40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log  Not logged in ELOG logo
Entry  Tue Oct 8 08:08:18 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, PEM BLRMS anomaly PEManomaly.png
    Reply  Wed Oct 23 11:49:21 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, PEM BLRMS anomaly seisAll_20191021.pdfspecGrams.zip
       Reply  Thu Oct 24 18:37:15 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, T240 checkout 
          Reply  Tue Nov 5 12:37:50 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, T240 interface unit pulled out T240_recenter.pdfffPotential.pdf
             Reply  Wed Nov 13 19:34:45 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, Follow-up on seismometer discussion seisAll_20191111.pdfffPotential.pdf
                Reply  Wed Nov 13 20:15:56 2019, rana, Update, PEM, Follow-up on seismometer discussion 
                   Reply  Wed Nov 13 23:40:15 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, Follow-up on seismometer discussion seisAll_20191111_1Hz.pdf
                      Reply  Thu Nov 14 12:11:04 2019, rana, Update, PEM, Follow-up on seismometer discussion 
                      Reply  Fri Nov 15 00:18:41 2019, rana, Update, PEM, Follow-up on seismometer discussion MCshake.pdf
                         Reply  Fri Nov 15 12:16:48 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, Follow-up on seismometer discussion BS_ZspecGram.pdf.zip
                            Reply  Mon Nov 18 14:32:53 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, Follow-up on seismometer discussion 
                               Reply  Tue Nov 19 21:53:57 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, Follow-up on seismometer discussion seisxSpec.pdf
Message ID: 15022     Entry time: Wed Nov 13 19:34:45 2019     In reply to: 15013     Reply to this: 15023
Author: gautam 
Type: Update 
Category: PEM 
Subject: Follow-up on seismometer discussion 

Attachment #1 shows the spectra of our three available seismometers over a period of ~10ksec.

  • I don't understand why the z-axis motion reported by the T240 is ~10x lower at 10 mHz compared to the X and Y motions. Is this some electronics noise artefact?
  • The difference in the low frequency (<100mHz) shapes of the T240 compared to the Guralps is presumably due to the difference in the internal preamps / readout boxes (?). I haven't checked yet.
  • There is almost certainly some issue with the EX Guralp. IIRC this is the one that had cabling issues in the past, and also is the one that was being futzed around for Tctrl, but also could be that its masses need re-centering, since it is EX_X that is showing the anomalous behaviour.
  • The coherence structure between the other pairs of sensors is consistent.

Attachment #2 shows the result of applying frequency domain Wiener filter subtraction to the POP QPD (target) with the vertex seismometer signals as witness channels.

  • The dataset was PRMI locked with the carrier resonant, ETMs misaligned.
  • The dashed lines in these plots correspond to the RMS for the solid line with the same color.
  • For both PIT and YAW, I am using BS_X and BS_Y seismometer channels for the MISO filter inputs.
  • In particular for PIT, I notice that I am unable to get the same level of performance as in the past, particularly around ~2-3 Hz.
  • The BS seismometer health indicators don't signal any obvious problems with the seismometer itself - so something has changed w.r.t. how the ground motion propagates to the PR2/PR3? Or has the seismometer sensing truly degraded? I don't think the dataset I collected was particularly bad compared to the past, and I confirmed similar performance with a separate PRMI lock from a different time period.
Attachment 1: seisAll_20191111.pdf  164 kB  | Hide | Hide all
seisAll_20191111.pdf
Attachment 2: ffPotential.pdf  80 kB  | Hide | Hide all
ffPotential.pdf
ELOG V3.1.3-