There seemed to be a strange seismic noise enhancement for 3- 10Hz from the last night.
During the measurement of the transfer function from ETMXTM to DARM (0613/1601_*xml), it was found that the signal was saturating at "OMC_TRANS_DC_{A, B}_IN1" (Fig. 1). Since this issue began occurring right after klog#33944, it is believed to be caused by a slight gain increase resulting from the modification to ETMX_TM_COILOUTF_HP_H{1, 2, 3, 4}.
As a countermeasure, the excitation amplitudes at the following frequencies in the template were reduced from 10 to 7:
[33.4757308959961, 35.9416084289551, 37.2418098449707, 46.5193901062012, 47.1052284240723, 49.2812309265137]
In the subsequent measurements used for parameter estimation (0613/1707_*xml), it was confirmed that there was no saturation (Fig. 2).
By taking the ratio of the sensing function model (Fig. 3), it was confirmed that the presence or absence of saturation had little impact on the parameter estimation.
I just noticed that
- there are some spike like noises in the PRM pole signal.
- there are positive and negative directional sudden fluctuation in IMMT1 oplev.
The temperature of the ETMX MN is increasing after the temperature enhancement of the cryocooler for the BRT side. I am just afraid of a cracking noise because of the temp changes.
Operators name: Tamaki, Yasui
Summary: the duty cycle (last 24H) was 59.3%
Shift time: 9-17 (JST)
Check Items: There was no issue on regular check of VAC, CRY, and TEMP.
IFO state(JST):
9:00 LOCKLOSS
9:47 OBSERVING
10:52 LOCKLOSS
12:03 OBSERVING
13:04 LOCKLOSS(earthquake)
13:53 OBSERVING
15:59 LOCKLOSS
16:31 OBSERVING
17:00 OBSERVING
The temperature of EX_50K_REFBRT_HEAD is still fluctuating around 110 K, as shown in Fig.1
On the other hand, the vacuum level at EXT was almost recovered at 2x10^-5 Pa from 10*10^-5 Pa, even though all the BRT1/2/3/4 temperatures were over the critical temperature (Fig.2). The vacuum level enhancement was dominated by water according to the Qmass. In addition, the pressure enhancement was higher at this time than in the last accident, maybe because of the higher temperatures at the BRT1/2/3/4 positions.
The TM_Oplev_LEN_SUM_OUTPUT shows strange changes at the last, and this time accident. The 2/3 reduction in the last accident, but almost a recovery of value in this time. Any frosting on the windows on the inner/outer radiation shields, LEDs, and QPD photosensors in the cryopayload cannot explain the recovery phenomena. On the other hand, the MN_Oplev_LEN_SUM_OUTPUT seems not to show drastic changes at two accident times.
The GRX_NORM seemed to be roughly constant in the last 50 days, while the GRY_NORM showed 1.1! in the past, but around 1.0 at present. Anyway, not so serious frosting on HR sides are expected from this data.
After the update of calibration updates, we raised CFC_LATCH and IFO guardian moved from CALIB_NOT_READY to READY.
All detected changes are coming from the planned commissioning activities.
- Chagens in foton Fig.1 are related to the update of optical gain and actuator efficiencies (klog#34088).
- Changes in guardian shown in Fig.2 are related to klog#34199 (PCAL_s), and klog#34182 (ARM).
- Changes in SDF tables shown in Fig.3-5 are related to klog#34221 (k1calcs), klog#34190 (k1asc1), klog#34205 (k1ascbpc), klog#34198 (k1psliss), klog#34202 (k1pemmcf0), klog#34169 (k1calex), klog#34219 (k1calex, k1caley), and klog#34209 (k1sdfmanage),
- No changes in the model (Fig.6).
k1calcs
JGW-L2314962
After the calibration update work (klog#34088), line tracking parameters were updated. They are accepted in observation.snap (Fig.1), down.snap (Fig.2), and safe.snap (Fig.3). On down.snap and safe.snap, measurement date record also accepted. (Keeping these values is enough when model is restarted, so it can be set as CHANS_NOT_MON on down.snap.) And then, numerical residuals on observation.snap were reverted (Fig.4).
We recovered the IFO and turning on the OBS INTENT flag around 18:52 JST.
CAL group
We did the calibration measurements.
Estimated parameters in the Pre-maintenance measurements are as follows.
H_etmxtm = 3.87957055e-14 @10Hz ( 0.03% from previous measurements)
H_etmxim = 1.60823003e-14 @10Hz ( 1.16% from previous measurements)
Optical_gain = 2.128193e12 ( -2.87% from previous measurements)
Cavity_pole = 18.349842 H ( 1.67% from previous measurements)
Previous values are listed in klog#34090.
