Ryan S, Camilla, Sheila

Measurements from yesterday and today show that we have improved the SQZ to OMC mode matching, after a long effort by many people. 

• We see a larger part of the available psams range where we have mode matching better than 2%. 
• The astigmatism may be slightly improved because of the change in the beam position on ZM2 (91259 and 91197), and we no longer see that our best mode matching is at worse astigmatism points.
• Similarly, our best mode matching psams values are now near the lower M2 values, still 1.2, rather than the worst M2 as it was in O4.

The first two plots here show the results of sqz two OMC scans, the first is with the grid described in 91371, the second is a second scan that Camilla did this morning with the same grid as the M^2 measurements in that alog.  GPS times for these scans, and the mode matching and misalignments estimated from them, can be found in files in the sqzutils git repo here.

The M2 profiler data that Ryan Short and Camilla took yesterday is attached in the zip file here.  A set of scatter plots summarizing all this data is here, which can be compared to attachments to 90902 showing the same measurements taken before the pre-loading changes (and psams repairs). The strain guage ranges are now different, but in both alogs the plots show close to the full range of the psams PZT.  The range of M^2 values is similar to before (1.39-1.18) and still shows a dependence on ZM5 psam, which has the larger spot size.  The overlaps between vertical and horizontal q parameters seem more uniform over the psams range now, with values of 0.5-0.6% for all the psams values where our mode matching is best. 

In the lower right is the results from the OMC scans, since we took two scans with different grids there are some points that have two measurements, with the annotation showing the two different results.  The misalignment mode height is shown in parenthesis for each of these, perhaps some of the variation in the results could come from the misalignment.  We are hoping that with HAM7 under vacuum we will have an easier time setting the alignment of the sqz beam to the OMC, and it will fluctuate less, so that we can get better alignments and hopefully more consistent mode matching results.  

This plot shows the measured q parameters now on an Sw plot at SRM, compared to the measured q parameters before the pre-load change.  The contours of OMC mismatch here are from the finesse model, between the datasets taken before and after the pre-loading we now have a lot of measured q parameters and measured mode mismatches that we can use to verify or adjust this part of the finesse model.  Our intention with the pre-load change was not to completly move our mode matching area, but to still be able to access the ROCs that we used in O4 (90919).  It does look like we missed this, and have overshot compared to what we intended to do.  

I reproduced the fitting of ROCs as described in 91013.  This plot shows the measured qs propagated back to before ZM4, where all the horizontal and all the vertical values would ideally be the same.  This plot shows the measured qs propagated to SRM, along with the qs measured before ZM4 propagated to SRM with the fits to ZM4 and ZM5 ROC.  This scatter plot shows the overlap between the measured qs after ZM5 and the measurement from before ZM4 propagated forward with the fit ROCs.  Similar to last time I did this fitting, the fitting is limited by something that is not astigmatism, and the fit to horizontal data can do about as good of a job explaining the vertical data as horizontal data, and vice versa.  We need to double check if these fits are compatible with expectations based on the applied torques, and I would like to make one fit for horiztonal and vertical data.  

The script used to make these fits is available here and the first several plots in this alog were made using this script: here

Editing to add a busy version of the Sw plot with the strain guage readings annotated, ZM4 is listed first, then ZM5.  

Following the FW0 upgrade on Monday h1edc has been running with 51 disconnected old FW0 channels. Until we upgrade FW1 next week and restart the DAQ I have added these obsolete channels to the containerized IOC edc_green_ioc to "green up" the EDC. At this point the only CDS alarm is the reverse osmosis water treatment alarm (which has been bypassed from the cell phone alarms).

TITLE: 08/05 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
OUTGOING OPERATOR: None
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:

Very smoky day (recent AQI of 170 for UNHEALTHY state); had a Dust Alarm for the Labs for 7amPDT.  Potable water supply on site is low (level yesterday morning around ~60" and this morning we are at 46", so please continue water conservation....part needed for fix should arrive today).

A couple earthquakes overnight (M6.3 near New Zealand & M6.3 near Phillipines). 

IMC and JAC are locked.  ISC Lock is at IDLE.

The CDS conda environment has been updated.

New versions of ndscope and diaggui can connect to an arrakis data source. 

Also included is the arrakis-python client library.  "include arrakis" to use in your python scripts.

Many packages have been moved up to the versions used in the IGWN environment.

A detailed list of changes can be found here:

https://git.ligo.org/cds/packaging/cds-conda-distribution/-/wikis/Environments#version-2026-08-04-01

You can run a command outside the environment with "noconda "

You can exit conda within a terminal window with "killconda".

