LIGO-G050185-00-Z S3/S4 Calibration A cast of thousands… including Peter Fritschel, Gabriela González, Corey Gray, Mike Landry, Greg Mendell, Brian O’Reilly,

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

RECOVERING HARDWARE INJECTIONS IN LIGO S5 DATA Ashley Disbrow Carnegie Mellon University Roy Williams, Michele Vallisneri, Jonah Kanner LIGO SURF 2013.

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 v1 1 LSC Committees David Reitze April 2009.

1 LIGO-G Z Penn State / LIGO Scientific Collaboration 2003 March 18 Calibration Testing Patrick Sutton, with Michael Landry, Gabriela Gonzalez,

LIGO-G D LIGO calibration during the S3 science run Michael Landry LIGO Hanford Observatory Justin Garofoli, Luca Matone, Hugh Radkins (LHO),

LIGO-G D 1 S3 expectations, S2 calibration M. Landry LHO CW Search Group F2F Milwaukee, Jun

LIGO-G W S5 Calibration Status and Comparison of S5 results from three interferometer calibration techniques Rick Savage LIGO Hanford Observatory.

1 Testing. 2 About Testing  The reason the program is in testing is that it probably doesn’t work!  We test to find bugs before our users and hope that.

Calibration Accuracy of LIGO Interferometers Brian O’Reilly LIGO Livingston Observatory Rana Adikhari (MIT), Peter Fritschel (MIT), Gabriela Gonzalez(LSU),

9/23/08G Z Status of the S5 calibration Michael Landry For the Calibration Committee LSC September 2008 Michael Landry For the Calibration Committee.

LIGO-G W S5 Calibration Status and Comparison of S5 results from three interferometer calibration techniques Rick Savage LIGO Hanford Observatory.

1 Time-Domain Calibration Update Xavier Siemens, Mike Landry, Gaby Gonzalez, Brian O’Reilly, Martin Hewitson, Bruce Allen, Jolien Creighton.

MSIS 630: Week 13 System Implementation and Support

GEO-LIGO data analysis M.Alessandra Papa Max Planck Inst. f. Gravitationsphysik, Potsdam, Germany G Z VESF foundation meeting, Pisa, Dec

S4/S5 Calibration The Calibration team G Z.

Software testing basic. Main contents  Why is testing necessary?  What is testing?  Test Design techniques  Test level  Test type  How to write.

MULTIMEDIA DEVELOPMENT

The Crucible Characterization Group Activity

3/19/08G D S5 Calibration Status Brian O’Reilly For the Calibration Committee LSC March 2008 Brian O’Reilly For the Calibration Committee LSC.

LIGO-G I S5 calibration status Michael Landry LIGO Hanford Observatory for the LSC Calibration Committee LSC/Virgo Meeting May 22, 2007 Cascina,

LIGO-G Z LIGO Scientific Collaboration1 Status of the LSC David Reitze University of Florida Orsay, 11 June 2008.

Investigation of discrepancies between Photon calibrator, VCO and Official (coil) calibration techniques Evan Goetz, Rick Savage with Justin Garofoli,

G D LSC Changes in Preparation of High Power Operations Commissioning Meeting, May 5, 2003 Peter Fritschel, Daniel Sigg, Matt Evans.

Alyce Brady, Kalamazoo College Software Engineering Friday, Week 4.

These materials are prepared only for the students enrolled in the course Distributed Software Development (DSD) at the Department of Computer Science.

These materials are prepared only for the students enrolled in the course Distributed Software Development (DSD) at the Department of Computer.

Irwin/McGraw-Hill Copyright © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All Rights reserved Whitten Bentley DittmanSYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN METHODS6th Edition.

LIGO-G DM. Landry – Hanover LSC Meeting, August 18, 2003 LIGO S2 Calibration Michael Landry LIGO Hanford Observatory Representing the calibration.

