Work done under WP 12845, used a ladder to get close to the ion pump body, and used a wrench to hit the body a couple of times. Controller not railed after "fix".
Current dropped some at a very slow rate, but is not red anymore on the MEDM screen.
WP is closed now.
WP 12850
Chassis found with positive 15V LED powered off. Side rack 1A fuse was blown. Replaced shorted C12 capacitor on the first D070081 board. Chassis reinstalled.
Procedure checklist for both stations completed. No issues were identified at this time.
MY: Scroll pump hours: 98.5
Turbo pump hours: 236
Crash bearings: 100%
EY: Scroll pump hours: 89.9
Turbo pump hours: 1297
Crash bearings: 100%
Closing WP 12843 FAMIS 31280 and 31288
EY purge air compressor was ran for ~3 hours, dew point mointor quickly reached <-40 degF and at time of shut down was reporting -76 degF. New system, so there are only a few run hours. 3 hours total, distributed between the three scroll compressors.
TITLE: 10/21 Day Shift: 1430-2330 UTC (0730-1630 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Preventive Maintenance
INCOMING OPERATOR: Ryan C
SHIFT SUMMARY: Currently trying to relocking. Having some trouble, partially due to extremely high secondary microseism, and partly due to unknown issues.
LOG:
14:30UTC Detector in IDLE due to high secondary microseism
20:47 Start relocking
20:47 Initial alignment
21:25 Initial alignment done
Lockloss from LOWNOISE_LENGTH_CONTROL - ringup started when gains were changed, lost lock 10s later
| Start Time | System | Name | Location | Lazer_Haz | Task | Time End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15:06 | FAC | Eric | EX, EY | n | Lubricating fans | 16:06 |
| 15:08 | VAC | Gerardo | EX | n | Ion pump | 15:44 |
| 15:09 | VAC | Jordan | MY, EY | n | Turbo pump tests | 18:35 |
| 15:15 | FAC | Kim, Nellie | HAM Shack | n | Tech clean | 16:08 |
| 15:19 | FAC | Tyler | EX | n | Joining Eric | 16:06 |
| 15:45 | EE | Fil | LVEA | n | Swapping MC lower stage satamps | 17:23 |
| 15:46 | FAC | Randy | LVEA | n | Inspections | 16:06 |
| 16:05 | FAC | Mitchell | LVEA | n | Moving stuff to SEI rack | 16:12 |
| 16:08 | FAC | Kim, Nellie | LVEA | n | Tech clean | 17:35 |
| 16:58 | FAC | Tyler | LVEA, MX, MY | n | 3IFO checks | 18:43 |
| 17:00 | EE | Marc | LVEA | n | Joining Fil | 17:06 |
| 17:08 | SEI | Jim, Randy | LVEA | n | Looking around BSC2 | 17:59 |
| 17:24 | Keita, Rahul | OpticsLab | y(local) | ISS Array | 19:48 | |
| 17:31 | EE | Fil | EX, EY | n | Checking out fibers and figuring out power supply issue | 19:21 |
| 17:35 | SEI | Jim | LVEA | n | Working on HAM7 SEI satamps | 17:59 |
| 17:35 | FAC | Nellie | EY | n | Tech clean | 18:33 |
| 17:36 | FAC | Kim | EX | n | Tech clean | 19:23 |
| 17:36 | EE | Marc | EX | n | Replacing failed fan | 18:41 |
| 17:46 | FAC | Randy | EY, EX | n | Checks | 19:37 |
| 18:45 | EE | Marc | EX | n | Get ready to restart EX pump controller | 19:45 |
| 19:30 | VAC | Gerardo | EY | n | Turning off purge air pumps | 20:26 |
| 19:37 | FAC | Randy | XTube | n | Caulking the tube | 21:59 |
| 20:03 | RyanC | LVEA | n | Sweeping | 20:26 | |
| 21:49 | EE | Marc, Fil | MY | n | Investigating PEM power supply failure | 22:11 |
| 22:43 | PSL | Keita | Optics lab | lOCAL | ISS array | 23:43 |
| 23:03 | EE | Marc, Fil | MY | n | Replacing power supply | 23:23 |
TITLE: 10/21 Eve Shift: 2330-0500 UTC (1630-2200 PST), all times posted in UTC
STATE of H1: Preventive Maintenance
OUTGOING OPERATOR: Oli
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT:
SEI_ENV state: USEISM
Wind: 4mph Gusts, 1mph 3min avg
Primary useism: 0.07 μm/s
Secondary useism: 0.49 μm/s
QUICK SUMMARY:
Looking at the high 2ndary microseism it seems to be from the storm off west coast with wave swells of 10m and a swell period of 7.6sec ( ~0.13Hz). Something weird is that the MY seismometer had a big sudden jump in motion at ~23:10 UTC.
