40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 40m Log, Page 339 of 344 Not logged in
 New entries since: Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
16940   Wed Jun 22 18:55:31 2022 yutaUpdateLSCDaily alignment work; POY trouble solved

[Koji, Yuta]

I found that Yarm cannot be locked today. Both POY11 and POYDC were not there when Yarm was aligned, and ITMY needed to be highly misaligned to get POYDC.
POY beam also could not be found at ITMY table.
Koji suggested to use AS55 instead to lock Yarm. We did it (AS55_I_ERR, C1:LSC-YARM_GAIN=-0.002) and manually ASS-ed to get Yarm aligned (ASS with AS55 somehow didn't work).
After that, we checked ITMY table and found that POY beam was clipped at an iris which was closed!
I opened it and now Yarm locks with POY11 again. ASS works.
PMC was also aligned.

C1:PSL-PMC_PMCTRANSPD ~0.74
C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM ~14000
C1:LSC-TRY_OUT ~0.7
C1:LSC-TRX_OUT ~0.8

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-06-22_17-17-42_XYaligned.png
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2022-06-22_18-58-26_Transmission.png
16941   Wed Jun 22 19:41:13 2022 KojiUpdateLSCDaily alignment work; POY trouble solved

Before the final measurement of the DC values for the transmissions, I aligned the PMC. This made the PMC trans increased from 0.67 to 0.74.

16942   Thu Jun 23 15:05:01 2022 Water MonitorUpdateUpgradeWater Bottle Refill

22:05:02 UTC Jordan refilled his water bottle at the water dispenser in the control room.

16943   Fri Jun 24 12:13:16 2022 JCUpdateIOOWFS issues

[Yuta, JC]

It seems that early this morning MC got very misaligned. Yuta was able to align the Mode Cleaner again by individually adjusting the MC1 MC2, and MC3. Once transmission reach ~12000, we went ahead and turned on WFS. Oddly enough, the transmission began plummeting and MC fell out of lock. After this, Yuta reset the WFS offsets and realigned the WFS QPDs. We then locked MC and turned on WFS once again, but the same issue happened. After fiddeling around with this, we found the if we set C1:IOO-MC2_TRANS_PIT_OUTPUT and C1:IOO-WFS1_YAW_OUTPUT equal to 0, WFS does not cause this issue. Is there a proper to reset WFS, aside from only zeroing the offsets?

Attachment 1: WFS.png
16944   Fri Jun 24 13:29:37 2022 YehonathanUpdateGeneralOSEMs from KAGRA

The box was given to Juan Gamez (SURF)

 Quote: I put the box containing the untested OSEMs from KAGRA near the south flow bench on the floor.

16945   Fri Jun 24 17:16:59 2022 PacoUpdateALSXAUX cable in control room

[JC, Paco]

We took the long BNC cable that ran from ETMX to ETMY and ran it from ETMX into the control room instead. This way Cici and Deeksha can send small voltage signals to the AUX PZT and read back using the beatnote pickoff that is usually connected to the spectrum analyzer.

16946   Sat Jun 25 14:29:48 2022 AnchalUpdateIOOWFS issues

This issue is very weird and still unresolved. Without WFS loops, we'll have to realign IMC often and we might loose IMC alignment completely during weekends or long weekends.

I tried following things today but nothign worked:

• Blocked WFS PDs and reset DC offsets (sitemap>C1IOO>C1IOO_WFS_MASTER>! Actions>Correct WFS DC Offsets).
• Switched off MC chamber lights.
I felt that they might be on, but later I feel that wasn't the case. Anyways, this didn't help.
• Algined IMC manually using cavAlign tool with MC2-MC3 and then tweaking MC1 and MC3 a little bit. Reach 13.6k in C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUM. Then I unlocked IMC with autolocker off, centered beam on WFSs (they were pretty off even though we have been centering them this week), and then reset RF offsets (sitemap>C1IOO>C1IOO_WFS_MASTER>! Actions>Correct WFS DC Offsets). This did not help either.
• The fact that IMC started misbehaving since Thursday onwards was bugging me that maybe the FE models did not come online properly, that maybe some RTS link is broken in IOO model which is causing the feedback loop to not work. So I went ahead and restarted all models, that didn't help either.
• Now we have a restartAllModels.sh script which restarts all cds system and restores state to just before restarting. It also makes sure that watchdogs are engaged safely particularly for new suspesnions where alignment offsets are ramped.

We need to investigate this as first priority. Maybe some cable is loose, some PD power supply not working etc. Until we fix this, people should align IMC to > 12000 transmission counts whenever they have a spare 5 min. We need to work in place of WFS for sometime.

16947   Sat Jun 25 20:23:59 2022 KojiUpdateIOOWFS issues

I could run the WFS servo (6dofs) for more than 15min by flipping the sign for the MC2 Pit and WFS1 Yaw. (See attachments)

This may mean that the sign of the loops / the input matrix / the output matrix, as well as the sensors and actuators, have the problem.
Isn't it the time to measure the sensing/actuation matrices? Maybe Tomislav already has the data?

I have reverted the changes as you may need more careful investigation.

Attachment 1: Screen_Shot_2022-06-25_at_20.23.21.png
Attachment 2: Screen_Shot_2022-06-25_at_20.29.24.png
16948   Sat Jun 25 22:18:41 2022 TomislavUpdateASCSimulation and reality comparisons

In the attachment please find plots comparing controller output, local damping output, and error signals.

Input noises of the simulation are seismic noise, osem noise, input power fluctuations, sensing noises of WFSs and QPD, and air turbulence noise for WFSs. There is also optical torque noise (radiation pressure effect).

The procedure to get optical gains and sensing noises:
Having the actuator response A rad/cnts @ 3 Hz. I was shaking MC1/2/3 in pitch with B cnts @ 3 Hz and getting WFS1/2 QPD signals of C cnts @ 3 Hz, which means WFS1/2 QPD optical gain is D cnts/rad = C / (A * B) cnts/rad. So, if WFS1/2 QPD IN1 has a noise spectrum (at higher freqs) of E cnts/rtHz, that corresponds to E/D rad/rtHz of sensing noise for WFS1/2 QPD.

Actuator response [rad/cts] I was getting shaking mirrors at 3 Hz and measuring amplitudes of OSEM output (knowing the geometry of the mirror). I scaled it to DC. From here I was getting ct2tau_mc (knowing the mirror's moment of inertia, Q, and natural pitch frequencies). OSEM calibration factors [cts/rad] I was getting from the input matrix and geometry of the mirror.

The flat noise at higher frequencies from the local damping and controller output channels is presumably quantization/loss of digits/numerical precision noise which I don't include in simulations for now?!

Regarding air turbulence, in KAGRA it has been reported that air turbulence introduces phase fluctuations in laser fields that propagate in air. According to Kolmogorov’s theory, the PSD of phase fluctuations caused by air turbulence scales as ∝ L*V^(5/3)*f^(−8/3). Here, L is the optical path length and V is a constant wind speed. Since it is not obvious how can one estimate typical V in the beam paths I was taking this excess noise from the error signals data between 10 Hz and 50 Hz, extrapolated it taking into account ∝ f^(−8/3) (not for frequencies below 2 Hz, where I just put constant, since it would go too high). I expect that I won't be able to get a parameterized model that also predicts the absolute value. The slope is all I can hope to match, and this I already know. QPD chamber is much smaller (and better isolated?) and there is no this excess noise.

Regarding other things in simulations (very briefly): beam-spots are calculated from angular motions, length change is calculated from beam-spots and angular motion, cavity power depends on length change and input power, and torque on the mirrors depends on beam-spots and cavity power. From other things, local-sensor basis conversion (and vice versa) is worth noting.

Attachment 1: sens_output_comparison_23_6_new.png
Attachment 2: contr_out_comparison_23_6_new.png
Attachment 3: local_damp_out_comp_23_6_new.png
16949   Mon Jun 27 12:32:45 2022 yutaUpdateIOOWFS issues fixed

[Anchal, Yuta]

We found that MC1 local damping loop signs were revereted to the state before our standardization on June 7th (40m/16898), but the WFS output matrix was not reverted.
This caused the sign flip in the feedback to MC1, which caused the IMC WFS issue.
This probably happened when we were restarting the models after RTS modeling (40m/16935). We might have used wrong snap files for burt-restoring.

