In 16087 we mentioned that we were unable to do a step response test for WFS loop to get an estimate of their UGF. The primary issue there was that we were not putting the step at the right place. It should go into the actuator directly, in this case, on C1:SUS-MC2_PIT_COMM and C1:SUS-MC2_YAW_COMM. These channels directly set an offset in the control loop and we can see how the error signals first jump up and then decay back to zero. The 'half-time' of this decay would be the inverse of the estimated UGF of the loop. For this test, the overall WFS loops gain,  C1:IOO-WFS_GAIN was set to full value 1. This test is performed in the changed settings uploaded in 16091.

I did this test twice, once giving a step in PIT and once in YAW.

Attachment 1 is the striptool screenshot for when PIT was given a step up and then step down by 0.01.

• Here we can see that the half-time is roughly 10s for TRANS_PIT and WFS1_PIT corresponding to roughly 0.1 Hz UGF.
• Note that WFS2 channels were not disturbed significantly.
• You can also notice that third most significant disturbance was to TRANS_YAW actually followed by WF1 YAW.

Attachment 2 is the striptool screenshot when YAW was given a step up and down by 0.01. Note the difference in x-scale in this plot.

• Here, TRANS YAW got there greatest hit and it took it around 2 minutes to decay to half value. This gives UGF estimate of about 10 mHz!
• Then, weirdly, TRANS PIT first went slowly up for about a minutes and then slowly came dome in a half time of 2 minutes again. Why was PIT signal so much disturbed by the YAW offset in the first place?
• Next, WFS1 YAW can be seen decaying relatively fast with half-life of about 20s or so.
• Nothing else was disturbed much.

• So maybe we never needed to reduce WFS gain in our measurement in 16089 as the UGF everywhere were already very low.
• What other interesting things can we infer from this?
• Should I sometime repeat this test with steps given to MC1 or MC3 optics?