I set the gain scaling back to use IMC INput power, since we had an unusual lockloss at LSC length control Elenna sees is related to LSC loop gain changes.
This change should have made a 5% change in the loop gain, so if this was the reason for the lockloss one of our loops is very close to unstable.
Here is a scope showing the LSC loop ring up. The ring up started about 10s before lockloss which coincides with a few gains and filter changes in the LSC loops.
Closes FAMIS28428, last checked alog87482.
Injections were not made as we were not locked this morning.
Closes FAMIS27826, last checked in alog87432.
Y was at 9.5 I added 300ml and brought it up to 10.3.
X was at 29.8, I added 250ml and brought it up to 30.4.
WP 12844
ECR E2400330
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 |
| MC1 M2 | S1100182 | S1100148 | ULLLURLR |
| MC1 M3 | S1100176 | S1100135 | ULLLURLR |
| MC3 M2 | S1100069 | S1100106 | ULLLURLR |
| MC3 M3 | S1100123 | S1100093 | ULLLURLR |
| PR3 M2 | S1100063 | S1000274 | ULLLURLR |
| PR3 M3 | S1100113 | S1000277 | ULLLURLR |
| MC2 M2 | S1100110 | S1100169 | ULLLURLR |
| MC2 M3 | S1000294 | S1100174 | ULLLURLR |
| SR3 M2 | S1100105 | S1100146 | ULLLURLR |
| SR3 M3 | S1100074 | S1100134 | ULLLURLR |
F. Clara, J. Kissel, O. Patane
Edgard, Oli
Edgard got everything done for the PR3 and SR3 L estimator, so I was able to install all the filters and turn them on. Along with the L to L estimator parts, this also included L to P models, and involved updates to the P estimator's P to P and P to L fits.
We are running the L estimator and the updated P estimator as of 2025-10-21 20:18:00 UTC.
The LVEA has been swept, no items of note.
We built on the templates set by the PR3 L/P estimator blends [see LHO: 87596] to create Length and Pitch blend filters for the SR3 OSEM estimator.
The functions that make the model and OSEM filters live in:
blend_SR3_lengthv2_LP_est.m
blend_SR3_pitchv2_LP_est.m
The files were committed to the SVN at (svnRoot)/sus/trunk/HLTS/Common/FilterDesign/Estimator/ under revision 12741.
make_EST_blends.m in the same folder should work for getting these onto the real-time model.
Follow up to Oli's measurements in [LHO: 87363 LHO: 87611].
We did the fitting for the SR3 OSEM estimator with the M1 drive measurements from today plus the Suspoint measurements from two weeks ago.
The plant is not nearly as reciprocal as the PR3 plant, I wonder what that means.
The fits had to be obtained by tweaking over the PR3 OSEM estimator model posted in [LHO: 87593]. This worked really fast, and produced very clean results. I think we might use this method as a way to retune the estimators in the future.
The .pdf attached has the image of the Estimator L/P models for bookkeeping.
The fits are contained in fits_H1SR3_LP-2025-10-07.mat have been uploaded to the SVN under revision 12740 to
(svnroot)/sus/trunk/HLTS/Common/FilterDesign/Estimator.