We went back to the snapshot taken at 09:19 June 21, 2022 and now the IMC WFS is working,

16950   Mon Jun 27 13:25:50 2022 CiciUpdateGeneralCharacterizing the Transfer Loop

[Deeksha, Cici]

We first took data of a simple low pass filter, and attempted to perform a fit to both the magnitude and phase in order to find the Z of the components. Once we felt confident in our ability to measure tranfer functions, we took data and plotted the transfer function of the existing control loop of the AUX laser. What we found generally followed the trend of, but was lower than, 10^4/f, which is what we hoped to match, and also had a strange unexplained notch ~1.3 kHz. The magnitude and phase data both got worse after around 40-50 kHz, which we believe is because the laser came out of lock near the end of the run.

Edit:

[Attachment 2 and 3] are the frequency response of the low pass filter, curves fitted using least squares in python.

[Attachment 1 and 4] is the same measurement of OLTF of the actual AUX circuit, and the control diagram pointing out the location of excitation and test point.

Attachment 1: TF_measurement_b.png
Attachment 2: transfer_function_mag_fit.png
Attachment 3: transfer_function_phase_fit.png
Attachment 4: control_flow.png
16951   Mon Jun 27 13:39:40 2022 DeekshaUpdateElectronicsSetting up the MokuLab

[Cici, Deeksha]

On Friday Cici and I set up the Mokulab to take readings of our loop. The aim is to characterise the PZT, in a similar manner as before, by exciting the circuit using our input noise (a swept sine) and recording the corresponding changes in the output. We used the MokuLab to observe the beat note created by the signals of the AUX and PSL, as well as the ASD of the output signal. The MokuLab simplifies the entire process.

Pictured : The beat note as observed by Cici

Attachment 1: WhatsApp_Image_2022-06-24_at_5.21.28_PM.jpeg
16952   Mon Jun 27 18:54:27 2022 yutaUpdateLSCModulation depths measurement using Yarm cavity scan

[Yehonathan, Yuta]
EDITED by YM on 22:11 June 27, 2022 to correct for a factor of two in the modulation index

Since we have measured optical gain in MICH to be an order of magnitude less compared with Yehonathan's FINESSE model (40m/16923), we measured the power at AS55 RF PD, and measured the modulation depths using Yarm cavity scan.
We found that 50/50 beam splitter which splits AS55 path into RF PD and RF QPD was not included in the FINESSE model. Measured modulation index were as follows:

TEM00 peak height: 0.6226 +/- 0.0237
RF11 peak height: 0.0067 +/- 0.0007
RF55 peak height: 0.0081 +/- 0.0014
RF11 modulation index: 0.208 +/- 0.012
RF55 modulation index: 0.229 +/- 0.020
RF11 modulation index: 0.104 +/- 0.006
RF55 modulation index: 0.114 +/- 0.010

Here, modulation depth m is defined in E=E_0*exp(i*(w*t+m*sin(w_m*t))), and m m/2 equals to square of the intensity ratio between sidebands and TEM00.

Power measurement at AS55 RF PD:
- ITMY and ITMX single bounce reflection was measured to be 50-60 uW at the front of AS55 RFPD.
- In the FINESSE model, it was expected to be ~110 uW with 0.8 W input to PRM (0.8 W * 5%(PRM) * 50%(BS) * 50%(BS) * 10%(SRM) * 10%(AS2) gives 100 uW)
- In AP table, AS55 beam was split into two paths with 50/50 beam splitter, one for AS55 RF PD and one for AS WFS and AS110. This will be included in the FINESSE model.

Modulation depth measurement using Yarm cavity scan:
- Aligned Yarm using ASS, and unlocked Yarm to get the 2sec scan data of C1:LSC-TRY_OUT_DQ, C1:LSC-POY11_I_ERR_DQ, C1:LSC-AS55_I_ERR_DQ.
- TRY data was used to get TEM00 peak heights
- POY11/AS55 data was used to find RF11/RF55 sideband peaks, and height was measured at TRY (see attached).
- If we define m to be E=E_0*exp(i*(w*t+m*sin(w_m*t))), the amplitude of TEM00 I_00 is proportional to J_0(m) and the amplitude of upper/lower sideband I_f1 is proportional to J_1(m), where J_n(m) is the bessel function of the first kind.
- m can be calculated using 2*sqrt(I_f1 / I_00).
- Results were shown above. Error is calculated from the standard deviation of multiple measurements with multiple peaks,
- The code for doing this lives in https://git.ligo.org/40m/measurements/-/blob/main/LSC/YARM/modulationIndex.ipynb

Discussion:
- Power at AS55 account for the factor of 2, In the FINESSE model, modulation index of 0.3 was used (could be m=0.3/2 or m=0.3; needs check). These combined can explain a factor of 3 at least (or 6).
- Gautam's measurement in Jan 2021 (40m/15769) gives almost double modulation index, but I'm not sure what is the definition Gautam used. It agrees with Gautam's measurement in Jan 2021.

Attachment 1: YarmModIndex.png
16953   Tue Jun 28 09:03:58 2022 JCUpdateGeneralOrganizing and Cleaning

The plan for the tools in 40m

As of right now, there are 4 tool boxes. X-end, Y-end, Vertex, and the main tool box along the X-arm. The plan is the give each toolbox a set of their own tools. The tools of X-end, Y-end, and Vertex toolboxes will be very similar containing the basic tools such as pliers, screwdrivers, allen ball drivers. Along with this, each tool box will have a tape measure, caliper, level, and other measuring tools we find convinient.

As for the new toolbox, I have done research and found a few good selections. The only problem I have ran into with this is the width of the tool box corresponding with the prices. The tool cabinet we have now is 41" wide. The issue I have is not in finding another toolbox of the same width, but for a similar price we can find a 54" wide tool cabinet. Would anyone be objected to making a bit more space for this?

How the tools will stay organized.

I the original idea I had was to use a specified color of electrical tape for each tool box. Then to wrap the corresponding tools tools with the same color tape. But it was brought to my attention that the electrical tape would become sticky over time. So, I think the using the label maker would be the best idea. with the labels being 'X' for X-end, 'Y' for Y-end, 'V' for vertex, and 'M' for main toolboxes.

An idea for the optical tables:

Anchal brought it up to me that it is a hassle to go back and forth searching for the correct sizes of Hex Keys and Allen Wrenches. The idea of a pouch on the outside of each optical table was mentioned so I brought this up to Paco. Paco also gave me the idea of a 3D printed stand we could make for allen ball drives. Does anyone have a preference or an idea of what would be the best choice and why?

A few sidenotes:

Anchal mentioned to me a while back that there are many cables that are laying on the racks that are not being used. Is there a way we could identify which ones are being used?

I noticed that when we were vented that a few of the chamber doors were leaning up against the wall and not on a wooden stand like others. Although, the seats for the chamber doors are pretty spacious and do not give us much clearance. For the future ones, could we make something more sleek and put the wider seats at the end chambers?

The cabinets along the Y-Arm are labelled, but do not correspond with all the materials inside or are too full to take in more items. Could I organize these?

16954   Tue Jun 28 14:24:23 2022 yutaUpdateBHDBHD DC PD signals now also sent to c1lsc to circumvent IPC error

[JC, Yuta]

To circumvent IPC error sending BHD DC PD signals from c1sus2 to c1lsc, DB9 cable from BHD DC PD box sent to c1sus2 is now split and sent also to c1lsc.
They are now available in both

C1:X07-MADC1_EPICS_CH16 (DC PD A) and CH17 (DC PD B)

C1:X04-MADC1_EPICS_CH4 (DC PD A) and CH5 (DC PD B)

Next:
- Add battery powered SR560 to decouple c1sus2 and c1lsc to avoid the ground loop

Attachment 1: C1LSC.JPG
Attachment 2: C1SUS2.JPG
Attachment 3: Screenshot_2022-06-28_16-03-16_BHDDCPDcopied.png
16957   Tue Jun 28 17:07:47 2022 AnchalUpdateCalibrationAdded Beatnote channels in demodulation of c1cal

I added today demodulation of C1:LSC-BEATX/Y_FINE_I/Q in the c1cal demodulation where different degrees of freedom can be dithered. For McCal (formerly soCal), we'll dither the arm cavity for which we can use any of the DOFs (like DARM) to send the dither to ETMX/ETMY. Then with green laser locked as well, we'll get the calibration signal from the beatnotes in the demodulaed channels. We can also read right after the mixing in c1cal model and try differnt poles for integration .

