Oli, Ivey, Edgard.
We used Oli's measurements from [LHO: 86204] to do an OSEM calibration for the PR3 M1 OSEMs. Here are the outputs of the calibration script.
_______________________________________
OSEM calibration of H1:SUS-PR3
Stage: M1
2025-08-05_1700 (UTC).
The suggested (calibrated) M1 OSEMINF gains are
(new T1) = 1.770 * (old T1) = 2.055
(new T2) = 1.547 * (old T2) = 1.544
(new T3) = 1.443 * (old T3) = 1.511
(new LF) = 1.590 * (old LF) = 1.862
(new RT) = 1.774 * (old RT) = 2.063
(new SD) = 1.543 * (old SD) = 1.639
To compensate for the OSEM gain changes, we estimate that the H1:SUS-PR3_M1_DAMP loops must be changed by factors of:
L gain = 0.596 * (old L gain)
T gain = 0.648 * (old T gain)
V gain = 0.617 * (old V gain)
R gain = 0.617 * (old R gain)
P gain = 0.670 * (old P gain)
Y gain = 0.596 * (old Y gain)
The calibration will change the apparent alignment of the suspension as seen by the at the M1 OSEMs
NOTE: The actual alignment of the suspension will NOT change as a result of the calibration process
The changes are computed as (osem2eul) * gain * inv(osem2eul).
Using the alignments from 2025-08-05_1700 (UTC) as a reference, the new apparent alingments are:
DOF Previous value New value Apparent change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L -57.1 um -33.6 um +23.5 um
T -101.3 um -65.6 um +35.7 um
V 62.4 um 36.6 um -25.8 um
R 433.5 urad 225.7 urad -207.8 urad
P -631.8 urad -406.5 urad +225.2 urad
Y -166.7 urad -76.1 urad +90.5 urad
We have estimated a OSEM calibration of H1 PR3 M1 using HAM2 ST1 drives from 2025-05-21_0000 (UTC).
We fit the response M1_DAMP/HAM2_SUSPOINT between 5 and 15 Hz to get a calibration in [OSEM m]/[GS13 m]
This message was generated automatically by OSEM_calibration_SR3.py on 2025-08-06 01:07:57.985744+00:00 UTC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
EXTRA INFORMATION
The H1:SUS-PR3_M1_OSEMINF gains at the time of measurement were:
(old) T1: 1.161
(old) T2: 0.998
(old) T3: 1.047
(old) LF: 1.171
(old) RT: 1.163
(old) SD: 1.062
The matrix to convert from the old Euler dofs to the (calibrated) new Euler dofs is:
+0.596 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.003
+0.0 +0.648 -0.0 +0.0 +0.0 -0.0
-0.0 +0.0 +0.617 -0.004 +0.001 +0.0
+0.0 +0.0 -0.748 +0.617 -0.007 -0.0
+0.0 +0.0 +0.517 -0.036 +0.67 -0.0
-0.407 +0.0 -0.0 +0.0 -0.0 +0.596
The matrix is used as (M) * (old EUL dof) = (new EUL dof)
The dof ordering is ('L', 'T', 'V', 'R', 'P', 'Y')
The calibration values posted here are correct, but the theoretical alignment values are incorrect. See the corrected post from Sep 26th, 2025.
[CORRECTED LOGPOST LHO: 87160]
FAMIS 26579
pH of PSL chiller water was measured to be between 10.0 and 10.5 according to the color of the test strip.
Wed Aug 06 10:06:40 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 6min 37secs
Gerardo confirmed a good fill curbside.
TITLE: 08/06 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 152Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan C
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 8mph Gusts, 4mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.02 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.13 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: H1 has been locked and observing for 16 hours with some slight variations in range overnight as a few earthquakes rolled through. Planning for a quiet day of observing.
TITLE: 08/06 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 149Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan C
SHIFT SUMMARY:
IFO is in NLN and OBSERVING since 22:22 UTC (6 hr 30 min lock!)
Extremely uneventful shift where we stayed locked the entire time. Range was somewhat low at the start of the lock but picked up and stabilized ~2 hours in.
Temps have effectively stabilized since the drill.
PSL dust was high but this seems to be wind driven and going down. Counts have been higher in last 3 days as well so likely not a cause for concern.
