanks Tony. To get power to the gauge we used one of the outlets in the filter cavity enclosure and a small din rail mountable power supply, the supply provides 24 VDC. Patrick took care of the software, see his aLOG here.
Currently we have the following items valved out along the filter cavity, two ion pumps;IPFCC6, IPFCC8, and the gauge PTCC7. We plan to incorporate them to the main vacuum volume on the next couple of weeks. Pressure at the gauge is low, thus we need to pump its volume down using an aux cart and a small turbo pump.
Last tuesday I was able to valve in the last two ion pumps into the filter cavity tube envelope, two of the 10" isolation valves at section C were closed to achieve this, then as the internal pressure of the filter cavity tube settle the isolation valves were opened.
Something to note with the performance of the HV cable for IPFCC8 (ion pump a the filter cavity cross 8) is a bit noisy, I noticed that the controller got noisy when I touched the HV cable, but will check both at a later time, maybe cable, grounding and/or controller issue.
(Anna I., Jordan V., Gerardo M.)
Last tuesday we valved in a gauge to the filter cavity tube vacuum volume.
We pumped the dead volume down until the pressure reached high 10^-07 torr, then introduced the gauge to the "short" volume of the filter cavity tube, we had closed two isolation valves, we waited about 10 minutes, then the isolation valves were opened. No issues to report.
We've had an excellent week of progress on the estimator - thanks to everyone on site for the great hospitality!
Status of things as we go
1. The estimator is OFF. We set the damping of M1 Yaw back to -0.5.
2 There are new YAW estimator blends in the SR3 model. These were put into foton with autoquack. The foton file in userapps was committed to the SVN
3. We updated the safe.snap SDF file with a decent version of the OFF estimator. We HAVE NOT updated the observing.snap file. At this point, all the estimator settings should be the same in safe and observing. (I'm not sure how to update the observing.snap file)
4. All the work on the estimator design is all committed to the {SUS_SVN}/sus/trunk/HLTS/Common/FilterDesign/Estimator/
-- some detailed notes on the blend design and svn commits follow --
Design new blend filters, load them into the model, commit the updated foton file
seems like a 2% error in the peak finding makes a bunch of noise in the estimator with the agressive blend, and is not a reasonable error (judgement call by Brian and Edgard)
>> print -dpng fig_2pcnt_error.png
>> print -dpng fig_2pcnt_error_result.png
Check noise again with 2% error in model/actual using the robust blend (EB blend) - we see the peaks are not any better.
I can't get a broad notch for notch 3 without causing the OSEM filter to be larger than 1. Issue seems to be the freq of the notches going past 60 deg. Could be tuned further.
Instead - use a simple notch. This means we'll need to be quite accurate with the 3 peak - probably withing 0.5% of the actual frequency
figures
gain error - no performance hit
2% freq error - clear perf hit
1% freq error - acceptable perf hit - top mode clearly worse, but only a little
0.5% freq error - tiny perf hit at top mode only
print -dpng fig_perf1_gainerror.png
>> print -dpng fig_perf2_0p5freqerror.png
>> print -dpng fig_perf3_1p0freqerror.png
>> print -dpng fig_perf4_perfectmatch.png
turn the script into a blend design script - Estimator_blend_doublenotch_SR3yaw.m
update the yaw frequencies to 1.016, 2.297, 3.385
can we use autoquack? - yes!
Real foton file is: /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sus/h1/filterfiles/H1SUSSR3.txt
(make a backup copy): /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sus/h1/filterfiles$ cp H1SUSSR3.txt H1SUSSR3backup.txt
the file make_SR3_yaw_blend.m uses autoquack to put the new filters into the SR3 foton file.
(log notes)
please review the recent foton -c log file at
/opt/rtcds/lho/h1/log/h1sussr3/autoquack_foton_log_recent.log
Checking foton file to see if filters got implemented correctly
BAD - Filter SR3_M1_YAW_EST_MEAS_BP has issues in sect. 1 : DBL_notch
at least one filter got messed up, please follow up...
Autoquack process complete
initial foton call succeeded
foton file ready for updating
starting foton cleanup process
final foton call succeeded
log file updated
please review the recent foton -c log file at
/opt/rtcds/lho/h1/log/h1sussr3/autoquack_foton_log_recent.log
Checking foton file to see if filters got implemented correctly
BAD - Filter SR3_M1_YAW_EST_MODL_BP has issues in sect. 1 : DBL_notch
at least one filter got messed up, please follow up...
Autoquack process complete
>>
Check the foton file - it looks good - I checked the TFs by eye, and they look correct. the matlab error checker is irritated, but the matlab plots it makes look fine. I think it's OK.