Fig. 2 shows the ratio of the sensing functions estimated on June 13st and June 6th.
As can be seen from this figure, the actual difference in the sensing function is approximately -1.2%.
Estimated parameters in the Post-maintenance measurements are as follows.
H_etmxtm = 3.893062476e-14 @10Hz ( 0.03% from pre-maintenance measurements)
H_etmxim = 1.552203891e-14 @10Hz ( -3.4% from pre-maintenance measurements)
Optical_gain = 2.1602595e12 ( 1.5% from pre-maintenance measurements)
Cavity_pole = 17.97637634 Hz ( -2% from pre-maintenance measurements)
After the update of calibration updates, we raised CFC_LATCH and IFO guardian moved from CALIB_NOT_READY to READY.
All detected changes are coming from the planned commissioning activities.
- Chagens in foton Fig.1 are related to the update of optical gain and actuator efficiencies (klog#34088).
- Changes in guardian shown in Fig.2 are related to klog#34199 (PCAL_s), and klog#34182 (ARM).
- Changes in SDF tables shown in Fig.3-5 are related to klog#34221 (k1calcs), klog#34190 (k1asc1), klog#34205 (k1ascbpc), klog#34198 (k1psliss), klog#34202 (k1pemmcf0), klog#34169 (k1calex), klog#34219 (k1calex, k1caley), and klog#34209 (k1sdfmanage),
- No changes in the model (Fig.6).
During the measurement of the transfer function from ETMXTM to DARM (0613/1601_*xml), it was found that the signal was saturating at "OMC_TRANS_DC_{A, B}_IN1" (Fig. 1). Since this issue began occurring right after klog#33944, it is believed to be caused by a slight gain increase resulting from the modification to ETMX_TM_COILOUTF_HP_H{1, 2, 3, 4}.
As a countermeasure, the excitation amplitudes at the following frequencies in the template were reduced from 10 to 7:
[33.4757308959961, 35.9416084289551, 37.2418098449707, 46.5193901062012, 47.1052284240723, 49.2812309265137]
In the subsequent measurements used for parameter estimation (0613/1707_*xml), it was confirmed that there was no saturation (Fig. 2).
By taking the ratio of the sensing function model (Fig. 3), it was confirmed that the presence or absence of saturation had little impact on the parameter estimation.
We accepted Pcal beam position related SDF diffs as reported klog34212.
The glitch around 40Hz had coincidence mainly with LSC-AS_PDA1_RF17_Q_ERR.
The glitch from 70 to 90 Hz has many coincidence with LSC-POP_PDA1_RF45_I_ERR.
The glitch from 300 to 400 Hz has many coincidence with IMC-REFL_QPDA1_RF14_I_PIT, ASC-REFL_QPDA1_RF45_I_PIT, OMC-QPDV2_PIT and PEM-ACC_EYA_TABLE_TX_Z.
ASC-AS_QPDA2_DC_SUM_OUT was characterized as having a lot of coincidence at 16 to 22 UTC lock.
The glitch around 40Hz had coincidence mainly with LSC-AS_PDA1_RF17_Q_ERR.
The glitch from 300 to 400 Hz has many coincidence with IMC-REFL_QPDA1_RF14_I_PIT.
We were in the mine from around 10:40 to 11:45 JST.
However, suspensions are kept in Observing state during the observation period.
Therefore, I added the Observing state of suspensions to SummaryPages.
Pcal SFDs were accepted.
Related report: klog34210
(Before maintenance: klog34211)
K1:CAL-PCAL_{EX,EY}_TCAM_{MAIN,PATH1,PATH2}_{X,Y}
Probably, next time, it is better to accept all other parameters at DOWN state also.
A CAL Tcam session was performed to obtain beam position information necessary for Pcal. The parameters have already been updated, and SDF is expected to be accepted.