LOG:
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21:32 | SEI | Tony, Rick | PCal Lab | Local | SPI characterization | 01:32 |
| 00:53 | vAC | Janos | MX | N | Pump Check | 01:06 |
The SUS-R6 field rack for SUS ITMY, BS, and the ESD Driver was moved a few inches towards BSC3. This was to clear for the installation of the BSC2 platform.
On July 28, Sheila and I increased the ESD bias, report in 86027. We noticed that despite rescaling the drivealign gain to match, there was a frequency-dependent change in the response function.
I used data from the simulines measurement on 7/19 (nominal bias time) and on 7/31 (double bias time) to make some comparisons. For reference, the calibration model we are currently using was generated from the 7/19 report.
The four plots attached show the ratio of the double bias measurement over the nominal bias measurement for the DARM loop suppression, response function, sensing function, and L3 actuation function.
The L3 actuation function is unchanged, indicating that we have appropriately adjusted the drivealign gain to compensate for the bias change.
The DARM loop suppression function (1/1+G) shows a frequency dependent change, which is expected.
The sensing function (C) shows some frequency dependent change. It's unclear if this is due to the change in bias, or unrelated.
The response function change (1+G /C) follows the change in both the loop suppression and sensing together.
I think a good follow up measurement is to rerun simulines with multiple ESD biases and corrected drivealign gains.
TITLE: 08/05 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 147Mpc
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ibrahim
SHIFT SUMMARY: Relatively straightforward maintenance day where we were able to get back to observing before 1pm local time before a fire alarm caused a lockloss. Relocking was a bit of a struggle with DRMI taking a long time, but after running another initial alignment, H1 relocked without issue on its own. H1 has been locked and observing for just over an hour.
LOG:
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15:00 | FAC | Randy, Mitchell | LVEA | N | Craning for BSC2 platform install | 17:00 |
| 15:02 | FAC | Kim, Nelly | LVEA | N | Technical cleaning | 16:24 |
| 15:03 | FAC | Chris | All bldgs. | N | Pest ctrl | 17:21 |
| 15:04 | VAC | Janos | MX | N | Pump installation | 19:03 |
| 15:08 | CDS | Fil | LVEA | N | BSC2 platform work, JAC electronics install, HAM6 rack work | 15:44 |
| 15:10 | FAC | Tyler | LVEA | N | Moving Genie lift | 17:04 |
| 15:14 | VAC | Gerardo | LVEA | N | Starting pumps | 17:14 |
| 15:14 | FAC | Eric | MER | N | Checking heating coil | 15:25 |
| 15:19 | VAC | Travis | MX/FCES/LVEA | N | Pump installation | 19:03 |
| 15:30 | PSL | RyanS, Jason | CR | N | PMC/RefCav alignment | 15:35 |
| 15:35 | SUS | Jason | LVEA | N | Parts to OpLev cabinet | 15:41 |
| 15:51 | SUS | Fil | FCES | N | FC1/2 sat amp swaps | 17:05 |
| 16:01 | SEI | Erik | Remote | N | Restarting seismon | 16:03 |
| 16:01 | FAC | Richard | LVEA | N | Safety checks | 16:16 |
| 16:36 | FAC | Nelly | EY | N | Technical cleaning | 17:27 |
| 16:36 | FAC | Kim | EX | N | Technical cleaning | 17:36 |
| 16:41 | SUS | Oli | CR | N | SR3 & PR3 measurements | 18:42 |
| 16:51 | PEM | RyanC | LVEA | N | Looking for dust monitor | 17:14 |
| 17:01 | FAC | Mitchell, Randy | EY | N | Removing BSC braces | 17:48 |
| 17:06 | SUS | Fil | LVEA | N | OMC, IM sat amp swaps | 17:59 |
| 17:13 | SEI | Jim | EX | N | Cleaning off HEPI pump station | 17:53 |
| 17:17 | CDS | Erik | Remote | N | Rebooting digivideo2 | 17:27 |
| 17:17 | EPO | Camilla, Leo +1 | LVEA | N | Tour | 17:58 |
| 17:21 | FAC | Chris | LVEA | N | FAMIS checks | 18:35 |
| 17:28 | FAC | Nelly | FCES | N | Technical cleaning | 17:58 |
| 17:35 | PEM | Robert, Sam | LVEA, OptLab | N | Noise hunting | 18:04 |
| 17:40 | FAC | Kim | FCES | N | Technical cleaning | 17:58 |
| 17:48 | FAC | Mitchell, Randy | EX | N | Looking for parts | 18:26 |
| 17:50 | SUS | Jeff | LVEA | N | Check on Fil, take pictures | 18:01 |
| 18:00 | CDS | Fil | LVEA | N | Measuring table cable lengths | 18:04 |
| 18:04 | EPO | Camilla, Leo +1 | OSB Roof | N | Tour | 18:14 |
| 18:08 | PEM | Robert, Sam | LVEA | N | Mounting accelerometer | 18:41 |