I've also added medm screens in the sensing matrix part of LSC screen. These let you see demodulation of beatnote frequency signals.

16958   Tue Jun 28 18:19:09 2022 TomislavUpdateElectronicsElectronics noise

I measured electronics noise of WFSs and QPD (of the WFS/QPD, whitening, ADC...) by closing PSL and measuring the error signal. It was needed to put the offset in C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUMFILT_OFFSET to 14000 cts (without offset the sum of quadrants would give zero, and 14000 cts is the value when the cavity is locked). For WFS that are RF, if there is intensity noise at low frequencies, it is not affecting the measurement.

In the attachment please find the power spectrum of the error signal when the PSL shutter is on and off.

Attachment 1: electronics_noise_spectra.png
Attachment 2: error_signal.png
16960   Tue Jun 28 22:27:11 2022 YehonathanUpdateBHDMeasurement of input and output electronics noise

{Yuta, Yehonathan}

For MICH noise budgeting we measure the input electronics noise which includes the AS55 RFPD, preamp, demod board, the whitening, and the AA filters, and the ADC noises. To do so we simply close the laser shutter and take the spectrum of C1:LSC-AS55_I_ERR_DQ and C1:LSC-AS55_Q_ERR_DQ shown in attachment 1.

Next, we measured the output electronics noise which includes the DAC, dewhitening and AI filters, and coil driver noises. We disabled the BS watchdog and went to 1X4 rack. We measured the spectrum of one of the lemo outputs on the BS coil driver module using an SR785. Attachment 2 shows the spectrum together with the SR785 dark noise.

Attachment 1: input_noise_spectrum.pdf
Attachment 2: output_noise_spectrum.pdf
16961   Tue Jun 28 23:10:34 2022 YehonathanUpdateBHDMeasurement of AS55 demod board conversion factor

{Yuta, Yehonathan}

We measured the AS55 demod board conversion from the amplitude of a 55MHz signal to a demodulated signal. We hooked the unused REFL55 LO into the PD input port on the AS55 demod board.

The REFL55 LO was measured to be 1.84 Vpp. The IQ outputs were: I = 0.86 Vpp, Q = 2.03 Vpp giving an amplitude of 2.205 Vpp. The overall conversion factor is sqrt(0.86**2+2.03**2)/(1.82/2)=2.422.

We also set to measure the loss in the RF cable from AS55 PD to the demod board on 1Y2. REFL55 was connected with a long BNC cable to the input of the cable under test. REFL55 at the input was measured to be 1.466 Vpp and 1.28 Vpp at the output signifying a transmission of 87.6%.

16963   Wed Jun 29 18:53:38 2022 ranaUpdateElectronicsElectronics noise

this is just the CDS error signal, but is not the electronics noise. You have to go into the lab and measure the noise at several points. It can't be done from the control room. You must measure before and afte the whitening.

 Quote: I measured electronics noise of WFSs and QPD (of the WFS/QPD, whitening, ADC...) by closing PSL and measuring the error signal. It was needed to put the offset in C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_SUMFILT_OFFSET to 14000 cts (without offset the sum of quadrants would give zero, and 14000 cts is the value when the cavity is locked). For WFS that are RF, if there is intensity noise at low frequencies, it is not affecting the measurement. In the attachment please find the power spectrum of the error signal when the PSL shutter is on and off.

16965   Thu Jun 30 18:06:22 2022 PacoUpdateALSOptimum ALS recovery - part I

[Paco]

In the morning I took some time to align the AUX beams in the XEND table. Later in the afternoon, I did the same on the YEND table. I then locked the AUX beams to the arm cavities while they were stabilized using POX/POY and turned off the PSL hepa off temporarily (this should be turned on after today's work).

After checking the the temperature slider sign on the spectrum analyzer of the control room I took some out-of-loop measurements of both ALS beatnotes (Attachment #1) by running diaggui /users/Templates/ALS/ALS_outOfLoop_Ref_DQ.xml and by comparing them against their old references (red vs magenta and blue vs cyan); it seems that YAUX is not doing too bad, but XAUX has increased residual noise around and above 100 Hz; perhaps as a result of the ongoing ALS SURF loop investigations? It does look like the OLTF UGF has dropped by half from ~ 11 kHz to ~ 5.5 kHz.

Anyways let this be a reference measurement for current locking tasks, as well as for ongoing SURF projects.

Attachment 1: als_ool_06_2022.png
16969   Fri Jul 1 12:49:52 2022 KojiUpdateIOOMC2 seemed misaligned / fixed

I found the IMC was largely misaligned and was not locking. The WFS feedback signals were saturated and MC2 was still largely misaligned in yaw after resetting the saturation.
It seemed that the MC WFS started to put the large offset at 6:30AM~7:00AM (local).
MC2 was aligned and the lock was recovered then the MC WFS seems working for ~10min now.

Attachment 1: C1-MULTI_FBDB3F_TIMESERIES-1340668818-86400.png
Attachment 2: C1-LOCKED_MC_5E4267_TIMESERIES-1340668818-86400.png
16972   Tue Jul 5 20:05:06 2022 TomislavUpdateElectronicsWhitening electronics noise

For whitening electronics noise for WFS1, I get (attachment). This doesn't seem right, right?

Attachment 1: whitening_noises.png
16973   Wed Jul 6 15:28:18 2022 TegaUpdateSUSOutput matrix diagonalisation : F2P coil balancing

local dir:  /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/SUS/OutMatCalc

Here is an update on our recent attempt at diagonalization of the SUS output matrices. There are two different parts to this: the first is coil balancing using existing F2P code which stopped working because of an old-style use of the print function and the second which should now focus on the mixing amongst the various degrees of freedoms (dof) without a DC/AC split I believe. The F2P codes are now working and have been consolidated in the git repo.

TODO:

• The remaining task is to make it so that we only call a single file that combines the characterization code and filter generation code, preferably with the addition of a safety feature that restores any changed values in case of an error or interruption from the user. The safety functionality is already implemented in the output matrix diagonalization stem of the code, so we just need to copy this over.
• Improve the error minimization algorithm for minimizing the cross-coupling between the various dof by adjusting the elements of the output matrix.

Previous work

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/4762

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/4719

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/4688

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/4682

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/4673

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/4327

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/4326

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/4762

16974   Wed Jul 6 18:51:20 2022 DeekshaUpdateElectronicsMeasuring the Transfer Function of the PZT

Yesterday, we set up the loop to measure the PZT of the transfer function - the MokuLab sends an excitation (note - a swept sine of 1.0 V) to the PZT. The cavity is locked to the PSL and the AUX is locked to the cavity. In order to measure the effect of our excitation, we take the beat note of the PSL and the AUX. This gives us a transfer function as seen in Attachment 1. The sampling rate of the MokuLab is set to 'ultrafast' (125kHz), so we can expect accurate performance upto 62.5kHz, however, in order to improve our readings beyond this frequency, modifications must be made to the script (MokuPhaseMeterTF) to avoid aliasing of the signal. A script should also be written to obtain and plot the coherence between the excitation and our output.

Also attached are - Attachment 2 -  the circuit diagram of the setup, and Attachment 3 - the TF data calculated.

Edit - the SR560 as shown in the circuit diagram has since been replaced by a broadband splitter (Minicircuits ZFRSC-42-S+).

