Report on the S2 Run Keith Riles (University of Michigan)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
For the Collaboration GWDAW 2005 Status of inspiral search in C6 and C7 Virgo data Frédérique MARION.
Advertisements

Calibration of the gravitational wave signal in the LIGO detectors Gabriela Gonzalez (LSU), Mike Landry (LIGO-LHO), Patrick Sutton (PSU) with the calibration.
LIGO- G Z March 22, 2006March 2006 LSC Meeting - DetChar 1 S5 Spectral Line Catalogue Status Keith Thorne (PSU) for the Spectral Line Catalogue.
LIGO-G W Lessons Learned From E7 at LIGO Hanford Observatory Fred Raab Daniel Sigg.
LIGO-G Z Camp orientation / overview K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Introduction and Overview Keith Riles (University of Michigan)
LIGO Data Quality Monitoring Keith Riles University of Michigan.
G L E7 Lessons Learned Mark Coles Feb. 4, 2002.
1 Status of Unbiased Search for Continuous-Wave Sources Dave Chin, Vladimir Dergachev, Keith Riles (University of Michigan) LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
LIGO-G Z Camp orientation / overview K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Orientation and Overview Keith Riles (University of Michigan)
G D Interferometer Status LSC Meeting, Ann Arbor, June 4, 2005 Daniel Sigg.
LIGO-G W Summary of S1 at LIGO Hanford Observatory Fred Raab 9 September 02.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization Summary K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of Detector Characterization Sessions Keith.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization Summary K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of Detector Characterization Activities Keith.
LIGO-G Z NSF Review LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Michigan 1 LSC Participation in Initial LIGO Detector Characterization.
LIGO-G DM. Landry – Amaldi5 July 9, 2003 Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory Monitoring LIGO Data During the S2 Science Run Michael.
Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut) Institut für Atom- und Molekülphysik Detector Characterization of GEO 600 during.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization SummaryK. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of Detector Characterization Sessions Keith Riles (University.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization Summary K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of the Detector Characterization Sessions Keith.
Virgo Commissioning update Gabriele Vajente for the Virgo Collaboration LSC/VIRGO Meeting – MIT 2007, July LIGO-G Z.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization NeedsK. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Detector Characterization Needs Keith Riles (University of Michigan)
LIGO- G D Status of LIGO Stan Whitcomb ACIGA Workshop 21 April 2004.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization SummaryK. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of Detector Characterization Sessions Keith Riles (University.
6. Results The accompanying histograms show the empirical PDF of z for each interferometer (H1, H2 at Hanford, WA; L1 at Livingston, LA). The green areas.
LIGO-G Z Detchar Introduction (8/16/06)K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 StrainBandsMon and SixtyHertzMon Keith Riles (University of Michigan)
LIGO-G D Global Diagnostics and Detector Characterization 9 th Marcel Grossmann Meeting Daniel Sigg, LIGO Hanford Observatory.
LIGO-G Z April 2006 APS meeting Igor Yakushin (LLO, Caltech) Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts in LIGO’s S5 run Igor Yakushin (LLO, Caltech)
1 Proposed Control Room Figures of Merit for Pulsar Sensitivity Keith Riles (University of Michigan) LIGO Scientific Collaboration Meeting LIGO Livingston.
LIGO-G D What can we Expect for the “Upper Limit” Run Stan Whitcomb LSC Meeting 13 August 2001 LIGO Hanford Observatory A Personal Reading of.
LIGO-G D LSC Meeting Nov An Early Glimpse at the S3 Run Stan Whitcomb (LIGO–Caltech) LIGO Scientific Collaboration Meeting LIGO Hanford.
Preparing GEO600 for Gravitational Wave astronomy (A status report) Martin Hewitson, AEI Hannover for GEO600.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization Summary K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of Detector Characterization Sessions Keith.
LIGO-G D 1 Status of Detector Commissioning LSC Meeting, March 2001 Nergis Mavalvala California Institute of Technology.
S5 BNS Inspiral Update Duncan Brown Caltech LIGO-G Z.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization Summary K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of the Detector Characterization Sessions Keith.
