KAGRA Logbook

MIF (ITF Control)

masayuki.nakano - 22:59 Thursday 26 March 2020 (13840)

IMMT1 alignment

I continued the IMMT1 alignment. POP90 got increased by about 20 %. I guess it can be increased more, but due to the glitch investigation, I stopped it.
And possibly due to that, the sensitivity has been improved again. Now our best BNS is about 970 kpc. I'm not sure but we might be able to improve the alignment more. Actually, I have not done anything for pitch.

The detail of the alignment work will be reported soon. I don't have energy anymore.

I also modified on filter of the DARM loop. It improve the stability of the transition from the ALS to the IR signals.

Images attached to this report

Comments to this report:

takaaki.yokozawa - 5:44 Friday 27 March 2020 (13847)

I performed the Bruco analysis to this data (50-400Hz).

1. 50-100 Hz

There is coherence between DARM displacement and PRCL related noise.

- around 65Hz and 80Hz -> Sound at CS area

There are also many coherences between PEMs(ACC, MIC and Seismometers). That imply there are wild wide sound at center area

- 70-85Hz -> Strong coherence between PR2 Pit and Yaw

II don't know who made this noise, but there are strong coherences.

2. 100-105 Hz

We can see several peaks, and they have coherence with ADS PR3 PIT

(PR3 ADS frequency is 51.3Hz, we need more notch filter)

3. 110 Hz, 144 Hz

Coherence with SR2 related sensors

4. 116 Hz

Coherence with ITMX PS, PRM PSD and magnetometers. Some electronics issue?

5. 128 Hz

Coherence with ITMY PS and magnetometer. Some electronics issue?

6. 165 Hz

Coherence with ITMX sensors

7. 206 Hz

As I reported yesterday, some hint in the IMC or ISS area

8. 256 Hz

ITMY PS and magnetometer

9. 258 Hz

PRM IM

10. 293Hz

OMC PZT HV1,2, LSC ERR, LSC FB

11. 225.3 Hz, 262.4 Hz, 328 Hz, 338 Hz, 371 Hz , 381 Hz and 395 Hz

There are coherence with PSL IP, PSL ACC and PSL MIC

If we can enter the PSL room, we may obtain some hint

12. 334.3Hz

Unknown, but large(but narrow) CARM related?

Images attached to this comment

shinji.miyoki - 6:30 Friday 27 March 2020 (13848)

Finally!

1) How much error can be expected for the range? 1Mpc is surely with in the error if the center value is ok. However,

2) P call line is strange.

3) The structure below and above the second harmonics of violine modes around 400Hz is so contrast with each other. More PEM investigation is expected.

takahiro.yamamoto - 13:33 Friday 27 March 2020 (13851)

1) How much error can be expected for the range? 1Mpc is surely with in the error if the center value is ok. However,
I don't have a reliable answer (maybe 20-30%?). We need 1-2hours CAL measurement in order to evaluate current errors because we have a lot of changes in IFO control (Coil driver exchange, servo filter update, etc.) at the same time...

2) P call line is strange.
This is a problem on the Pcal local control. Current guardian manages only turning calibration lines ON/OFF.
If Pcal local control is lost, guardian cannot turn lines ON. Actually, Pcal local control was lost at that time (see attachment).

TX PD signal whose unit is Volts should be within +/-10V (ADC range) when pcal works well. But it shows 14V.

Images attached to this comment