| 18:24 | ISC | Keita | LVEA | N | Grabbing parts | 18:36 |
| 18:34 | TCS | Camilla, TJ | LVEA | N | Moving laser into LVEA | 18:47 |
| 18:42 | VAC | Gerardo | LVEA | N | Turning off pumps | 19:15 |
| 18:53 | SAF | Camilla | LVEA | YES | Transition to HAZARD; sweep | 19:23 |
| 19:33 | PEM | Robert | LVEA | - | Removing temporary tape | 19:41 |
| 19:33 | SAF | Laser HAZARD | LVEA | YES | LVEA is Laser HAZARD | Ongoing |
| 20:12 | PEM | Gerardo | LVEA | - | Powering off pumps | 20:21 |
| 20:22 | VAC | Janos, Travis, Anna | MX | N | Pump installation | 22:09 |
| 21:32 | SEI | Tony, Rick | PCal Lab | Local | SPI characterization | Ongoing |
TITLE: 08/05 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 146Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan S
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 14mph Gusts, 7mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.12 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
IFO is in NLN and OBSERVING as of 22:22 UTC
Only handoff details are that maintenance was light with a fire drill taking place:
I posted LHO:81917 regarding the calibrated ASC coupling functions. At the time, my results seemed wildly large and I was certain I had made some calibration error somewhere, and indeed I had. Lee reached out last week since he is working on something similar for his optimal controls work, see LLO:77901. These are the calibration errors I made:
The full counts of drive to Nm of torque conversion factor is therefore: (20 / 2**20) * 0.268e-3 * 0.0309 * 70.7e-3 * 4 * 3.5355 * 4 = 6.317e-10 Nm/ct
Lee also pointed out instead of using the modeled free suspension plant, I should be using the radiation pressure modified plant. This is correct, however for the purposes of calibrating the coupling function the effect is mostly the same, since we know that the rad/Nm transfer function is the same at 10 Hz within a few percent for zero power and high power.
However, for completeness, and because it matters for other calibrations, I did this instead:
The end result is much more sensible, resulting in a coupling function around 30 Hz that is about 1 mm/rad for both pitch and yaw. This is still "high" in the sense that Matt and Lisa assumed a coupling on the order of 0.1 mm/rad in T0900511.
I went a step further to check the linearity of the coupling. I measured the transfer function of ASC to DARM during the noise budget injection times. However, the noise budget is usually calculated with an excess power projection, so we have both quiet and injection times taken. Using the same calibration method, I compare the excess power coupling function with the linear transfer function coupling function. They appear to be nearly the same, showing that the ASC coupling is dominated by linear behavior.
Back in March 2024, Gabriele, Louis, and I did several tests of the DHARD Y coupling while adjusting the ITMY Y2L gain (centering of the beam on ITMY in yaw) and the AS A yaw WFS offset (centering of the beam on the DHARD Y sensor). I used the method above to calibrate the measured couplings so we can better understand the effect of each.
First, I used data where Gabriele and I adjusted the ITMY Y2L gain and measured the DHARD Y coupling. I calculated the linear coupling function at each Y2L gain, so we could observe the effect of the phase of the coupling as the Y2L gain is changed. Using the a2l_lookup matlab function in /opt/rtcds/userapps/release/isc/common/scripts/decoup/BeamPosition, I calibrated the A2L gains into spot position in mm from the center.
While adjusting the beam position reduced the DHARD Y coupling above 25 Hz reduced as the beam moved from about 6.4 mm to 4.4 mm from center, the low frequency steep coupling appears to increase.
The flat coupling was overall higher at this time (at best reaching about 5 mm/rad), possibly because the other test mass A2L gains were not completely optimized.
Next, Gabriele and Louis varied the AS A WFS yaw offset between -0.2 and -0.1 and measured the same coupling. I again calculated the linear coupling function for each step. It appears that both the magnitude and the frequency dependence of the steep coupling varies with the offset. At an offset of -0.2, the coupling is more like 1/f^2, but at an offset of -0.1 it is more like 1/f^4.