You can activate other conda environments with "conda activate " or "conda activate ".  Some additional configuration of your account may be needed to get "conda activate" to work.

Keita, Louis, Elenna

Today, we proceeded to look for the input alignment, given all the changes that occurred in HAM2 during the ISS install, 90545. Although we have been able to lock PRX, we have not yet seen any beam on ASC-POP_A or B QPDs (they capture the forward POP beam).

To start, we locked the JAC and IMC, and aligned PRM. We could see the usual beam on the ISCT1 REFL camera. We noted that the beam position on IM4 trans QPD was far from center, about 0.26 in pitch and 0.66 in yaw. The IM4 trans NSUM was about 1.825 W, which is similar to a pre-vent value of 1.842. At this time the IM3 sliders were P: 40.3 and Y: 655.6. We confirmed that the IM sliders were where we expected them to be set due to the vent work.

I moved IM3 sliders to center the beam on IM4 trans QPD, so new slider values were P: 103.3 and Y:472.6. Then, following Keita's direction, I proceeded to measure a transfer function of IM1 P and Y and IM3 P and Y to the IM4 trans NSUM as a way to quantify possible clipping in the input path. IM1 coupling should indicate clipping somewhere along the IFI, which includes some baffles. IM3 coupling should indicate clipping on the baffle between IM3 and 4.

The first four screenshots show those results, which I obtained by driving a 30 ct excitation from the test bank of each suspension dof at 8 Hz. IM1 P, IM1 Y, IM3 P, IM3 Y

Next, Keita turned off the IMC ASC and moved JM3 to bring the beam to a position on MC2 trans that recreated the beam position he found during the vent. He set a yaw offset of -0.64 on MC2 trans and then re-engaged the IMC ASC. After the ASC converged, I recentered the beam on IM4 trans using IM3 again. We confirmed that the NSUM on IM4 trans returned to 1.825. I reran the same coupling test above and we saw that for all four dofs, the coupling to IM4 trans NSUM increased. This is evident in both increased coherence and coupling value at 8 Hz.  IM1 P, IM1 Y, IM3 P, IM3 Y

Then, Keita flipped the sign of the yaw offset to +0.64, since there is some confusion about which way the sign goes on that QPD. I recentered the beam again on IM4 trans, confirmed the NSUM came back to 1.825 , and reran the coupling measurement. The results show that for all four dofs, the coupling is decreased to below the starting value, shown in both the coherence and coupling value. IM1 P, IM1 Y, IM3 P, IM3 Y

It's possible that we are confused about the sign on MC2 trans, so that the first offset Keita tried actually went to the wrong position.

Another confusing point is that we see coupling in both pitch and yaw, and beam movement in both pitch and yaw. However, the beam translation we did was yaw only, to relieve yaw clipping.

Since we had found what we believe was a better beam position in HAM2, we checked the REFL alignment. With PRM aligned in this alignment, the beam is on the edge of the ISCT1 refl camera, so not great. There was also very little beam on the REFL WFS, and trying to run the REFL WFS centering servos rails RM2. We are now concerned about the REFL path and possible clipping on the REFL baffle in HAM2 as well.

To finish, Keita turned off the MC2 trans offset, and I reverted the IM3 sliders to the start position. However, the final screenshot here shows the final IM3 position we found where we think we had very little clipping in the input alignment.

None of theae alignments helped us find the beam on ASC POP A, but that's not surprising since we didn't make any IM4 moves. As we finished, Keita set up a long raster of IM3 and IM4 to look for a beam on those QPDs.

Ibrahim and I went to End Y with the PS4 Working Standard to do a PCAL End Station measurement.  We followed T1500062-V21 to complete the measurment suite with out any issues.
Here are the obligitory Before Beam spot pics.  
Martel plots for ADC conversion.

Working standard at TX module with only One beam. 

Working standard at the RX module with only One beam.

Working standard at RX module with Both beams.

Post measurement beam spots!



anthony.sanchez@cdsws25: python generate_measurement_data.py --WS PS4 --date 2026-07-16
Reading in config file from python file in scripts
../../../Common/O4PSparams.yaml
PS4 rho, kappa, u_rel on 2026-07-16 corrected to ES temperature 299.6 K :
-4.698647654693516 -0.0002694340454223 0.000750622815531554
Copying the scripts into tD directory...
Connected to h1daqnds1
martel run
reading data at start_time:  1469911700
reading data at start_time:  1469912270
reading data at start_time:  1469912670
reading data at start_time:  1469913100
reading data at start_time:  1469913500
reading data at start_time:  1469913900
reading data at start_time:  1469914560
reading data at start_time:  1469915320
reading data at start_time:  1469915650
Ratios: -0.5339859682199335 -0.543765733929218
writing nds2 data to files
finishing writing
Background Values:
bg1 =        18.671164; Background of TX when WS is at TX
bg2 =        5.156755; Background of WS when WS is at TX
bg3 =        18.605483; Background of TX when WS is at RX
bg4 =        5.281252; Background of WS when WS is at RX
bg5 =        18.674174; Background of TX
bg6 =        -1.117857; Background of RX