Here are the ZPKs for the model
_____________________________________________________________________________
SUSPOINT TO M1
Suspoint L to M1 L fit
zpk([0,0,-0.06-4.33i,-0.06+4.33i,-0.051-7.177i,-0.051+7.177i,-0.089-15.255i,-0.089+15.255i],[-0.073-4.136i,-0.073+4.136i,-0.07-4.666i,-0.07+4.666i,-0.071-9.92i,-0.071+9.92i,-0.155-18.168i,-0.155+18.168i],-0.001)
Suspoint L to M1 P fit
zpk([0,0,0.935-6.789i,0.935+6.789i,-1.049-6.865i,-1.049+6.865i,-1.085-18.474i,-1.085+18.474i,0.833-18.561i,0.833+18.561i],[-0.078-4.113i,-0.078+4.113i,-0.058-4.655i,-0.058+4.655i,-0.071-9.916i,-0.071+9.916i,-0.165-13.116i,-0.165+13.116i,-0.221-18.058i,-0.221+18.058i,-0.053-21.596i,-0.053+21.596i],0.383)
Suspoint P to M1 L fit
zpk([0,0,-0.103-4.364i,-0.103+4.364i,-0.095-9.007i,-0.095+9.007i,-0.071-17.115i,-0.071+17.115i],[-0.071-4.094i,-0.071+4.094i,-0.055-4.64i,-0.055+4.64i,-0.062-9.948i,-0.062+9.948i,-0.158-18.146i,-0.158+18.146i],0)
Suspoint P to M1 P fit
zpk([0,0,-0.002-4.162i,-0.002+4.162i,0.006-4.65i,0.006+4.65i,0.036-5.615i,0.036+5.615i,-0.011-9.179i,-0.011+9.179i,-0.065-9.837i,-0.065+9.837i,-0.052-14.212i,-0.052+14.212i,-0.017-21.873i,-0.017+21.873i],[-0.06-4.105i,-0.06+4.105i,-0.01-4.178i,-0.01+4.178i,-0.02-4.629i,-0.02+4.629i,-0.028-4.68i,-0.028+4.68i,-0.019-9.793i,-0.019+9.793i,-0.045-9.975i,-0.045+9.975i,-0.139-13.128i,-0.139+13.128i,-0.041-21.608i,-0.041+21.608i],-0.001)
M1 DRIVE TO M1
M1 drive L to M1 L fit
zpk([-0.067-4.297i,-0.067+4.297i,-0.003-5.174i,-0.003+5.174i,-0.024-12.283i,-0.024+12.283i],[-0.064-4.12i,-0.064+4.12i,-0.057-4.635i,-0.057+4.635i,-0.072-9.904i,-0.072+9.904i,-0.155-18.168i,-0.155+18.168i],0.136)
M1 drive L to M1 P fit
zpk([1.502-5.563i,1.502+5.563i,-1.589-5.824i,-1.589+5.824i,-14.284,14.718,1.462-17.431i,1.462+17.431i,-1.276-17.775i,-1.276+17.775i],[-0.068-4.121i,-0.068+4.121i,-0.063-4.638i,-0.063+4.638i,-0.072-9.905i,-0.072+9.905i,-0.158-13.118i,-0.158+13.118i,-0.163-18.132i,-0.163+18.132i,-0.056-21.582i,-0.056+21.582i],0.078)
M1 drive P to M1 L fit
zpk([1.399-5.266i,1.399+5.266i,-1.594-5.6i,-1.594+5.6i,2.034-16.482i,2.034+16.482i,-2.192-17.091i,-2.192+17.091i],[-0.073-4.113i,-0.073+4.113i,-0.06-4.63i,-0.06+4.63i,-0.068-9.924i,-0.068+9.924i,-0.163-13.118i,-0.163+13.118i,-0.143-18.158i,-0.143+18.158i,-0.072-21.583i,-0.072+21.583i],-25.295)
M1 drive P to M1 P fit
zpk([-0.075-4.398i,-0.075+4.398i,0-5.423i,0+5.423i,-0.068-9.979i,-0.068+9.979i,-0.002-20.622i,-0.002+20.622i],[-0.069-4.109i,-0.069+4.109i,-0.051-4.632i,-0.051+4.632i,-0.076-9.938i,-0.076+9.938i,-0.164-13.126i,-0.164+13.126i,-0.074-21.58i,-0.074+21.58i],76.066)
I needed to retake measurements for the SR3 M1 to M1 L estimator in the L and P degrees of freedom because the ones from 87363 didn't have good enough coherence.
Settings:
- ISI in ISOLATED
- SUS in ALIGNED
- Estimators off (using regular damping)
- L DAMP gain to 20% (-0.1), P DAMP gain at 20% (-0.1), Y DAMP gain to 100% (-0.5)
Results:
M1 to M1
/ligo/svncommon/SusSVN/sus/trunk/HLTS/H1/SR3/SAGM1/Data/2025-10-21_1600_H1SUSSR3_M1_WhiteNoise_EstL_{L,P}_0p02to50Hz.xml r12738
These have a lot better coherence now
As I entered the VEA at X-End I noticed an out place noise, I tracked the noise source to be a noisy power supply at the vacuum rack. Made the report to Filiberto and Richard, noise points to a fan issue.
Filed a FRS ticket, number 35689.
WP12849 Marc is replacing the old PowerTen DC power supply at EX. This supplies the Beckhoff vacuum controls for h0veex. It also supplies the Beckhoff HEPI Pump Controller chassis.