Attachment 1: pzt_transfer_fn.png
Attachment 2: ckt_diagram.jpeg
Attachment 3: MokuPhaseMeterTFData_20220706_174753_TF_Data.txt
2.000000000000000364e+04 1.764209350625748560e+07 2.715833132756984014e+00
1.928351995884991265e+04 1.695301366919569671e+07 1.509398637395631626e+00
1.859270710016814337e+04 1.647055321367538907e+07 -2.571975165101855865e+00
1.792664192275710593e+04 1.558169995329630189e+07 6.272729335836754183e-01
1.728443786563210961e+04 1.500850042360494658e+07 -1.500422400597591466e+00
1.666524012797089381e+04 1.456986577652360499e+07 2.046163000975175894e+00
1.606822453133765885e+04 1.376167843637173250e+07 1.736835046956476614e+00
1.549259642266657283e+04 1.326192932667389885e+07 -1.272425049850132606e+00
1.493758961654484847e+04 1.283127345074228011e+07 -2.026149685362535369e+00
1.440246537538758821e+04 1.208854709974890016e+07 -3.248352694840740407e-01

... 11 more lines ...
16977   Thu Jul 7 18:18:19 2022 yutaUpdateLSCActuator calibration of ETMX and ETMX

(This is a complete restore of elog 40m/16970 from July 5, 2022 at 14:34)

ETMX and ETMY actuators were calibrated using single arm lock by taking the actuation efficiency ratio between ITMs. Below is the result.

ETMX :  2.65e-9 /f^2 m/counts (0.5007 times ITMX)
ETMY : 10.91e-9 /f^2 m/counts (2.3017 times ITMY)

Motivation:
- ETMX and ETMY actuators seemed to be unbalanced when locking DARM (see 40m/16968)

What we did:
- Reverted to C1:LSC-ETMX_GAIN = 1
- XARM was locked using POX11_I_ERR (42dB whitening gain, 132.95 deg for demod phase) with ETMX and C1:LSC-XARM_GAIN=0.06
- YARM was locked using POY11_I_ERR (18dB whitening gain, -66.00 deg for demod phase) with ETMX and C1:LSC-YARM_GAIN=0.02
- OLTFs for each was measured to be Attachment #1; UGF was ~180 Hz for XARM, ~200 Hz for YARM.
- Measured TF from C1:LSC-(E|I)TM(X|Y)_EXC to C1:LSC-(X|Y)ARM_IN1 (see Attachment #2)
- Took the ratio between ITM actuation and ETM actuation to calculate ETM actuation. For ITM actuation, we used the value measured using MICH (see 40m/16929). The average of the ratio in the frequency range 70-150 Hz was used.

Files:
- Measurement files live in https://git.ligo.org/40m/measurements/-/tree/main/LSC/XARM and YARM
- Script for calculation lives at https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/CAL/ARM/ETMActuatorCalibration.ipynb

Discussion:
- ETMX actuation is 4.12 times less compared with ETMY. This is more or less consistent with what we measured in 40m/16968, but we didn't do loop-correction at that time.
- We should check if this imbalance is as expected or not.

Summary of actuation calibration so far:
BS   : 26.08e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see 40m/16929)
ITMX :  5.29e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see 40m/16929)
ITMY :  4.74e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see 40m/16929)
ETMX :  2.65e-9 /f^2 m/counts (0.5007 times ITMX) ETMY : 10.91e-9 /f^2 m/counts (2.3017 times ITMY)

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-07-05_14-52-01_OLTF.png
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2022-07-05_14-54-03_TF.png
Attachment 3: Screenshot_2022-07-05_14-56-41_Ratio.png
16978   Thu Jul 7 18:22:12 2022 yutaUpdateLSCActuator calibration of MC2 using Yarm

(This is also a restore of elog 40m/16971 from Jul 5, 2022 at 17:36)

MC2 actuator calibration was also done using Yarm in the same way as we did in 40m/16970 (now 40m/16977).
The result is the following;
MC2 : -14.17e-9 /f^2 m/counts in arm length (-2.9905 times ITMY) MC2 :   5.06e-9 /f^2 m/counts in IMC length MC2 :  1.06e+05 /f^2 Hz/counts in IR laser frequency

What we did:
- Measured TF from C1:LSC-MC2_EXC to C1:LSC-YARM_IN1 during YARM lock using ETMY (see Attachment #1). Note that the sign of MC2 actuation and ITMY actuation is flipped.
- Took the ratio between ITM actuation and MC2 actuation to calculate MC2 actuation. For ITM actuation, we used the value measured using MICH (see 40m/16929). The average of the ratio in the frequency range 70-150 Hz was used (see Attachment #2).
- The actuation efficiency in meters in arm length was converted into meters in IMC length by multiplying it by IMCLength/ArmLength, where IMCLength=13.5 m is half of IMC round-trip length, ArmLength=37.79 m is the arm length.
- The actuation efficiency in meters in arm length was converted into Hz in IR laser frequency by multiplying it by LaserFreq/ArmLength, where LaserFreq=1064 nm / c is the laser frequency.

Files:
- Measurement files live in https://git.ligo.org/40m/measurements/-/tree/main/LSC/YARM
- Script for calculation lives at https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/CAL/ARM/ETMActuatorCalibration.ipynb

Summary of actuation calibration so far:
BS   : 26.08e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see 40m/16929)
ITMX :  5.29e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see
40m/16929)
ITMY :  4.74e-9 /f^2 m/counts (see
40m/16929)
ETMX :  2.65e-9 /f^2 m/counts (0.5007 times ITMX) ETMY : 10.91e-9 /f^2 m/counts (2.3017 times ITMY)
MC2 : -14.17e-9 /f^2 m/counts in arm length (-2.9905 times ITMY) MC2 :   5.06e-9 /f^2 m/counts in IMC length

NOTE ADDED by YM on July 7, 2022

To account for the gain imbalance in ETMX, ETMY, MC2, LSC violin filter gains were set to: C1:LSC-ETMX_GAIN = 4.12 C1:LSC-MC2_GAIN = -0.77 This is a temporary solution to make ETMX and MC2 actuation efficiencies from LSC in terms of arm length to be the same as ETMY 10.91e-9 /f^2 m/counts.

I think it is better to make C1:LSC-ETMX_GAIN = 1, and put 4.12 in C1:SUS-ETMX_TO_COIL gains. We need to adjust local damping gains and XARM ASS afterwards. As for MC2, it is better to put -0.77 in LSC output matrix, since this balancing depends on LSC topology.

Attachment 1: TF.png
Attachment 2: MC2.png
16981   Fri Jul 8 16:18:35 2022 ranaUpdateLSCActuator calibration of MC2 using Yarm

although I know that Yuta knows this, I will just put this here to be clear: the NNN/f^2 calibration is only accurate abouve the pendulum POS eiegenfrequency, so when we estimate the DC part (in diaggui, for example), we have to assume that we have a pendulum with f = 1 Hz and Q ~5, to get the value of DC gain to put into the diaggui Gain field in the calibration tab.

16984   Mon Jul 11 11:56:40 2022 he YehonathanUpdateBHDMICH AS55 noise budget

I calculated a noise budget for the MICH using AS55 as a sensor. The calculation includes closed-loop TF calculations.

The notebook and associated files can be found on https://git.ligo.org/40m/bhd/-/blob/master/controls/compute_MICH_noisebudget.ipynb.

Attachment 1 shows the loop diagram I was using. The equation describing the steady-state of the loop is

$\left[\mathbb{I}-G \right]\begin{pmatrix} \gamma \\ \delta \\ \Delta\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \\ \epsilon\end{pmatrix}$

, where G is the adjacency matrix given by

$G=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & AE_2\\ 0 & 0 & BE_2 \\ E_1C & E_1D & 0 \end{pmatrix}$

First, the adjacency matrix G is constructed by stitching the small ABCDE matrices together. Once the inverse of (I-G) is calculated we can simply propagate any noise source to $\delta$ and then calculate $\left[\mathbb{I}-E(CA+DB)\right]B^{-1}\delta$ to estimate the displacement of the optics.

Attachment 2 shows the calculated noise budget together with Yuta's measurement.