We are currently operating with zero WFS yaw offset.
Functionality test for the corner station turbo pumps, see notes below:
Output mode cleaner tube turbo station;
Scroll pump hours: 7282.4
Turbo pump hours: 7303
Crash bearing life is at 100%
X beam manifold turbo station;
Scroll pump hours: 3384.8
Turbo pump hours: 3388
Crash bearing life is at 100%
Y beam manifold turbo station;
Scroll pump hours: 4155.4
Turbo pump hours: 2823
Crash bearing life is at 100%
Jennie W, Sheila D
I have been updating my mode-matching calculations for the output chain of the interferometer to include the measurements we took where we heated up and cooled down SR3 (alog #84432), doing a single bounce measurement of the interferometer in each state.
Making a grid of possible values for the q parameter just before OM2 (8.8cm before, as this is the refernce I used when I was looking at single bounce measurements with hot OM2)we get the blue dots shown in the first image. If we assume that SR3 when heated has a curvature of 36.0087m, as calculated in alog #86184, then we can work out an ABCD matrix from just before SR3 to just before OM2 for both cases (SR3 cold and SR3 hot).
The beam parameter is a function of the distance to the waist z - z0 and the Rayleigh range zR.
qin = z - z0 + jzR
qin = [ qin
1]
FSR3 M qin = qout when F is the transfer matrix of the SR3 in its cold state, and M is the transfer matrix after SR3 to the point at which we get the beam parameter qout (8.8 cm before OM2).
qin = M -1FSR3 -1 qout
FSR3,hot M qin = qout,hot when FSR3,hot is the transfer matrix of the SR3 in its hot state and qout,hot is the beam parameter 8.8cm before OM2 for this case.
If we substitute in the equation for qin we can get an expression for qout,hot:
qout,hot = FSR3,hot M M -1 FSR3 -1 qout
In the first image the red dots are the possible qout,hot values obtained from my grid of qout values given in blue. The other colored dots are possible q values that are consistent with single bounce measurements while changing the heating of the SR3 (see alog #85988 for details) and OM2 (see alog #84255 for details).
The second plot shows arrows which start at all the grid points/measurements for the cold state, and end at the grid points/measurements when SR3 is heated.
WP 12696
ECR E2400330
Drawing D0901284-v5
Drawing D1900217-v3
Modified List T2500232
The following SUS SAT Amps were upgraded per ECR E2400330. Modification improves the whitening stage to reduce ADC noise from 0.05 to 10 Hz.
| Suspension | Old | New | OSEM | Drawing |
| FC1 | S2001282 | S2001291 | T1T2T3LF | D1900217-v3 |
| FC1 | S2001281 | S2001287 | RTSD | D1900217-v3 |
| FC2 | S2001292 | S2001283 | T1T2T3LF | D1900217-v3 |
| FC2 | S2001288 | S2001284 | RTSD | D1900217-v3 |
| IM1 | S1100064 | S1000278 | ULLLURLR | D0901284-v5 |
| IM2 | S1100091 | S1100149 | ULLLURLR | D0901284-v5 |
| IM3 | S1100117 | S1000281 | ULLLURLR | D0901284-v5 |
| IM4 | S1100095 | S1100083 | ULLLURLR | D0901284-v5 |
| OMC | S1100129 | S1100150 | T1T2T3LF | D0901284-v5 |
| OMC | S1100127 | S1100112 | RTSD | D0901284-v5 |
F. Clara, J. Kissel, O. Patane
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S2001291, assigned to FC1 M1's T1T2T3LF OSEMs (Fil refers to this just FC1 T1T2T3LF above). This sat amp is a US 4CH sat amp, D1900089 / D1900217, not a UK 4CH sat amp, but this type and all sat amps are now covered in -v2 of ECR E2400330. The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 2 of the Measurement Diagrams fromLHO:86807. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S2001291_FC1_M1_T1T2T3LF_20250804.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design FC1 M1 S2001291 CH1 T1 0.0944:5.16 121 zpk([5.16],[0.0944],1,"n") FC1 CH2 T2 0.0931:5.09 121 zpk([5.09],[0.0931],1,"n") FC1 CH3 T3 0.0943:5.16 121 zpk([5.16],[0.0943],1,"n") FC1 CH4 LF 0.0930:5.08 121 zpk([5.08],[0.0930],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Results/ Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is the default 121 kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- the magnitude of the measurements didn't need me to adjust them; I was able to get a good phase and magnitude fit by only adjusting the zero frequency.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S2001287, assigned to FC1 M1's RTSDxxx OSEMs (Fil refers to this just FC1 RTSD above). This sat amp is a US 4CH sat amp, D1900089 / D1900217, not a UK 4CH sat amp, but this type and all sat amps are now covered in -v2 of ECR E2400330. The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 2 of the Measurement Diagrams fromLHO:86807. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S2001287_FC1_M1_RTSDxxxx_20250804.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design FC1 M1 S2001287 CH1 RT 0.0922:5.05 121 zpk([5.05],[0.0922],1,"n") FC1 CH2 SD 0.0919:5.03 121 zpk([5.03],[0.0919],1,"n") FC1 CH3 xx 0.0937:5.13 121 zpk([5.13],[0.0937],1,"n") FC1 CH4 xx 0.0927:5.08 121 zpk([5.08],[0.0927],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Results/ Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is the default 121 kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- the magnitude of the measurements didn't need me to adjust them; I was able to get a good phase and magnitude fit by only adjusting the zero frequency.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S2001292, assigned to FC2 M1's T1T2T3LF OSEMs (Fil refers to this just FC2 T1T2T3LF above).