LIGO- G D Gravitational Wave Observations with Interferometers: Results and Prospects Stan Whitcomb for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 2 nd.
LIGO- G D E7: An Instrument-builder’s Perspective Stan Whitcomb LIGO Caltech LSC Meeting Upper Limits Plenary Session 22 May 2002 LIGO Livingston.
International Gravitational Wave Network 11/9/2008 Building an Stefan Ballmer, for the LIGO / VIRGO Scientific Collaboration LIGO G
May 29, 2006 GWADW, Elba, May 27 - June 21 LIGO-G0200XX-00-M Data Quality Monitoring at LIGO John Zweizig LIGO / Caltech.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization Issues K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Detector Characterization Issues -- S2 Analysis & S3 Planning.
LIGO-G D Commissioning at Hanford Stan Whitcomb Program Advisory Committee 12 December 2000 LIGO Livingston Observatory.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization SummaryK. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of Detector Characterization Sessions Keith Riles (University.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization Issues K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Introduction to Detector Characterization Sessions Keith.
LIGO-G Z SenseMonitor Updates for S3 Patrick Sutton LIGO-Caltech.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization Software Tools K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Introduction to Detector Characterization Sessions.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization SummaryK. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of Detector Characterization Sessions Keith Riles (University.
LIGO-G Z Introd. to Detect. Charact. Sessions K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Introduction to the Detector Characterization.
LIGO-G050197LSC Collab. Mtg, LHO, August 16,20051 S4 Data Quality & S5 Preview John Zweizig LIGO/Caltech.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization Summary K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of the Detector Characterization Sessions Keith.
LIGO-G E S2 Data Quality Investigation John Zweizig Caltech/LIGO.
LIGO-G Z Report on E3/E4 Lock Losses K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Report on E3/E4 Lock Losses David Chin, Dick Gustafson Keith.
LIGO-G Z Report on the S2 RunK. Riles / S. Whitcomb 1 Report on the S2 Run Keith Riles (University of Michigan) Stan Whitcomb (LIGO–Caltech)
LIGO- G M LIGO Status Stan Whitcomb Oversight Committee 20 October 2004.
Gravitational Wave Data Analysis  GW detectors  Signal processing: preparation  Noise spectral density  Matched filtering  Probability and statistics.
S5 Data Quality John Zweizig LIGO/Caltech Hanover, October 25, 2007.
October 2006, LIGO Hanford Observatory
Virgo Status Detector Status Computing Data Analysis status and Plans
Status of Virgo GWDAW Dec 13-16
LIGO S6 Detector Characterization Studies
Overview of E10 / S3 Hardware Injections
Hardware Injections in S4
Status of the LIGO Detectors
Stan Whitcomb LSC meeting Hanford 15 August 2005
Planning for the S4 Run Keith Riles (University of Michigan)
M Ashley - LSC Meeting – LIGO Hanford, 12 Nov 2003
John Zweizig LIGO/Caltech
Improving LIGO’s stability and sensitivity: commissioning examples
S3 Performance of the LIGO Interferometers as Measured by SenseMonitor
Calibration: S2 update, S3 preliminaries
Preparing GEO600 for Gravitational Wave astronomy (A status report)
LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Michigan
Presentation transcript:

Report on the S2 Run Keith Riles (University of Michigan) Stan Whitcomb (LIGO–Caltech) LIGO Scientific Collaboration Meeting LIGO Livingston Observatory March 18, 2003 Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Interferometer Performance LIGO I Design “Typical” Sensitivities (sampling from S2 web page) Hanford 2-km (H2) Hanford 4-km (H1) Livingston 4-km (L1) P. Sutton S. Marka Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Histograms and cumulative distributions of inspiral range for “Inspiral Range” [to see 1.4Msun-1.4 Msun NS-NS Coalescence with SNR=8, average orientation/direction] Histograms and cumulative distributions of inspiral range for The three interferometers (first month) P. Sutton Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Interferometer Livetimes (first month) L1 – 270 hours (38% duty cycle) Troubles Anthropogenic noise, mostly logging Site-wide power outage recovery Storms in the Gulf (μseismic) G. Gonzalez Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Interferometer Livetimes (first month) H1 – 491 hours (68% duty cycle) Troubles High winds LHO server crash Digital servo communications G. Gonzalez Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Interferometer Livetimes (first month) H2 – 383 