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 Dec 8 23:13:32 2009, kiwamu, Update, SUS, free swinging spectra of ETMY and ITMX SUS-ETMY.pngSUS-ITMX.png
    Reply  Wed Dec 9 00:23:28 2009, Koji, Update, SUS, free swinging spectra of ETMY and ITMX 
       Reply  Wed Dec 9 21:09:28 2009, kiwamu, Update, SUS, Re: free swinging spectra of ETMY and ITMX Pitch-Yaw_modes.png
          Reply  Thu Dec 10 00:46:15 2009, Koji, Update, SUS, Re: free swinging spectra of ETMY and ITMX 
Message ID: 2375     Entry time: Thu Dec 10 00:46:15 2009     In reply to: 2374
Author: Koji 
Type: Update 
Category: SUS 
Subject: Re: free swinging spectra of ETMY and ITMX 

Well, I get the point now. It could be either seismic or change in the suspension Q.

The pendulum memorizes its own state for a period of ~ Q T_pend. (T_pend is the period of the pendulum)
If the pendulum Q is very high (>104), once the pendulum is excited, the effect of the excitation can last many hours.

On the other hand, in our current case, we turned on the damping once, and then turned off the damping.
Again it takes ~Q T_pend to be excited. 

In those cases, the peak height is not yet before in equilibrium, and can be higher or lower than expected. 

So, my suggestion is:
Track the peak height along the long time scale (~10hrs) and compare between the previous one and the current one.
This may indicate whether it is equilibrium or not, and where the equilibrium is.

Quote:

If such variation of the peak heights is cased by the seismic activity, it means the seismic level change by several 10 times. It sounds large to me.

 

ELOG V3.1.3-