All the input and output electronics are clumped together for now. Laser noise is irrelevant as this is a heterodyne measurement at 55MHz.

It seems like there is some mismatch in the calibration of the optical gain between the measurement and model. The missing noise at 3-30Hz could be due to angle-to-length coupling which I haven't included in the model.

Attachment 1: Control_Diagram.pdf
Attachment 2: MICH_AS55_Noise_Budget.pdf
16986   Mon Jul 11 17:25:43 2022 TegaUpdateVACfixed obsolete reference bug in serial_XGS600 service

Koji noticed that the FRG sensors were not updating due to reference to an obsolete modbusIOC_XGS service, which was used temporarily to test the operation of the serial XGS sensor readout to EPICS. The information in this service was later moved into modbusIOC.service but the dependence on the modbusIOC_XGS.service was not removed from the serial_XGS600.service. This did not present any issue before the shutdown, probably bcos the obsolete service was already loaded but after the restart of c1vac, the obsolete service file modbusIOC_XGS.service was no longer available. This resulted in  serial_XGS600.service throwing a failure to load error for the missing obsolete modbusIOC_XGS service. The fix involved replacing two references to 'modbusIOC_XGS' with 'modbusIOC' in  /opt/target/services/serial_XGS600.service.

I also noticed that the date logged in the commit message was Oct 2010 and that I could not do a push from c1vac due to an error in resolving git.ligo.org. I was able to push the commit from my laptop git repo but was unable to do a pull on c1vac to keep it synced with the remote repo.

16989   Tue Jul 12 09:14:50 2022 ranaUpdateBHDMICH AS55 noise budget

Looking good:

• I think the notches you see in he measured noise are a clue as to the excess noise source. You can try turning some notches on/off.
• Laser noise does matter a bit more subtley: the low freq noise couples to AS55 through the RMS deviation of the MICH loop from the zero crossing, and the noise of the 55 MHz modulation.
• Jitter in the IMC couples to MICH through the misalignment of the Michelson.
• As you rightly note, the optical lever feedback on the ITMs and BS also make length noise through the suspension actuator imbalance and the spot mis-centering.
16990   Tue Jul 12 09:25:09 2022 ranaUpdateIOOIMC WFS

MC WFS Demod board needs some attention.

Tomislav has been measuring a very high noise level in the MC WFS demod output (which he promised to elog today!). I thought this was a bogus measurement, but when he, and Paco and I tried to measure the MC WFS sensing matrix, we noticed that there is no response in any WFS, although there are beams on the WFS heads. There is a large response in MC2 TRANS QPD, so we know that there is real motion.

I suspect that the demod board needs to be reset somehow. Maybe the PLL is unlocked or some cable is wonky. Hopefully not both demod boards are fried.

Please leave the WFS loops off until demod board has been assessed.

16995   Wed Jul 13 07:16:48 2022 JCUpdateElectronicsChecking Sorensen Power Supplies

[JC]

I went around 40m picking up any Sorensens that were laying around to test if they worked, or in need of repair. I gathered up a total of 7 Sorensens and each one with a Voltmeter. I made sure the voltage would rise on the Sorenson as well as the voltmeter, maxing out at ~33.4 Volts. For the current, the voltmeter can only rise to 10 Amps before it is fused. Many of the Sorensons that I found did not have their own wall connection, so I had to use the same one for multiple.

From these 7, I have found 5 that are well. One Sorenson I have tested has a output shortage above 20V and the other has yet to be tested.

Attachment 1: 658C5D39-11BD-4EE3-90E2-34CBBC1DBD3C.jpeg
Attachment 2: 5328312A-7918-44CC-82B7-54B57840A336.jpeg
16996   Wed Jul 13 10:54:39 2022 YehonathanUpdateBHDMICH AS55 noise budget

I fixed some mistakes in the budget:

1. The BS pendulum resonance was corrected from 0.8Hz to 1Hz

2. Added missing X3 filter in the coil filters

3. Optical gain is now computed from MICH to AS55 instead of BS to AS55 and is calculated to be: 9.95e8 cts/m.

4. Coil driver gain is still unmeasured but it is found to be 1.333 to make the actuation calibration from BS to MICH match the measurement (see attachment 1).

Attachment 2 shows the resulting MICH OLTF.

Laser noise was added to the budget in a slightly ad-hoc fashion (will fix later): Yuta and I measured MC_F and computed MC_F*(Schnupp asymmetry)/(Laser frequency). Attachment 3 shows the updated noise budget.

Attachment 1: BS_MICH_ACtuation_Calibration.pdf
Attachment 2: MICH_AS55_Model_Measurement_Comparison.pdf
Attachment 3: MICH_AS55_Noise_Budget.pdf
16999   Wed Jul 13 13:30:48 2022 YehonathanUpdateBHDadd Laser RIN to MICH budget

the main laser noise coupling for a Michelson is because of the RIN, not the frequency noise. You can measure the RIN, in MC trans or at the AS port by getting a single bounce beam from a single ITM.

17000   Wed Jul 13 17:30:19 2022 KojiUpdateCDSToo huge script_archive

I wanted to check the script archive to see some old settings. I found that the script archive inflated to huge volume (~1TB).
The size of the common NFS volume (/cvs/cds) is 3TB. So it is really significant.

- The scripts living in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts are archived daily in /cvs/cds/caltech/scripts_archive as bz2 files. This is done by crontab of megatron (see https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/Computers_and_Scripts/CRON)

- In fact, the script folder (say old script folder) /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts has the size of 10GB. And we have the compressed copy of thi s everyday.

- This large script folder is due to a couple of huge files/folders listed below

• (scripts)/MEDMtab is 5.3GB / This is probably related to the web MEDM view (on nodus) but I don't think the web page is not updated. (i.e. the images are unused)
• (scripts)/MC/logs/AutoLocker.log 2.9GB / This is just the accumulated MC autolocker log.
• (scripts)/GigE 780M / This does not look like scripts but source and object files
• (scripts)/Admin/n2Check.log 224M / This is important but increases every minute.
• (scripts)/ZI 316MB / Zurich Instrument installation. This should not be here.

Here I propose some changes.
For the script archive

• We can remove most of the scripts for the past (say ~2019). We leave an archive file per month.
• For the scripts in 2020, we leave a weekly archive.
• For 2021 and 2022, we leave all the archive files.

For the existing large files/folders

• MEDMtab: the stored files are redundant with the burt snapshots. Remove the image files. Also, we want to move the image-saving location.
• Autolocker.log: simply zap it
• n2Check.log: we should move the saving location
• GigE /ZI: they need a new home where the daily copy is not taken.
17001   Wed Jul 13 18:58:17 2022 KojiUpdateIOOIMC suspecion

This is just my intuition but the IMC servo seems not so optimized. I can increase the servo gain by 6~10dB easily. And I couldn't see that the PC drive went mad (red) as I increase the gain (=UGF).
The IMC needs careful OLTF measurements as well as the high freq spectrum observation.

It seems that I have worked on the IMC servo tuning in 2014 July/Aug. Checking these elogs would be helpful.

17003   Thu Jul 14 19:09:51 2022 ranaUpdateGeneralEQ recovery

There was a EQ in Ridgecrest (approximately 200 km north of Caltech). It was around 6:20 PM local time.

All the suspensions tripped. I have recovered them (after some struggle with the weird profusion of multiple conflicting scripts/ directories that have appeared in the recent past...)

ETMY is still giving me some trouble. Maybe because of the HUGE bias on that within the fast CDS system, it had some trouble damping. Also the 'reenable watchdog' script in one of the many scripts directories seems to do a bad job. It re-enables optics, btu doesn't make sure that the beams are on the optical lever QPD, and so the OL servo can smash the optic around. This is not good.

Also what's up with the bashrc.d/ in some workstations and not others? Was there something wrong with the .bashrc files we had for the past 15 years? I will revert them unless someone puts in an elog with some justification for this "upgrade".

This new SUS screen is coming along well, but some of the fields are white. Are they omitted or is there something non-functional in the CDS? Also, the PD variances should not be in the line between the servo outputs and the coil. It may mislead people into thinking that the variances are of the coils. Instead, they should be placed elsewhere as we had it in the old screens.