The uncertainty reported below are Relative Standard Deviation in percent 

Intermediate Ratios
RatioWS_TX_it      = -0.533986;
RatioWS_TX_ot      = -0.543766;
RatioWS_TX_ir      = -0.526609;
RatioWS_TX_or      = -0.535095;
RatioWS_TX_it_unc  = 0.059001;
RatioWS_TX_ot_unc  = 0.057064;
RatioWS_TX_ir_unc  = 0.061781;
RatioWS_TX_or_unc  = 0.063032;
Optical Efficiency
OE_Inner_beam                      = 0.985936;
OE_Outer_beam                      = 0.983757;
Weighted_Optical_Efficiency        = 0.984846;

OE_Inner_beam_unc                  = 0.046465;
OE_Outer_beam_unc                  = 0.047412;
Weighted_Optical_Efficiency_unc    = 0.066385;

Martel Voltage fit:
Gradient      = 1637.889101;
Intercept     = 0.085727;

 Power Imbalance = 0.982015;

Endstation Power sensors to WS ratios::
Ratio_WS_TX                        = -0.927858;
Ratio_WS_RX                        = -1.383422;

Ratio_WS_TX_unc                    = 0.047658;
Ratio_WS_RX_unc                    = 0.041564;

=============================================================
============= Values for Force Coefficients =================
=============================================================

Key Pcal Values :
GS           =      -5.135100; Gold Standard Value in (V/W)             
WS           =      -4.698648; Working Standard Value             

costheta     =      0.988362; Angle of incidence
c            =      299792458.000000; Speed of Light
             
End Station Values : 
TXWS         =        -0.927858; Tx to WS Rel responsivity (V/V)
sigma_TXWS   =        0.000442; Uncertainity of Tx to WS Rel responsivity (V/V)
RXWS         =        -1.383422; Rx to WS Rel responsivity (V/V)
sigma_RXWS   =        0.000575; Uncertainity of Rx to WS Rel responsivity (V/V)

e            =        0.984846; Optical Efficiency
sigma_e      =        0.000654; Uncertainity in Optical Efficiency

Martel Voltage fit : 
Martel_gradient         =        1637.889101; Martel to output channel (C/V)
Martel_intercept   =        0.085727; Intercept of fit of     Martel to output (C/V)

Power Loss Apportion : 
beta          =        0.998844; Ratio between input and output (Beta)  
E_T          =        0.991820; TX Optical efficiency 
sigma_E_T          =        0.000329; Uncertainity in TX Optical efficiency 
E_R          =        0.992968; RX Optical Efficiency 
sigma_E_R          =        0.000330; Uncertainity in RX Optical efficiency 

Force Coefficients : 
FC_TxPD          =        9.158396e-13; TxPD Force Coefficient 
FC_RxPD          =        6.237025e-13; RxPD Force Coefficient 
sigma_FC_TxPD          =        4.417816e-24; TxPD Force Coefficient 
sigma_FC_RxPD          =        2.847865e-24; RxPD Force Coefficient 
data written to ../../measurements/LHO_EndY/tD20260804/
 

WP13482

Jim, Erik, Dave:

h1seiey was powered down: computer, IO Chassis and AI chassis.

The IO Chassis A2 Adnaco backplane was replaced with a spare. The original backplane's slot3 failed during O4 (Oct 2025) and back then we shifted the cards left by one slot to avoid it.

I was then able to put the cards back into their original slots, making h1seiey identical to h1seiex. This meant A3 now had no cards installed, so I disconnected the A3 fibers from the rear of h1seiey.

For backplane testing we stopped the models from running to verify all the cards are seen. Auto start was turned back on, the system was powered up, the models started and lastly I powered the AI chassis back on.

Masayuki Nakano, Khanh Vu

We successfully closed all of the JAC ASC loops. Attached below are the outputs from the two wavefront sensors. All of the signals converge to zero within approximately 30 seconds, indicating that the loops are working beautifully. More details will be reported tomorrow.