Note that Fil flip-flopped the "Old" vs. "New" serial numbers in the main aLOG above.
This sat amp is a US 4CH sat amp, D1900089 / D1900217, not a UK 4CH sat amp, but this type and all sat amps are now covered in -v2 of ECR E2400330.
The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 2 of the Measurement Diagrams from LHO:86807.
The data was processed and fit using
${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/
plotresponse_S2001292_FC2_M1_T1T2T3LF_20250804.m
Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are
Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design
FC2 M1 S2001292 CH1 T1 0.0935:5.11 121 zpk([5.11],[0.0935],1,"n")
FC2 CH2 T2 0.0910:4.98 121 zpk([4.98],[0.0910],1,"n")
FC2 CH3 T3 0.0923:5.05 121 zpk([5.05],[0.0923],1,"n")
FC2 CH4 LF 0.0923:5.05 121 zpk([5.05],[0.0923],1,"n")
The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in
${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Results/
Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is the default 121 kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- the magnitude of the measurements didn't need me to adjust them; I was able to get a good phase and magnitude fit by only adjusting the zero frequency.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S2001288, assigned to FC2 M1's RTTSDxxxx OSEMs (Fil refers to this just FC2 RTSD above).
Note that Fil flip-flopped the "Old" vs. "New" serial numbers in the main aLOG above.
This sat amp is a US 4CH sat amp, D1900089 / D1900217, not a UK 4CH sat amp, but this type and all sat amps are now covered in -v2 of ECR E2400330.
The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 2 of the Measurement Diagrams from LHO:86807.
The data was processed and fit using
${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/
plotresponse_S2001292_FC2_M1_T1T2T3LF_20250804.m
Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are
Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design
FC2 M1 S2001288 CH1 RT 0.0936:5.12 121 zpk([5.12],[0.0936],1,"n")
FC2 CH2 SD 0.0921:5.04 121 zpk([5.04],[0.0921],1,"n")
FC2 CH3 xx 0.0923:5.05 121 zpk([5.05],[0.0923],1,"n")
FC2 CH4 xx 0.0923:5.05 121 zpk([5.05],[0.0923],1,"n")
The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in
${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Results/
Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is the default 121 kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- the magnitude of the measurements didn't need me to adjust them; I was able to get a good phase and magnitude fit by only adjusting the zero frequency.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1000278, assigned to IM1 M1's ULLLURLR OSEMs (Fil refers to this as IM1 ULLLURLR above). This sat amp is a UK 4CH sat amp, D0900900 / D0901284. The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 1 of the Measurement Diagrams fromLHO:86807. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1000278_IM1_M1_ULLLURLR_20250721.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design IM1 M1 S1000278 CH1 UL 0.0932:5.11 120 zpk([5.11],[0.0932],1,"n") IM1 CH2 LL 0.0965:5.29 120 zpk([5.29],[0.0965],1,"n") IM1 CH3 UR 0.0968:5.30 120 zpk([5.30],[0.0968],1,"n") IM1 CH4 LR 0.0950:5.19 120 zpk([5.19],[0.0950],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Results/ Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is the default 120 kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- the magnitude of the measurements didn't need me to adjust them; I was able to get a good phase and magnitude fit by only adjusting the zero frequency.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100149, assigned to IM2 M1's ULLLURLR OSEMs (Fil refers to this as IM2 ULLLURLR above). This sat amp is a UK 4CH sat amp, D0900900 / D0901284. The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 1 of the Measurement Diagrams fromLHO:86807. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100149_IM2_M1_ULLLURLR_20250721.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design IM2 M1 S1100149 CH1 UL 0.0966:5.29 120 zpk([5.29],[0.0966],1,"n") IM2 CH2 LL 0.0955:5.24 120 zpk([5.24],[0.0955],1,"n") IM2 CH3 UR 0.0969:5.31 120 zpk([5.31],[0.0969],1,"n") IM2 CH4 LR 0.0967:5.29 120 zpk([5.29],[0.0967],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Results/ Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is the default 120 kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- the magnitude of the measurements didn't need me to adjust them; I was able to get a good phase and magnitude fit by only adjusting the zero frequency.