Attachment 1: ETMY-screen.png
17004   Thu Jul 14 19:56:15 2022 ranaUpdateIOOmc wfs demod

It looks like Tomislav's measurements of the WFS demod board noise were actually of the cable that goes from the whitening to the ADC. So the huge low frequency excess that he saw is not due to wind, but just the inverse whitening of the digital system?

In any case, today, I looked at the connections from the Whitening to the ADC. It goes through an interface chassis to go from ribbon to SCSI. The D-Sub connectors there have the common problem in many of the LIGO D-sub connectors: namely that the strain relief nuts are too tall and so the D connector doesn't seat firmly - its always about to fall out. JC, can you please take a look at this and order a set of low profile nuts so that we can rework this chassis? Its the one between the WFS whitening and the SCSI cables which go to the ADCs.

After pushing them in, I confirmed that the WFS are working, by moving all 6 DoF of the MC mirrors via bias slider, and looking at the step responses (attached). As you can see, all sensors see all mirrors, even if they are noisy.

Next up: get a breakout for the demod output connector and measure the noise there.

For today, I aligned the IMC by hand, then centred the WFS beams by unlocking the IMC and aligning the bright beam. I noticed that the WFS1 beam was being dumped randomly, so I angled the WFS1 by ~3 deg and dumped the specular reflection on a razor blade dump. To handle the sign change in the MC1 actuation (?), I changed the sign in the MC1 ASC filter banks. MCWFS loops still nto closing, but they respond to mirror alignment.

Attachment 1: mcwfs-steps.pdf
17005   Fri Jul 15 12:21:58 2022 JCUpdateElectronicsChecking Sorensen Power Supplies

Of the 7 Sorenson Power Supplies I tested, 5 are working fine, 1 cannot output voltage more than 20 Volts before shorting, and other does not output current. Six Sorensons are behind the X-Arm.

 Quote: [JC] I went around 40m picking up any Sorensens that were laying around to test if they worked, or in need of repair. I gathered up a total of 7 Sorensens and each one with a Voltmeter. I made sure the voltage would rise on the Sorenson as well as the voltmeter, maxing out at ~33.4 Volts. For the current, the voltmeter can only rise to 10 Amps before it is fused. Many of the Sorensons that I found did not have their own wall connection, so I had to use the same one for multiple. From these 7, I have found 5 that are well. One Sorenson I have tested has a output shortage above 20V and the other has yet to be tested.

Attachment 2: FA4CF579-6C1E-48D5-B152-74F35B4EE90B.jpeg
17006   Fri Jul 15 16:20:16 2022 Cici HannaUpdateGeneralFinding UGF

I have temporarily abandoned vectfit and aaa since I've been pretty unsuccessful with them and I don't need poles/zeroes to find the unity gain frequency. Instead I'm just fitting the transfer function linearly (on a log-log scale). I've found the UGF at about 5.5 kHz right now, using old data - next step is to get the Red Pitaya working so I can take data with that. Also need to move this code from matlab to python. Uncertainty's propagated using the 95% confidence bounds given by the fit, using curvefit - so just from the standard error, and all points are weighted equally. Ideally would like to propagate uncertainty accounting for the coherence data too, but haven't figured out how to do that correctly yet.

[UPDATE 7/22/2022: added raw data files]

Attachment 1: UGF_4042.png
Attachment 2: UGF_5650.png
Attachment 3: TFSR785_29-06-2022_114042.txt
# SR785 Measurement - Timestamp: Jun 29 2022 - 11:40:42
# Parameter File: TFSR785template.yml
#---------- Measurement Setup ------------
# Start frequency (Hz) = 100000.000000
# Stop frequency (Hz) = 100.000000
# Number of frequency points = 30
# Excitation amplitude (mV) = 10.000000
# Settling cycles = 5
# Integration cycles = 100
#---------- Measurement Parameters ----------

... 52 more lines ...
Attachment 4: TFSR785_29-06-2022_115650.txt
# SR785 Measurement - Timestamp: Jun 29 2022 - 11:56:50
# Parameter File: TFSR785template.yml
#---------- Measurement Setup ------------
# Start frequency (Hz) = 100000.000000
# Stop frequency (Hz) = 2000.000000
# Number of frequency points = 300
# Excitation amplitude (mV) = 5.000000
# Settling cycles = 5
# Integration cycles = 200
#---------- Measurement Parameters ----------

... 322 more lines ...
17009   Sat Jul 16 02:44:10 2022 KojiUpdateIOOIMC servo tuning

I wasn't sure how the IMC servo was optimized recently. We used to have the FSS over all gain (C1:PSL-FSS_MGAIN) of +6dB a few years back. It is not 0dB. So I decided to do a couple of measurements.

1) Default setting:

C1:IOO-MC_REFL_GAIN +4
C1:IOO-MC_BOOST2 +3
C1:IOO-MC_VCO_GAIN +13
C1:PSL-FSS_MGAIN +0
C1:PSL-FSS_FASTGAIN +19

2) Looked at the power spectrum at TEST1A output (error signal)
TEST1A is the signal right after the input gain stage (C1:IOO-MC_REFL_GAIN). Prior to the measurement, I've confirmed that the UGF is ~100Hz even at +0dB (see next section). It was not too bad even with the current default. Just wanted to check if we can increase the gain a bit more.
The input gain was fixed at +4dB and the FSS overall gain C1:PSL-FSS_MGAIN was swept from +0 to +6.
At +5dB and +6dB, the servo bump was very much visible (Attachment 1).
I decided to set the default to be +4dB (Attachment 3).

3) Took OLTF at 0dB and 4dB for the FSS overall gain.

Now the comparison of the opel loop transfer functions (OLTF) for C1:PSL-FSS_MGAIN at 0dB and 4dB. The OLTF were taken by injectiong the network analyzer signal into EXCA and measure the ratio between TEST1A and TEST1B (A/B).

C1:PSL-FSS_MGAIN +0 -> UGF 100kHz / Phase Margin ~50deg
C1:PSL-FSS_MGAIN +4 -> UGF 200kHz / Phase Margin 25~30deg

The phase margin was a bit less but it was acceptable.

4) IMC FSR

Took the opportunity to check the FSR of the IMC. Connected a cable to the RF MON of the IMC REFL demod board. Looked at the peak at 40.56MHz (29.5MHz + 11.066MHz). The peak was not so clear at 11.066195MHz (see 40m ELOG 15845). The peak was anyway minimized and the new modulation frequency was set to be 11.066081MHz (new FSR). The change is 10ppm level and it is within the range of the temp drift.

Attachment 1: ErrorPSD.pdf
Attachment 2: OLTF.pdf
Attachment 3: Screen_Shot_2022-07-16_at_03.59.05.png
17010   Mon Jul 18 04:42:54 2022 AnchalUpdateCalibrationError propagation to astrophysical parameters from detector calibration uncertainty

We can calculate how much detector calibration uncertainty affects the estimation of astrophysical parameters using the following method:

Let $\overrightarrow{\Theta}$ be set of astrophysical parameters (like component masses, distance etc), $\overrightarrow{\Lambda}$be set of detector parameters (like detector pole, gain or simply transfer function vaue for each frequency bin). If true GW waveform is given by $h(f; \overrightarrow{\Theta})$, and the detector transfer function is given by $\mathcal{R}(f; \overrightarrow{\Lambda})$, then the detected gravitational waveform becomes:
$g(f; \Theta, \Lambda) = \frac{\mathcal{R}(f; \overrightarrow{\Lambda_t})}{\mathcal{R}(f; \overrightarrow{\Lambda})} h(f; \overrightarrow{\Theta})$

One can calculate a derivative of waveform with respect to the different parameters and calculate Fisher matrix as (see correction in 40m/17017):

$\Gamma_{ij} = \left( \frac{\partial g}{\partial \mu_i} | \frac{\partial g}{\partial \mu_j}\right )$

where the bracket denotes iner product defined as:

$\left( k_1 | k_2 \right) = 4 Re \left( \int df \frac{k_1(f)^* k_2(f))}{S_{det}(f)}\right)$

where $S_{det}(f)$ is strain noise PSD of the detector.