TITLE: 08/04 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Planned Engineering
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan S
SHIFT SUMMARY:

Slow day due to ongoing FAC water and outdoor air quality issues but the following was done:

• HAM7 Power measurements
• JAC Beam profiling at IOT1 and power measurements and IOT2L
• Scissor lift work
• Gate phone work
• PCAL EY Measurement
• Seismic work (Jim) on HAM2 electronics and ITMX

LOG:                                                                       

Jennie Wright, Masayuki Nakano, Khanh Vu

This morning we worked on several tasks on the IOT1 table, including installing the camera and shutter, profiling the beam, and calibrating the DC power.

We identified a new location for the camera using the beam transmitted through JACR_M5. During this process, Masayuki noticed that the beam was being clipped by the shutter. We suspect that the beam may have been clipped for some time. We then installed the camera in its new location, and Masayuki aligned the shutter on the table.

Next, we profiled the beam for the wavefront sensors. We found that the Gouy phase separation between the two WFSs is approximately 70 degrees. We decided to leave the current configuration as it is since the separation is good enough. Masayuki will make a plot and perform a more detailed calculation later.

We also maximized the laser power in the REFL path by optimizing the waveplate angle. When JAC is unlocked, the measured power on the RFPD is 5.1 mW, and the trigger PD voltage is 0.28 V. When JAC is locked, the measured power decreases to 0.4 mW, and the trigger PD voltage is 0.02 V. Since the beam is split evenly, each WFS receives approximately 2.55 mW of optical power.

Finally, we calibrated the DC readout of RFPD by converting counts to mW. Before performing the calibration, Masayuki checked the alignment and recentered the RFPD. He then recorded two sets of measurements, each averaged over 10 seconds:

Measurement #1

* JAC_REFL_A_LF_INMON: 1072.3966186523437 counts
* DC power: 4.4 mW

Measurement #2

* JAC_REFL_A_LF_INMON: 1073.5228637 counts
* DC power: 4.5 mW

After the calibration, we updated filter number 10 with the new coefficients.

[Keita, Elenna]

Sheila and I struggled to lock SRY last Friday, 91360. Keita and I revisited today.

To start, I ran the usual SR2 alignment, which centers the beam on AS_C, and the AS centering which centers OM1,2 on AS A and B.

Then, we could see a large beam at the center of the AS AIR camera, and a strange fringing beam at the top edge of the camera. We swept SRM in both pitch and yaw to both edges and saw the beam disappear. This convinced us that we were seeing the two beams we needed to overlap in SRY, however, there was not an SRM alignment that could overlap the two beams.

Keita first moved ITMY 10 urad in pitch, and was able to overlap the two beams. He then undid that alignment and moved the beamsplitter instead. We were able to achieve the SRY fringing and then lock SRY with the guardian. The resulting beam ended up on the top edge of th AS AIR camera view.

Using that beamsplitter alignment, we then relocked MICH dark, which required a large movement of ITMX, since we had decided to maintain the beamsplitter and ITMY alignment. ITMX is now at P: -135 and Y: 113.1 on the sliders. This means it has been moved relative to where it should be according to a previous arm alignment we achieved.

We can still see the MICH fringes on the ISCT1 refl camera with this alignment.

We can also lock PRX, with a movement of PRM. We still see no beam on POP A or B, so Keita is scanning the input alignment.

The attached screenshot shows the alignment sliders after we locked SRY, MICH, and PRX.

I'm not sure if we are happy with this alignment overall, since we're not sure if this is where we want the ITMs.

Sheila, Ryan S, Camilla

We spent the morning repeating 90783, now that ZM4 preloading has been adjusted (90951) and ZM5 has been swapped and now has a different preloading than our O4 ZM5 (91292):

• Using SQZ ASC with ZM4 and ZM5 to get ASC_A and ASC_B centered, we needed to move SRM to stop saturating ZM4/5,
• then locking OMC on 00 touching up OMC and OM3 alignment to maximize 00 peak,
• then putting these ASC-OMC offsets into H1:OMC-ASC_QPD_A/B_PIT/YAW_OFFSET so that the OMC ASC will put us in this good location. 

Sheila then used her script to run OMC scans at a grid (below) of PSAMS locations. These initially look great, showing sqz to omc mode mismatch is as good as 1%. with some alignment fluctuations. Ndscope of data taking attached. 

Ryan then took M^2 measurements on SQZT7 of a slightly different grid:

I used the earthquake down time from the weekend to look at the health of the BSC2-ISI sensors.

Sensors look OK (including the newly replaced H1 L4C - see alog 90840) except for CPS ST2 H1 (see red curve on the last plot) with large noise below 1Hz. This will need an investigation (I would start by swapping cables at the field box to see if it's an in-chamber issue).

Dtt Template lives under /ligo/svncommon/SeiSVN/seismic/BSC-ISI/H1/BS/Data/Spectra/Undamped/bs_all_sensors.xml