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1000281, assigned to IM3 M1's ULLLURLR OSEMs (Fil refers to this as IM3 ULLLURLR above). This sat amp is a UK 4CH sat amp, D0900900 / D0901284. The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 1 of the Measurement Diagrams fromLHO:86807. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1000281_IM3_M1_ULLLURLR_20250731.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design IM3 M1 S1000281 CH1 UL 0.0976:5.34 120 zpk([5.34],[0.0976],1,"n") IM3 CH2 LL 0.0955:5.23 120 zpk([5.23],[0.0955],1,"n") IM3 CH3 UR 0.0955:5.23 120 zpk([5.23],[0.0955],1,"n") IM3 CH4 LR 0.0955:5.23 120 zpk([5.23],[0.0955],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Results/ Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is the default 120 kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- the magnitude of the measurements didn't need me to adjust them; I was able to get a good phase and magnitude fit by only adjusting the zero frequency.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100083, assigned to IM4 M1's ULLLURLR OSEMs (Fil refers to this as IM4 ULLLURLR above). This sat amp is a UK 4CH sat amp, D0900900 / D0901284. The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 1 of the Measurement Diagrams fromLHO:86807. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100083_IM4_M1_ULLLURLR_20250731.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design IM4 M1 S1100083 CH1 UL 0.0955:5.22 120 zpk([5.22],[0.0955],1,"n") IM4 CH2 LL 0.0979:5.36 120 zpk([5.36],[0.0979],1,"n") IM4 CH3 UR 0.0966:5.29 120 zpk([5.29],[0.0966],1,"n") IM4 CH4 LR 0.0978:5.35 120 zpk([5.35],[0.0978],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Results/ Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is the default 120 kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- the magnitude of the measurements didn't need me to adjust them; I was able to get a good phase and magnitude fit by only adjusting the zero frequency.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100150, assigned to OMC M1's T1T2T3LF OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just OMC T1T2T3LF above). This sat amp is a UK 4CH sat amp, D0900900 / D0901284. The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 1 of the Measurement Diagrams fromLHO:86807. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100150_OMC_M1_T1T2T3LF_20250710.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design OMC M1 S1100150 CH1 T1 0.0965:5.28 120 zpk([5.28],[0.0965],1,"n") OMC CH2 T2 0.0947:5.17 120 zpk([5.17],[0.0947],1,"n") OMC CH3 T3 0.0961:5.25 120 zpk([5.25],[0.0961],1,"n") OMC CH4 LF 0.0969:5.31 120 zpk([5.31],[0.0969],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Results/ Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is the default 120 kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- the magnitude of the measurements didn't need me to adjust them; I was able to get a good phase and magnitude fit by only adjusting the zero frequency.
Here's the characterization data and fit results for S1100112, assigned to OMC M1's RTSDxxxx OSEMs (Fil refers to this as just OMC RTSD above). This sat amp is a UK 4CH sat amp, D0900900 / D0901284. The data was taken per methods described in T080062-v3, using the diagrammatic setup shown on PAGE 1 of the Measurement Diagrams fromLHO:86807. The data was processed and fit using ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Scripts/ plotresponse_S1100112_OMC_M1_RTSDxxxx_20250721.m Explicitly, the fit to the whitening stage zero and pole, the transimpedance feedback resistor, and foton design string are Optic Stage Serial_Number Channel_Number OSEM_Name Zero_Pole_Hz R_TIA_kOhm Foton_Design OMC M1 S1100112 CH1 RT 0.0954:5.22 120 zpk([5.22],[0.0954],1,"n") OMC CH2 SD 0.0952:5.21 120 zpk([5.21],[0.0952],1,"n") xx CH3 xx 0.0945:5.17 120 zpk([5.17],[0.0945],1,"n") xx CH4 xx 0.0980:5.36 120 zpk([5.36],[0.0980],1,"n") The attached plot and machine readable .txt file version of the above table are also found in ${SusSVN}/trunk/electronicstesting/lho_electronics_testing/satamp/ECR_E2400330/Results/ Per usual, R_TIA_kOhm is the default 120 kOhm is not used in the compensation filter -- the magnitude of the measurements didn't need me to adjust them; I was able to get a good phase and magnitude fit by only adjusting the zero frequency.