With the gamma matrix in hand, the error propagation from detector parameter fractional errors $\frac{\Delta \Lambda_j}{\Lambda_j}$to astrophysical paramter fractional errors $\frac{\Delta \Theta_i}{\Theta_i}$is given by (eq 26 in Evan et al 2019 Class. Quantum Grav. 36 205006):

$\frac{\Delta \Theta_j}{\Theta_j} = - \mathbf{H}^{-1} \mathbf{M} \frac{\Delta \Lambda_j}{\Lambda_j}$

where $\mathbf{H}_{ij} = \left( \frac{\partial g}{\partial \Theta_i} | \frac{\partial g}{\partial \Theta_j}\right )$ and $\mathbf{M}_{ij} = \left( \frac{\partial g}{\partial \Lambda_i} | \frac{\partial g}{\partial \Theta_j}\right )$.

Using the above mentioned formalism, I looked into two ways of calculating error propagation from detector calibration error to astrophysical paramter estimations:

Using detector response function model:

If we assume detector response function as a simple DC gain (4.2 W/nm) and one pole (500 Hz) transfer function, we can plot conversion of pole frequency error into astrophysical parameter errors. I took two cases:

• Binary Neutron Star merger with star masses of 1.3 and 1.35 solar masses at 100 Mpc distance with a $\tilde{\Lambda}$ of 500. (Attachment 1)
• Binary black hole merger with black masses of 35 and 30 at 400 MPc distance with spin along z direction of 0.5 and 0.8. (I do not fully understand the meaning of these spin components but a pycbc waveform generation model still lets me calculate the effect of detector errors) (Attachment 2)

The plots are plotted in both loglog and linear plots to show the order of magnitude effect and how the error propsagation slope is different for different parameters. 'm still not sure which way is the best to convey the information. The way to read this plot is for a given error say 4% in pole frequency determination, what is the expected error in component masses, merger distance etc. I

Note that the overall gain of detector response is not sensitive to astrophysical error estimation.

Using detector transfer function as frequency bin wise multi-parameter function

Alternatively, we can choose to not fit any model to the detector transfer function and simply use the errors in magnitude and phase at each frequency point as an independent parameter in the above formalism. This then lets us see what is the error propagation slope for each frequency point. The hope is to identify which parts of the calibration function are more important to calibrate with low uncertainty to have the least effect on astrophysical parameter estimation. Attachment 3 and 4 show these plots for BNS and BBH cases mentioned above. The top panel is the error propagation slope at each frequency due to error in magnitude of the detector transfer function at that frequency and the bottom panel is the error propagation slope at each frequency due to error in phase of the detector transfer function.

The calibration error in magnitude and phase as a function of frequency would be multiplied by the curves and summed together, to get total uncertainty in each parameter estimation.

This is my first attempt at this problem, so I expect to have made some mistakes. Please let me know if you can point out any. Like, do the order of magnitude and shape of error propagation makes sense? Also, comments/suggestions on the inference of these plots would be helpful.

Finally, I haven't yet tried seeing how these curves change for different true values of the merger event parameters. I'm not yet sure what is the best way to extract some general information for a variety of merger parameters.

Future goals are to utilize this information in informing system identification method i.e. multicolor calibration scheme parameters like calibration line frequencies and strength.

Code location

Attachment 1: BNSparamsErrorwrtfdError-merged.pdf
Attachment 2: BBHparamsErrorwrtfdError-merged.pdf
Attachment 3: BNSparamsEPSwrtCalError.pdf
Attachment 4: BBHparamsEPSwrtCalError.pdf
17011   Mon Jul 18 15:17:51 2022 HangUpdateCalibrationError propagation to astrophysical parameters from detector calibration uncertainty

1. In the error propogation equation, it should be \Delta \Theta = -H^{-1} M \Delta \Lambda, instead of the fractional error.

2. For the astro parameters, in general you would need t_c for the time of coalescence and \phi_c for the phase. See, e.g., https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994PhRvD..49.2658C/abstract.

3. Fig. 1 looks very nice to me, yet I don't understand Fig. 3... Why would phase or amplitude uncertainties at 30 Hz affect the tidal deformability? The tide should be visible only > 500 Hz.

4. For BBH, we don't measure individual spin well but only their mass-weighted sum, \chi_eff = (m_1*a_1 + m_2*a_2)/(m_1 + m_2). If you treat S1z and S2z as free parameters, your matrix is likely degenerate. Might want to double-check. Also, for a BBH, you don't need to extend the signal much higher than \omega ~ 0.4/M_tot ~ 10^4 Hz * (Ms/M_tot). So if the total mass is ~ 100 Ms, then the highest frequency should be ~ 100 Hz. Above this number there is no signal.

17013   Mon Jul 18 16:49:57 2022 YehonathanUpdateBHDadd Laser RIN to MICH budget

I measured the RIN by taking the spectrum of C1:MC_TRANS_SUMFILT_OUT and dividing it by the mean count on that channel (~13800 cts). Attachment 1 shows the result.

I updated the MICH AS55 noise budget but got a very low contribution (gold trace in attachment 2).

It seems too low I think. What could've gone wrong? Finesse calculates that the transfer function from laser amplitude modulation to AS55 is ~ 1.5e-9 at DC. If I turn off HOMs I get 1e-11 at DC, so this coupling is a result of some contrast defect. Should I include some RMS imbalances in the optics to account for this? Should I include it as a second-order effect due to MICH RMS deviation from zero crossing?

 Quote: the main laser noise coupling for a Michelson is because of the RIN, not the frequency noise. You can measure the RIN, in MC trans or at the AS port by getting a single bounce beam from a single ITM.

Attachment 1: Laser_RIN.pdf
Attachment 2: MICH_AS55_Noise_Budget.pdf
17014   Mon Jul 18 17:07:12 2022 yutaUpdateLSCx4.12 added to ETMX coil outputs to balance with ETMY

To balance the actuation on ETMX and ETMY, x4.12 was aded to C1:SUS-ETMX_(UL|UR|LR|LL|SD)COIL FM1. OSEM damping filter gains, oplev loop gains, and alignment offsets were divided by this factor.
C1:LSC-ETMX_GAIN is now 1.

To do:
- Balance ETM and ITM. It should make ASS more sensible.
- Re-commission Xarm ASS and Yarm ASS.

17015   Mon Jul 18 18:33:38 2022 KojiUpdateBHDadd Laser RIN to MICH budget

You should measure the coupling by noise injection. Noise budgeting does not need any modeling:

1) Measure the power spectrum density of the target signal (i.e. DARM) and the source noise (i.e. RIN this case)

2) Calibrate both using a calibration peak to convert 1) into the physical units (m/rtHz, 1/rtHz, etc)

3) Measure the transfer function from source to target using the noise injection. (i.e. RIN injection this case and look at the injection to RIN and injection to DARM)

4) Measure open-loop transfer functions if necessary. (i.e. DARM control open-loop transfer function to convert the error signal into the free running noise level)

Primarily, these are measured noise levels and noise couplings there is no room to involve a model there.
Once the noise budget was done, you can compare it with the model and say "the coupling is big/small/comparable".

Also, why don't you use C1:MC_TRANS_SUMFILT_IN1_DQ instead? Your _OUT signal seems affected by the bunch of comb notch filters to artificially remove the 60Hz harmonics. It's not a fair RIN measurement.