Do a diff on the updated file and my backup - the only diffs I see are the new lines I added (that's good)
save the foton file, delete my backup.
press 'coef load' to get the new filters
(the CFC light goes green)
commit the updated foton file in userapps R31301
Save the work in the estimator folder
Estimator$ svn1.6 add fig*
A (bin) fig_2pcnt_error.png
A (bin) fig_2pcnt_error_result_EBblend.png
A (bin) fig_2pcnt_error_result.png
A (bin) fig_blend.png
A (bin) fig_perf1_gainerror.png
A (bin) fig_perf2_0p5freqerror.png
A (bin) fig_perf3_1p0freqerror.png
A (bin) fig_perf4_perfectmatch.png
$ svn1.6 add Estimator_blend_doublenotch_SR3yaw.m make_SR3_yaw_blend.m
A Estimator_blend_doublenotch_SR3yaw.m
A make_SR3_yaw_blend.m
committed in R12257
Set the model to a good state:
final switch = OFF.
gain of the normal yaw damping set back to -0.5
OSEM_Damper = populated, but off (in=off, out=off, gain=0)
Estim_Damper = populated, but off (in=off, out=off, gain=0)
OSEM bandpass = populated and set to running state (on, gain=1)
MODEM bandpass = populated and set to running state (on, gain=1)
accept SDF changes in H1:SUS-SR3_M1_
YAW_EST_MODL_BP
YAW_EST_OSEM_BP
YAW_DAMP_EST
YAW_DAMP_OSEM
save this to the safe file - I have not changed the observing file!
the SDF shows 0 differences
notes on Diff of foton file:
brian.lantz@cdsws44:/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/sus/h1/filterfiles$ diff H1SUSSR3.txt H1SUSSR3backup.txt
1025,1030d1024
< # DESIGN SR3_M1_YAW_EST_MEAS_BP 0 sos(0.00026333867650529759, [0.99999999999999867; 0; -0.9999616512111712; 0; -1.999953052714962; \
< # 0.99995343154104388; -1.9997062783494941; 0.99970796324744837; -1.9998957078482871; \
< # 0.99989686159668212; -1.9999090565491939; 0.99990984807473893; -1.9999426937932141; \
< # 0.99994346902553977; -1.9999108726927539; 0.99991163318180731; -1.9999774146135141; \
< # 0.99997744772231478; -1.9999375279667919; 0.99993768590749621; -1.999963134023643; \
< # 0.99996328560740799; -1.9999399837273171; 0.9999401295235868])
1032,1037d1025
< SR3_M1_YAW_EST_MEAS_BP 0 21 6 0 0 DBL_notch 2.633386765052975870236851e-04 -0.9999616512111712 0.0000000000000000 0.9999999999999987 0.0000000000000000
< -1.9997062783494941 0.9997079632474484 -1.9999530527149620 0.9999534315410439
< -1.9999090565491939 0.9999098480747389 -1.9998957078482871 0.9998968615966821
< -1.9999108726927539 0.9999116331818073 -1.9999426937932141 0.9999434690255398
< -1.9999375279667919 0.9999376859074962 -1.9999774146135141 0.9999774477223148
< -1.9999399837273171 0.9999401295235868 -1.9999631340236430 0.9999632856074080
1042,1047d1029
< # DESIGN SR3_M1_YAW_EST_MODL_BP 0 sos(0.99973666135688777, [-1.000000000000002; 0; -0.9999616512111712; 0; -1.999965862142562; \
< # 0.99996754725922932; -1.9997062783494941; 0.99970796324744837; -1.9999754834715859; \
< # 0.99997627502341802; -1.9999090565491939; 0.99990984807473893; -1.999975984305477; \
< # 0.99997674481928778; -1.9999108726927539; 0.99991163318180731; -1.9999871245769849; \
< # 0.99998728252160574; -1.9999375279667919; 0.99993768590749621; -1.9999876354434321; \
< # 0.99998778124317389; -1.9999399837273171; 0.9999401295235868])
1049,1054d1030
< SR3_M1_YAW_EST_MODL_BP 0 21 6 0 0 DBL_notch 9.997366613568877680151559e-01 -0.9999616512111712 0.0000000000000000 -1.0000000000000020 0.0000000000000000
< -1.9997062783494941 0.9997079632474484 -1.9999658621425620 0.9999675472592293
< -1.9999090565491939 0.9999098480747389 -1.9999754834715859 0.9999762750234180
< -1.9999108726927539 0.9999116331818073 -1.9999759843054770 0.9999767448192878
< -1.9999375279667919 0.9999376859074962 -1.9999871245769849 0.9999872825216057
< -1.9999399837273171 0.9999401295235868 -1.9999876354434321 0.9999877812431739
see LHO log 86265 for v2 of this blend.