H1 had relocked fully automatically following an initial alignment after maintenance and begun observing at 19:50 UTC. However, 16 minutes later, the fire alarms going off caused a lockloss.
Starting reacquisition now.
Starting up on the work for the PR3 estimator, we first need to recalibrate the OSEM gains, so I took some HAM2 ISO to PR3 DAMP measurements.
Settings:
Measurements:
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/PR3/Common/Data/2025-08-05_1700_H1ISIHAM2_ST1_WhiteNoise_ISO_{X,Y,Z}_0p05to40Hz_calibration.xml
r12518
And to clarify (since it's different from the coupling between HAM5 and SR3, the coupling is:
ISO X -> PR3 L
ISO Y -> PR3 T
ISO Z -> PR3 V
TITLE: 08/05 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Observing at 152Mpc
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Ryan C
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: CALM
Wind: 12mph Gusts, 6mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.03 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.09 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY: H1 has been locked for 17 hours, but looks like there were three brief drops from observing between 11:33 and 11:40 UTC (I'm assuming SQZ-related, but will look into it). Magnetic injections are running and in-lock charge measurements will happen right after before maintenance begins at 15:00 UTC.
Lockloss happened during in-lock charge measurements, specifically during the 12Hz injection to ETMX. The lockloss tool tags IMC for this one, and it certainly looks like the IMC lost lock first, but I can't say for sure why.
The three drops from Observing that Ryan points out were actually from the CO2 lasers loosing lock, first CO2Y and then CO2X lost lock twice, all between 11:33 and 11:40UTC ~4:30amPT. Both PZTs and laser temperatures started changing ~5minutes before CO2Y last lock. Unsure what would make this happen, LVEA temperature and chiller flowrates as recorded in LVEA were stable, see attached.
Unsure of the reason for this, especially as they both changed at the same time but are for the most part independent systems (apart from shared RF source). We should watch to see if this happens again.
My initial thought was RF, but the two channels we have to monitor that both looked okay around that time. About 4 minutes before the PZTs start to move away there is maybe a slight change in the behavior of the H1:ISC-RF_C_AMP10M_OUTPUTMON channel (attachment 1), but I found a few other times it has similar output and the laser has been okay, plus 4 minutes seems like too long for a reaction like this. The pzts do show some type of glitching behavior 1-2 minutes before they start to drive away that I haven't found at other times (attachment 2). This glitch timing is identical in both laser's pzts.
I trended almost every CO2 channel that seemed worthwhile, I looked at magnetometers, LVEA microphones, seismometers, mainsmon, and I didn't find anything suspicious. The few people on site weren't in the OSB. Not sure what else to look for at this point. I'm wondering if maybe this is some type of power supply or grounding issue, but I'd expect to see it other places as well then. Perhaps places I just haven't found yet.
We have many peaks below 40 Hz that couple, at least partly, through input beam jitter. Last summer Sam and Genevieve determined that a wide variety of site equipment produced these peaks, including the office area air handler, mini-splits in the CER, and chiller compressors for the main HVAC (LIGO-G2402140). The figure shows that there is coherence between DARM and the IMC WFS that might be used to clean these low frequency peaks, but that they are currently not being cleaned.
Eventually, we would rather not have peaks that need cleaning, but instead, reduce the source vibration and/or the vibration coupling to DARM. I think that the best plan is to reduce the source vibration of the largest peaks, but to mainly focus on reducing the coupling, because many of these peaks are just 2-5 times the vibration background at the coupling sites, so even eliminating the vibration of the sources will not be enough to get us to our design sensitivity.
