Displaying reports 1921-1940 of 85671.Go to page Start 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 End
Reports until 16:10, Tuesday 05 August 2025
LHO General
ibrahim.abouelfettouh@LIGO.ORG - posted 16:10, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86213)
OPS Eve Shift Start

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:

 

H1 ISC
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:43, Tuesday 05 August 2025 - last comment - 16:27, Wednesday 06 August 2025(86210)
Revisiting the calibrated angle to length coupling of the hard loops

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.

Non-image files attached to this report
DARM_PUM_ASC_drive.pdf
DARM_ASC_TST_coupling_pitch.pdf
DARM_ASC_TST_coupling_yaw.pdf
DARM_ASC_linear_excess_power_coupling.pdf
pitch_linear_excess_power_coupling.pdf
yaw_linear_excess_power_coupling.pdf
calibrated_ASC_coupling.py
Comments related to this report
elenna.capote@LIGO.ORG - 16:27, Wednesday 06 August 2025 (86225)
Link

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.

Non-image files attached to this comment
LHO VE (VE)
gerardo.moreno@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:32, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86211)
FAMIS Task Completed for Corner Station Turbo Pumps

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%

FAMIS tasks 31338, 31330 and 31346.

H1 SQZ (ISC)
jennifer.wright@LIGO.ORG - posted 14:27, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86185)
How does heating up SR3 change the mode-matching

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.

Images attached to this report
H1 SUS
filiberto.clara@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:34, Tuesday 05 August 2025 - last comment - 09:47, Tuesday 23 September 2025(86207)
Sat Amps Modified: FC1, FC2, IM1, IM2, IM3, IM4 and OMC

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

Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 08:45, Tuesday 23 September 2025 (87083)SQZ
Link 

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 from LHO: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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 08:49, Tuesday 23 September 2025 (87084)SQZ
Link 

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 from LHO: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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 08:56, Tuesday 23 September 2025 (87085)
Link 

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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 09:00, Tuesday 23 September 2025 (87086)SQZ
Link 

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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 09:16, Tuesday 23 September 2025 (87087)IOO
Link 

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 from LHO: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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 09:22, Tuesday 23 September 2025 (87088)IOO
Link 

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 from LHO: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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 09:30, Tuesday 23 September 2025 (87089)
Link 

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 from LHO: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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 09:36, Tuesday 23 September 2025 (87090)
Link 

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 from LHO: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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 09:43, Tuesday 23 September 2025 (87091)
Link 

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 from LHO: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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 09:47, Tuesday 23 September 2025 (87092)
Link 

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 from LHO: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.
Non-image files attached to this comment
H1 General (Lockloss)
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 13:17, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86206)
Ops Day Mid Shift Report

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.

H1 General
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:42, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86205)
LVEA Swept following T1500386
Unplugged an unused extension cord and one to a network analyzer by the PSL racks. Earlier TJ also unplugged an unused 5 pronged plug by the x-arm concrete tube slab.
FC tube enclosure and high bay lights turned off,  paging system off. Ryan checked WAP is off.
Everything else looked good.
 
Left on LVEA and entrance lights for Gerardo to turn off when he powers off turbo pumps power supplies.
H1 SUS
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:21, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86204)
OSEM gain calibration measurements taken for PR3

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

H1 SUS
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:09, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86203)
SR3 SUSPOINT and Health Check TFs with damping on for P estimator

For the SR3 P estimator, I went ahead and took SUSPOINT to M1 and regular TF measurements for the Pitch estimator filters.

Settings:

SUSPOINT measurements:

/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/SR3/Common/Data/2025-08-05_1700_H1ISIHAM5_ST1_WhiteNoise_SR3SusPoint_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz.xml
r12520

 

Health check TFs:

/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/SR3/SAGM1/2025-08-05_1800_H1SUSSR3_M1_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz.xml
r12521

H1 SUS
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 12:05, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86202)
SR3 Health Check TFs with damping on for Y estimator

Last week I took some OLGTF measurements for SR3 for the estimator in Y (86075). It turns out I should've been taking normal transfer functions instead, so here they are.