hours (53% duty cycle) Troubles High winds LHO server crash Unstable sensitivity, glitches G. Gonzalez Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Interferometer Livetimes (first month) Triple Concidence for 140 hours (19% duty cycle) Double Concidence L1/H1 for 206 hours (29% duty cycle) G. Gonzalez Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Remarks on IFO stability: L1 about as stable (unstable) as in the S1 run H1 remarkably stable (thanks to 8/10 closed WFS loops) Long locks (record: 66 hours!) Occasional long downtimes H2 unstable (short and long time scales) Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Operations Data products: Raw frames written to tape, stored in circular buffer on disks at sites (9.5 MB/s) Reduced data sets (1.9 MB/s) written to disk Second / minute DAQ channel trends stored locally and transferred over network to CIT DMT minute trends stored on disk locally and transferred to CIT Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Operations Data pipeline reliability LHO: ~0.3% data lost: LDAS disk failure DAQ reflective memory failure LLO: ~3% data lost: Controller/DAQ recovery from power outage Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Operations Calibrations: Full-up calibrations performed at start of run, mid-run and at end of run, with additional daily “auto-calibrations”. Occasionally generated reference functions and once-per-minute drift corrections (based on injected lines) provided for downstream astrophysical analysis  Online calibration! (See special Calibrations Session this afternoon) Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Operations Signal Injections: Elaborate suite of signal injections performed in week preceding run (inspiral, burst, stochastic) Twelve half-hour injections scheduled during 59-day run to track stability Environmental injections also performed in tandem (See special Injections Session Wednesday afternoon) Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Operations S2 Web Page serves as central bulletin board: http://blue.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/scirun/S2/ Link Highlights: Nearly real-time calibrated spectra, with drift corrections. Links to DMT monitor / LDAS status pages & alarms Scientific Monitor (scimon) instruction sheets Summary plots, livetime statistics, and figures of merit Information on S2 investigations (see reports at this meeting – Tuesday afternoon, Wednesday morning) Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Daily & Weekly Summary Plots (“Bird’s Eye” View of Performance) One week of H1 performance (includes part of record-breaking 66-hour lock) Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

DMT and DTT Figures of Merit Hanford Control Room (Feb 22) Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Sample 12-hour “Figure of Merit 1” at Hanford Mar 8 Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Sample 12-hour “Figure of Merit 2” at Hanford Mar 8 Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Sample “Figure of Merit 2” from Livingston (12 hour history and current AS_Q histogram) Mar 4 Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Scimon Shift Staffing Needed to fill 354 expert scimon shifts (59 days x 3 shift/day x 2 sites) Nominal scimon allocations by (non-GEO) LIGO I FTE counts: Total of 126 FTE’s  ~3 shifts / FTE But not all groups could provide ready experts: Total of ~70 experts  ~5 shifts / expert Used hybrid allocation scheme for expert / trainee shifts: 115 scimons staffing: 354 expert shifts (sample schedule) 198 trainee shifts Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Remarks S2 going well, on the whole Better IFO sensitivity, stationarity than in S1 High-duty-cycle data acquisition & archiving Online data analysis being exercised Reasonable calibration info available in near real-time Better diagnostics, more confidence in data quality Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Remarks But… L1 livetime still poor (logging, storms) H1 inspiral range 3-4 times worse than L1  Lesson: pay attention to inspiral range before run  More generally: science-mode figures of merit relevant during commissioning too H2 so far unstable Despite improved diagnostics, more automation and more systematic cataloguing of artifacts needed Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb

Thanks! Thanks to DMT & DSO authors for the useful new control room IFO diagnostics Thanks to operators for keeping the IFO’s happy Thanks to scimons for slogging through the damn checklists to make sure the IFO’s really are happy Many, many thanks to commissioners, observatory scientists/staff, & lab engineers, for long hours in bringing IFO’s to a qualitatively new performance level! Report on the S2 Run K. Riles / S. Whitcomb