Operator: Shingo DanChen
Update Time: 2025/06/13 15:00:36
| EPICS Key | Before [mm] | After [mm] | Δ (After - Before) [mm] |
|---|---|---|---|
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EX_TCAM_PATH1_X | 2.11791 mm | 2.44125 mm | +0.32334 mm |
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EX_TCAM_PATH1_Y | 62.95610 mm | 62.61055 mm | -0.34555 mm |
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EX_TCAM_PATH2_X | -1.28333 mm | -1.04451 mm | +0.23882 mm |
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EX_TCAM_PATH2_Y | -64.10331 mm | -64.38151 mm | -0.27820 mm |
Update Time: 2025/06/13 15:02:08
| EPICS Key | Before [mm] | After [mm] | Δ (After - Before) [mm] |
|---|---|---|---|
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EX_TCAM_MAIN_X | 0.72718 mm | 3.43482 mm | +2.70764 mm |
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EX_TCAM_MAIN_Y | 8.70526 mm | 10.35427 mm | +1.64901 mm |
Update Time: 2025/06/13 15:04:35
| EPICS Key | Before [mm] | After [mm] | Δ (After - Before) [mm] |
|---|---|---|---|
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EY_TCAM_PATH1_X | 0.19585 mm | -0.13887 mm | -0.33472 mm |
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EY_TCAM_PATH1_Y | 60.94668 mm | 60.69568 mm | -0.25100 mm |
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EY_TCAM_PATH2_X | 0.05577 mm | -0.07854 mm | -0.13431 mm |
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EY_TCAM_PATH2_Y | -70.00053 mm | -70.07965 mm | -0.07912 mm |
Update Time: 2025/06/13 15:05:02
| EPICS Key | Before [mm] | After [mm] | Δ (After - Before) [mm] |
|---|---|---|---|
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EY_TCAM_MAIN_X | 5.88354 mm | 7.42632 mm | +1.54278 mm |
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EY_TCAM_MAIN_Y | -3.07673 mm | -2.72345 mm | +0.35327 mm |
A CAL Tcam session was performed to obtain beam position information necessary for Pcal. The parameters have already been updated, and SDF was accepted after this work.
Operator: Shingo Hido, Dan Chen
Update Time: 2025/06/13 10:36:41
| EPICS Key | Before [mm] | After [mm] | Δ (After - Before) [mm] |
|---|---|---|---|
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EX_TCAM_PATH1_X | 2.61720 mm | 2.11791 mm | -0.49929 mm |
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EX_TCAM_PATH1_Y | 62.33808 mm | 62.95610 mm | +0.61802 mm |
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EX_TCAM_PATH2_X | -0.54384 mm | -1.28333 mm | -0.73949 mm |
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EX_TCAM_PATH2_Y | -65.08563 mm | -64.10331 mm | +0.98232 mm |
Update Time: 2025/06/13 10:37:48
| EPICS Key | Before [mm] | After [mm] | Δ (After - Before) [mm] |
|---|---|---|---|
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EX_TCAM_MAIN_X | 3.62544 mm | 0.72718 mm | -2.89826 mm |
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EX_TCAM_MAIN_Y | 10.71490 mm | 8.70526 mm | -2.00964 mm |
Update Time: 2025/06/13 10:38:47
| EPICS Key | Before [mm] | After [mm] | Δ (After - Before) [mm] |
|---|---|---|---|
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EY_TCAM_PATH1_X | -0.37174 mm | 0.19585 mm | +0.56759 mm |
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EY_TCAM_PATH1_Y | 60.86531 mm | 60.94668 mm | +0.08137 mm |
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EY_TCAM_PATH2_X | -0.33094 mm | 0.05577 mm | +0.38671 mm |
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EY_TCAM_PATH2_Y | -70.46008 mm | -70.00053 mm | +0.45955 mm |
Update Time: 2025/06/13 12:34:29
| EPICS Key | Before [mm] | After [mm] | Δ (After - Before) [mm] |
|---|---|---|---|
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EY_TCAM_MAIN_X | 6.12295 mm | 5.88354 mm | -0.23941 mm |
| K1:CAL-PCAL_EY_TCAM_MAIN_Y | -3.00409 mm | -3.07673 mm | -0.07263 mm |
I accepted the following difference of SDFs (see related klog34201)
For weekly alignment, I moved IMMT1 so that the oplev values of pitch and yaw becomes close to 40 and 0, respectively.
No change in SDF, so calibration work can be started.
We received a report of a loud noise coming from the DC power supply in the EYV front room, so we went to investigate.
A low-frequency beat was heard from the rack, and the source appeared to be the DC power supply.
However, a similar sound was also heard from the DC power supply on the second floor of the center area, although this is a qualitative investigation.
Since there was no difference in the amount of current or exhaust heat, we concluded that there would be no problem.
Ushiba-san reported that k1ctr20 can't open the terminal from the right click.
We checked k1ctr20 and found that there are no toolbars and we can't ssh login to k1ctr20.
Therefore, we forced reboot of k1ctr20 and it recovered.
I accepted the following SDFs.
k1ascbpc model:
K1:BPS-{PIT,YAW}_ITMY_INF_GAIN:
This change is related to the work reported in klog34197, and accepted.
In this cases, there are (almost) no coherence between DARM and microphone.
I continued to check it, we don't need to perform the turn on/off test for the precision cooler PSL