17017   Tue Jul 19 07:34:46 2022 AnchalUpdateCalibrationError propagation to astrophysical parameters from detector calibration uncertainty

1. Yeah, that's correct, that equation normally $\Delta \Theta = -\mathbf{H}^{-1} \mathbf{M} \Delta \Lambda$ but it is different if I define $\Gamma$ bit differently that I did in the code, correct my definition of $\Gamma$ to :
$\Gamma_{ij} = \mu_i \mu_j \left( \frac{\partial g}{\partial \mu_i} | \frac{\partial g}{\partial \mu_j} \right )$
then the relation between fractional errors of detector parameter and astrophysical parameters is:
$\frac{\Delta \Theta}{\Theta} = - \mathbf{H}^{-1} \mathbf{M} \frac{\Delta \Lambda}{\Lambda}$
I prefer this as the relation between fractional errors is a dimensionless way to see it.
2. Thanks for pointing this out. I didn't see these parameters used anywhere in the examples (in fact there is no t_c in documentation even though it works). Using these did not affect the shape of error propagation slope function vs frequency but reduced the slope for chirped Mass $M_c$ by a couple of order of magnitudes.
1. I used the get_t_merger(f_gw, M1, M2) function from Hang's work to calculate t_c by assuming $f_{gw}$ must be the lowest frequency that comes within the detection band during inspiral. This function is:
$t_c = \frac{5}{256 \pi^{8/3}} \left(\frac{c^3}{G M_c}\right)^{5/3} f_{gw}^{-8/3}$
For my calculations, I've taken $f_{gw}$ as 20 Hz.
2. I used the get_f_gw_2(f_gw_1, M1, M2, t) function from Hang's work to calculate the evolution of the frequency of the IMR defined as:
$f_{gw}(t) = \left( f_{gw0}^{-8/3} - \frac{768}{15} \pi^{8/3} \left(\frac{G M_c}{c^3}\right)^{5/3} t \right)^{-3/8}$
where $f_{gw0}$ is the frequency at t=0. I integrated this frequency evolution for t_c time to get the coalescence phase phi_c as:
$\phi_c = \int^{t_c}_0 2 \pi f_{gw}(t) dt$
3. In Fig 1, which representation makes more sense, loglog of linear axis plot? Regarding the affect of uncertainties on Tidal amplitude below 500 Hz, I agree that I was also expecting more contribution from higher frequencies. I did find one bug in my code that I corrected but it did not affect this point. Maybe the SNR of chosen BNS parameters (which is ~28) is too low for tidal information to come reliably anyways and the curve is just an inverse of the strain noise PSD, that is all the information is dumped below statistical noise. Maybe someone else can also take a look at get_fisher2() function that I wrote to do this calculation.
4. Now, I have made BBH parameters such that the spin of the two black holes would be assumed the same along z. You were right, the gamma matrix was degenerate before. To your second point, I think the curve also shows that above ~200 Hz, there is not much contribution to the uncertainty of any parameter, and it rolls-off very steeply. I've reduced the yspan of the plot to see the details of the curve in the relevant region.
 Quote: 1. In the error propogation equation, it should be \Delta \Theta = -H^{-1} M \Delta \Lambda, instead of the fractional error.  2. For the astro parameters, in general you would need t_c for the time of coalescence and \phi_c for the phase. See, e.g., https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994PhRvD..49.2658C/abstract. 3. Fig. 1 looks very nice to me, yet I don't understand Fig. 3... Why would phase or amplitude uncertainties at 30 Hz affect the tidal deformability? The tide should be visible only > 500 Hz. 4. For BBH, we don't measure individual spin well but only their mass-weighted sum, \chi_eff = (m_1*a_1 + m_2*a_2)/(m_1 + m_2). If you treat S1z and S2z as free parameters, your matrix is likely degenerate. Might want to double-check. Also, for a BBH, you don't need to extend the signal much higher than \omega ~ 0.4/M_tot ~ 10^4 Hz * (Ms/M_tot). So if the total mass is ~ 100 Ms, then the highest frequency should be ~ 100 Hz. Above this number there is no signal.

Attachment 1: BNSparamsErrorwrtfdError.pdf
Attachment 2: BBHparamsErrorwrtfdError.pdf
Attachment 3: BNSparamsEPSwrtCalError.pdf
Attachment 4: BBHparamsEPSwrtCalError.pdf
17019   Tue Jul 19 17:18:34 2022 JCUpdateElectronicsNew Coil Driver on Rack 1X3

[Yehonathan, JC]

Yehonathan and I began to put the electronics on Rack 1X3. To do this, we had to move the monitor over the the PD testing table. Before mounting the Coil Drivers, we added numbers to the spaces to follow the rack plan Koji has provided. The drivers which have been mounted are PRM (Slots 10,11), BS (Slots 15, 16), ITMX (Slots 26, 27), and ITMY (34, 35).

Attachment 1: 22DC1767-6073-4D82-BEED-915318B57C03.jpeg
17020   Tue Jul 19 18:41:42 2022 yutaUpdateBHDContrast measurements for Michelson and ITM-LO

[Paco, Yuta]

We measured contrast of Michelson fringe in both arms locked and mis-aligned. It was around 90%.
We also measured the contrast of ITM single bounce vs LO beam using BHD DC PDs. It was around 43%.
The measurement depends on the alignment and how to measure the maximum and minimum of the fringe. ITM-LO fringe was also not stable because motions of AS/LO mirrors are large. More tuning necessary.

Background
- As measured in elog 40m/17012, we see a lot of CARM in AS, which indicates large contrast defect.
- We want to check mode-matching of LO beam to AS beam.

BHD DC PD conditioning
- We added DCPD_A and DCPD_B to /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/LSC/LSCoffsets3 script, which zeros the offsets when shutters are closed.
- We also set C1:LSC-DCPD_(A|B)_GAIN = -1 since they are inverted.

Contrast measurement
- Contrast was measured using channels ['C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT','C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT','C1:LSC-REFLDC_OUT','C1:LSC-DCPD_A_OUT','C1:LSC-DCPD_B_OUT']. For LO, only DCPD_(A|B) are used.
- We took 15%-percentile (40% for ITM-LO fringe) from the maximum and minimum of the data, and took the median to estimate the maximum value and the minimum value (see Attachment).
- Contrast = (Imax - Imin) / (Imax + Imin)
- We measured three times in each configuration to estimate the standard error.
- Jupyter notebook: https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/blob/main/CAL/BHD/measureContrast.ipynb

Results
Both arms locked, MICH fringe (15% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT is 89.75 +/- 0.17 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT is 79.41 +/- 0.86 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-REFLDC_OUT is 97.34 +/- 0.34 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-DCPD_A_OUT is 95.41 +/- 1.55 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-DCPD_B_OUT is 89.76 +/- 1.49 %
Contrast measured by all is 90.34 +/- 1.68 %

Both arms mis-aligned, MICH fringe (15% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-ASDC_OUT is 89.32 +/- 0.57 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-POPDC_OUT is 94.55 +/- 0.62 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-REFLDC_OUT is 97.95 +/- 1.37 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-DCPD_A_OUT is 96.40 +/- 1.04 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-DCPD_B_OUT is 90.98 +/- 1.07 %
Contrast measured by all is 93.84 +/- 0.94 %

ITMY-LO fringe (40% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-DCPD_A_OUT is 45.51 +/- 0.45 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-DCPD_B_OUT is 38.69 +/- 0.43 %
Contrast measured by all is 42.10 +/- 1.03 %

ITMX-LO fringe (40% percentile)
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-DCPD_A_OUT is 46.65 +/- 0.65 %
Contrast measured by C1:LSC-DCPD_B_OUT is 39.82 +/- 0.51 %
Contrast measured by all is 43.24 +/- 1.45 %

Discussion
- As you can see from the attachment, REFLDC is noisy and over estimating the contrast. ASDC is reliable. We need to tune the threshold to measure the maximum value and minimum value. We should also use the mode instead of median.
- Contrast depends very much on the alignment. We didn't tweak too much today.
- ITM-LO fringe was not stable, probably due to too much motion in AS1, AS4, LO1, LO2. Their damping needs to be re-tuned.

Next:
- Model FPMI sensing matrix with measured contrast defect
- Estimate AS-LO mode-mismatch using the measured contrast
- Lock ITM-LO fringe using DCPD_(A|B) as error signal, and ITM or LO1/2 as actuator
- Lock MICH with DCPD_(A|B), and with LO beam
- Get better contrast data with better alignment and better AS1, AS4, LO1, LO2 damping

Attachment 1: ContrastMeasurements.pdf
ELOG V3.1.3-