EDC lost 1197 channels when power supply was off (VAC and HPI_PUMPCTRL)
Vac is now back and burt restored at 11:10, we are working on getting the HEPI pump controller back.
Power supply was replaced with Sorensen DCS33-33E supply. Everything powered back up eventually, minor issues with the HEPI controller were solved. This completes WP12849
F. Clara, R. McCarthy, G. Moreno, M. Pirello
HEPI controller did not come back on its own. This computer doesn't seem to be set up to start TwinCAT and tcioc automatically. Started both processes manually, but run into an issue that the TwinCAT system was running, but the PLC code was not. After recompiling the PLC code and loading it, the system finally came up.
Jennie W, Sheila,
I took a long time to post this as have been working on other things...
We carried out a test (see LHO alog #86785) to look at the effect of DARM offset stepping on the power at OMC-DCPD_SUMS and OMC-REFL (transmitted through and reflected from the OMC). We did this with the heater on OM2 off as is nominal.
We then meant to redo these measurements once we heated up OM2 to change the mode-matching of the IFO to the OMC.
Unbfortunately we lost lock at about 15:06 UTC while Corey was taking out first measurement before heating up the OM2.
The meausrement is shown in this image, I have mislabelled it as 'third measurement' but it was the first. The optical gain is shown just before this measurment to be 0.994.
Then we waited as long as we could under out initial parameters of being finished cooling the OM2 again by 1:45pm.
We took another measurement at 1 hr 25 mins into lock after two false starts where I forgot to turn off the ASC. The optical gain was measured right before we started the measurements to be 0.978 but was still thermalising.
And then we took a third 2 hrs 59 minutes into lock, the IFO should be thermalised but the temperature of OM2 was still trending upwards a bit. Optical gain was 0.986.
We can use the slope of the power at the antisymmetric port (P_AS) vs. the power at the DCPDs (P_DCPD) as the DARM offset changes to estimate the throughput of carrier through the OMC which allows us one estimate of the loss.
The plots of this throughput are here for the cold state (minus the points taken after we lost lock), here for the partially thermalised state, and here for the thermalised state.
I am also in the middle of using the plot of P_AS varying with power at the OMC reflected port (P_REFL) to get a better estimate of the mode-mis match between the interferometer and the OMC.
I plotted the loss between the antisymmetric port (calibrated into the power entering HAM6) to the power on the DCPDs. This is the inverse of the slopes in the graphs above.
All three are poltted on one graph, using plot_AS_vs_DCPD_changes.py in my own cope of the labutils repository at /ligo/home/jennifer.wright/git/local_git_copies/labutils/darm_offset_step/ .
Sheila and Camilla both agreed the loss for the two bottom lines (purple and red) are too high. These imply that a hot OM2 gives us over 20 % output losses.
If we look at the increase in loss from cold OM2 to hot OM2 this is a factor of 2.1 (210 % increase).
Compared to the decrease in optical gain squared (which we expect to reflect the change in output losses, which was:
(0.986^2 - 0.994 ^2) / 0.994^2 = -0.016 (1.6 % decrease).
We might have to check the alignment of out optics was not changing while we changed the darm offset.
Looking at OM1, OM2 and SRM alignment it did change during the darm offset steps with the biggest change (in the third offsset step measurement) being in OM2 pitch and yaw, this is only a change around 6 microradians (Elenna and Jeff state this calibration in correct to within an order of magnitude). Not sure if this enough to invalidate the loss values we measure. OM3 and OMC sus did not change much but this is because IU purposely unlocked the OMC ASC while changing the darm offset.
Jennie W, Matt T,
I plotted the antisymmetric power during the darm offset step vs. the power reflected by the OMC and am now very confused as the AS power looks to be smaller than the power reflected form the OMC. See the ndscope where I have zoomed in on the same time segment for both channels. The OMC-REFL channel is mean to be calibrated into mW and the ASC-AS_C channel is meant to be calibrated into W entering HAM 6 (even though the actual pick-off is the transmission through OM1).
The two plots attached show how the ratio between AS and OMC-REFL power changes during one of the DARM offset measurements we did right after I took this ndscope data.
Plot 1 hr 25 mins into lock.
Plot 2 hrs 59 mins into lock.
For each point the code returns the median of the time series at each step, this mioght be less valie for OMC-REFL as it is a lot noisier than ASC-AS_C.
I am still confused about the hogher power at OMC-REFL and wondering if:
a) I am confused about the calibration of one of these channels.
b) the calibration of one of these channels is wrong.