Settings:

Measurements: /ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/SR3/SAGM1/Data/2025-08-05_1700_H1SUSSR3_M1_WhiteNoise_{L,T,V,R,P,Y}_0p02to50Hz.xml
r12519

 

H1 SUS (SQZ)
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:33, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86201)
Apparent alignment shift in FC1 and FC2 due to satamp swap

The satamps for FC1 and FC2 were swapped out today as part of ECR E2400330, and a new compensation filter was installed in OSEMINF, so it will look like we have had a change in the alignment of the FCs, but this isn't a real change(FC1, FC2).

Images attached to this report
LHO VE
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:09, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86200)
Tue CP1 Fill

Tue Aug 05 10:06:03 2025 INFO: Fill completed in 6min 0secs

Gerardo and Erik confirmed a good fill curbside. Looks like knocking the ice from the pipe has fixed TC-B

Images attached to this report
H1 SUS (SUS)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 10:35, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86199)
TMSX M1 F1F2F3LF OSEMINF SatAmp Whitening Compensation Updated for S1100122 Channel Response 
J. Kissel, O. Patane

Oli and I were reviewing the ECR E2400330 upgraded satamp channel response inventory vs. what's installed on which suspension. We went back to revisit the TMSX M1 F1F2F3LF OSEMs because the upgraded S1100150 satamp (originally installed on 2025-07-15; LHO:85770) was pulled out and replaced with the upgraded S1100122 (on 2025-07-24 LHO:85980) under suspicions that *it* might have been the cause of lock-losses that ended up being a result of the TMSX M1 F2 OSEM *coil's* DAC channel glitching (conclusive evidence LHO:86079, replacement LHO:86086). 

Oli had updated the filters on 2025-07-24, LHO:86072.
However, upon careful review in order to post record of the fits' poles and zeros -- done on 2025-07-28 -- I found a bug in file that Oli used to push new compensation. 
What I've posted to LHO:86032 is the final answer.

Today I've updated the compensation to match this final answer best fit for S1100122's channels:
    - turn OFF the TMSX M1 damping loops
    - run $ python3 satampswap_bestpossible_filterupdate_ECR_E2400330.py -o TMSX from the command line
    - hit LOAD_COEFFICIENTS on the GDS_TP screen.
    - restore damping, watch for any funky ducks

All looks good!
H1 CDS
david.barker@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:50, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86197)
Hydrant testing, fire pump alarms bypassed for the remainder of today.

Added the fire pumps to current bypass, expires 17:47 today.

Bypass will expire:
Tue Aug  5 05:47:55 PM PDT 2025
For channel(s):
    H0:VAC-MX_X1_PT343B_PRESS_TORR
    H0:FMC-CS_FIRE_PUMP_2
    H0:FMC-CS_FIRE_PUMP_1
 

H1 SUS (ISC, OpsInfo, SQZ)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:15, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86195)
Prep FC1 and FC2 for SatAmp Upgrade; SQZ WFS Offloading 
C. Compton, J. Kissel

Fil and I are pushing forward with the expanded scope of ECR E2400330 to upgrade the whitening stages of the OSEM PD satamps for the top masses of the filter cavity HSTS. More details on the actual upgrade once installed, but I figure a separate instructional aLOG is warranted for the prep we did since the SQZ system and these kind of "once in a blue moon" activities for the filter cavity are still relatively new to folks.