The coupling of relatively low amplitude vibrations at low frequencies seems to be associated with coupling resonances. For example, when one of the frequencies of the office area air handler drifted into the 35Hz peak frequency of one of these coupling resonances, the peak in DARM was huge, but was greatly reduced by changing the operation frequency of the air handler (82986). Ill try to map out these low frequency coupling resonances during commissioning periods as a step in understanding their cause. But for now, it would be nice to see how much we can reduce the peaks with cleaning.
The nonsens training for the cleaning is set to clean over the band from 20 Hz to 8 kHz. However, the most appreciable cleaning occurs above 100 Hz. I have attached two plots from the recent training Matt and I ran. The first compares the strain before and after the code runs an offline cleaning of the data. Even in the offline cleaning, it does not perform any subtraction below 60 Hz. The contributions plot shows that the code measures a contribution from IMC WFS A pitch and yaw that is approximately 2 orders of magnitude below the strain.
Similarly, the noise budget injections usually indicate a very low jitter coupling below 60 Hz. This plot is the jitter subbudget showing pitch and yaw contributions. I removed the "total H1" line, since it's currently incorrect. However, this plot only shows contributions from IMC WFS A, and jitter is measured using the IMC PZT, which may only allow us to capture one gouy phase.
All of this is to say, despite this coherence, the nonsens algorithm doesn't find anything to subtract at low frequency. Our noise budget also doesn't show significant coupling here.
Adding: Robert and I think it may be a resolution issue. The noise budget resolution is quite broad at 0.3 Hz, so that may be why those peaks are not captured in the injection. I'm not sure how to address or test the nonsens cleaning resolution.
I have iterated through many different parameters in the nonsens algorithm, including length of time, frequency resolution, number of second order sections, maximum permitted Q value, training method, and frequency band. I am unable to achieve subtraction that is comparable to the measured coherence of these lines. At best, I have achieved 40% reduction of two of the many lines. At best I can achieve 10% reduction of some of the broadband noise. Since I am training offline, I don't expect this to be the result of some funny phase delay between the models. I'm not sure why cleaning these features isn't possible.
/ligo/home/camilla.compton/Documents/sqz/templates/dtt/20250731_SQZdata.xml screenshot attached and /ligo/home/sheila.dwyer/Noise_Budget_repos/quantumnoisebudgeting/data_files/higher_order_modes_sqzdataset2W.xml screenshot attached.| Type | Time (UTC) | Angle | DTT Ref in SQZ | DTT ref in HOM | Notes |
| No SQZ | 15:20:00 -15:25:00 | N/A | ref 0 | ref 0,1 | |
| FDS Mid - SQZ | 15:31:00 - 15:34:00 | (-)120 | ref 1 | ref 2,3 | Was close to ASQZ so retook below |
| FDS Mid + SQZ | 15:36:00 - 15:39:00 | (-) 30 | ref 2 | ref 4,5 | |
| FDS Mid - SQZ | 15:40:00 - 15:43:00 | (-)150 | ref 3 | ref 6,7 |
| OPO Setpoint | Amplified Max | Amplified Min | UnAmp | Dark | NLG | Note |
| 80 | 0.0533596 | 0.00250 | 0.007039 | -1.93e-5 | 7.6 | Temp already optimized |
In this data I only see evidence of one mode at 5kHz, and one mode at 10kHz. If the astigmatism that caused the X arm second order modes to separate into two in 86107 is due to the point absorbers or some other laser heating, it could make sense that we don't see astigmatism at 2W. However, the ring heater settings for the two arms are different, so I would have expected the X and Y arm HOMs to be separated even at 2W. This data was taken with 0.44W on ITMX RH (per segment), 1W per segment on ETMX RH, 0W on ITMY RH, and 1.5W per segment on ETMY RH.
Using a cursor to find the edges of the rotation from the three mid sqz traces that Camilla tok, the 5kHz mode frequency is 4956.5+/- 20 Hz, and the 10kHz mode is at 9981.5 +/- 19.5 Hz. This suggests that the second order mode is at 99% of 2* first order mode frequency, similar to the ratio that we saw at full power. 86107. In the attached screenshot, the top panel shows where I put the cursor to measure the location of the 5kHz mode, the lime veritcal line in the bottom plots shows twice that frequency, 9913 Hz, which is clearly below the sqz rotation caused by the HOMs.
The hour times in my data table are all incorrect, should be starting at 17:20UTC.
When we started the data taking with NO_SQZ at 15:20UTC, the IFO had been down and the CO2 lasers off for 2hours 5mins.