(1) Offloaded SQZ WFS DC alignment request to FC1, FC2, and ZM3 to their respective alignment sliders.
    - assume that the overall SQZ_MANAGER is already in DOWN.
    - open the SQZ_FC sub-manager guardian log
    - open ndscope of top mass OSEMs to check that over alignment of the SUS *doesn't* end up changning
        $ ndscope H1:SUS-{FC1,FC2,ZM3}_M1_DAMP_{P,Y}_IN1_DQ
    - request SQZ_FC's goto state FC_ASC_OFFLOADED, watch SQZ_FC guardian log and ndscope trend to confirm expected behavior
    - once done, request SQZ_FC to go back to DOWN.

    We found that this state did exactly as expected -- pushed the static output of the M1 LOCK banks to the (correctly calibrated) alignment slider OPTICALIGN OFFSET, and while there was a minor blip in top mass OSEM record of physical alignment during the transition, the SUS did not move.

(2) Brought FC1 and FC2 to SAFE with their SUS_{FC1,FC2} guardians.

(3) Bypassed the use of OSEM readbacks for the IOP software watchdog (SWWD).
    - from the sitemap, opened the "SWWD" overview screen from the "WD" dropdown in the far bottom left corner
    - opened each HAM7 and HAM8 SWWD screens
    - made sure the bypass time, H1:IOP-SUS_{FC1,FC2}_DK_BYPASS_TIME, was set to some long amount of time (e.g. 12000 [seconds]).
    - hit BYPASS, H1:IOP-SUS_{FC1,FC2}_DACKILL_BPSET
H1 SEI
erik.vonreis@LIGO.ORG - posted 09:09, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86194)
Seismon restarted

Seismon was restarted.

LHO General
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:46, Tuesday 05 August 2025 - last comment - 10:37, Wednesday 06 August 2025(86191)
Ops Day Shift Start

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.

Comments related to this report
ryan.short@LIGO.ORG - 09:36, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86196)
Link

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.

camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - 14:18, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86209)TCS
Link

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.

Images attached to this comment
thomas.shaffer@LIGO.ORG - 10:37, Wednesday 06 August 2025 (86221)TCS
Link

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.

Images attached to this comment
H1 SUS (IOO, ISC)
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:18, Monday 04 August 2025 - last comment - 16:56, Thursday 07 August 2025(86172)
ISC vs. DAMP Pitch and Yaw Control Request for H1SUSMC1 Top Mass (M1) 
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.
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
jeffrey.kissel@LIGO.ORG - 09:53, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86198)
Link 

"[...] 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.
Images attached to this comment
oli.patane@LIGO.ORG - 16:56, Thursday 07 August 2025 (86255)
Link

The actual full results for MC1 can be found in 86253

H1 SQZ
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - posted 11:18, Thursday 31 July 2025 - last comment - 13:49, Tuesday 05 August 2025(86117)
2W Mid SQZ Data for 5kHz and 10kHz HOM Spacing
Sheila, Camilla
Took data mid sqz only data once Ryan had the IFO locked at 2W on DC READOUT, he paused at CHECK_VOILINS_BEFORE_POWERUP. Aim is to see the HOM spacing at 5kHz and 10kHz to compare to the thermalized 60W data took in 85957. They have definitely shifted: at 2W at 5kHz and 10kHz and at 60W were at around 5.35kHz and 10.5kHz.
 
We saved  H1:OMC-DCPD_524K_A2_IN1 data with the PD sum after I changed the matrix as in 85937. DTTs saved as /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.
 
Starting angle is (-)130, requested SQZ_MANGER to FREQ_DEP_SQZ and once we got there, took SQZ_ANG SERVO to DOWN.
 
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  
 
Checked the NLG the normal way, checked OPO crystal temp but it was already optimized, unsure why is is so low already, we left it at 15.8 on Tuesday 86067.
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
Images attached to this report
Comments related to this report
sheila.dwyer@LIGO.ORG - 16:15, Monday 04 August 2025 (86182)
Link

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.

 

Images attached to this comment
camilla.compton@LIGO.ORG - 13:49, Tuesday 05 August 2025 (86208)
Link

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.

Displaying reports 1921-1940 of 85671.Go to page Start 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 End