LIGO-G What comes next for LIGO? Planning for the post-detection era in gravitational-wave detectors and astrophysics Gabriela González, Louisiana.

How to Program? -- Part 1 Part 1: Problem Solving –Analyze a problem –Decide what steps need to be taken to solve it. –Take into consideration any special.

3/21/06G D S4/S5 Calibration Status Brian O’Reilly For the Calibration Committee LSC March 2006 Brian O’Reilly For the Calibration Committee LSC.

Brainstorming on the field model: MAS activities P. Hagen, E. Todesco, J.P. Koutchouk CERN, 24 h March 2006 Field quality Working Group.

LIGO-G Z S2 and S3 calibration status Michael Landry LIGO Hanford Observatory for the Calibration team Justin Garofoli, Luca Matone, Hugh Radkins.

LIGO-G E1 Reviewer Report for the S2 Time-Domain Pulsar Search Teviet Creighton, Andri Gretarsson, Fred Raab, B. Sathyaprakash, Peter Shawhan.

S3: Calibration factors update Two weeks ago: L1 - Comparison with official factors found a problem: Investigating the discrepancy Gaby found an error.

LIGO-G Z The LIGO Scientific Collaboration Peter R. Saulson NSB Site Visit LIGO Livingston Observatory 4 February 2004.

LIGO-G Z SenseMonitor Updates for S3 Patrick Sutton LIGO-Caltech.

PeeringDB Matt Griswold, 20C Greg Hankins, Alcatel-Lucent

LSC - 03/23/05SB/SWG1 Stochastic HW Injections in S4 Sukanta Bose Washington State University, Pullman For the Stochastic Working Group / Inject. Team.

ITKv4 – Refactoring Status – June Level Sets What is in Alpha – 08 – Refactored Fast-Marching What must be done by Beta (Sept 15) – Remove ITKv3.

G Z August 17, 2004 S2/S3 Calibration Gabriela González, Louisiana State University For the Calibration Team ( cast of thousands!) LIGO Science.

LIGO-G Z S5 calibration: time dependent coefficients  Myungkee Sung, Gabriela González, Mike Landry, Brian O’Reilly, Xavier Siemens,…

3/21/2007 LIGO-G Z S5 Data Quality Investigation Status John Zweizig LIGO/Caltech LSC/Virgo DetChar Session MIT, July 25, 2007.

Jean-Marie Mariotti Center Doc : JMMC-PRE JMMC - AMBER Workshop 2007, Grenoble, 9 March 2007 AMBER Data Reduction Software Version 2.0 Gérard.

Advanced Topics in Algorithms SPRING TERM PROJECT Is worth 40% of your final grade Completed project with report is due in week th May,

Tools Report Engineering Node August 2007

Testing More In CS430.

S2/S3 calibration Gabriela González, Louisiana State University Plus

JAVA TUTORIALS.

Chapter 9 Nuclear Radiation

أنماط الإدارة المدرسية وتفويض السلطة الدكتور أشرف الصايغ

h(t): are you experienced?

مديريت موثر جلسات Running a Meeting that Works

Chapter 9 Nuclear Radiation

Summary of LSC Data Analysis Activities: Alan Wiseman

RNG Implementation Release 1.

Explain what just happened as completely as possible! There will be a

Software coding/testing

OWASP Application Security Verification Standard

S3 Performance of the LIGO Interferometers as Measured by SenseMonitor

Radioactive Decay.

Calibration: S2 update, S3 preliminaries

Calculation of the phases of injected pulsars from the servo loop

Illustration of Beta 11.

Instructions: To prepare to learn about nuclear physics, you must first understand what radioactivity is. Read sections , and in the Conceptual.

Approximated Volumetric Reconstruction from Projected Images

Types of Errors And Error Analysis.

For More Details:

OWASP Application Security Verification Standard

OWASP Application Security Verification Standard

Presentation transcript:

LIGO-G Z S3/S4 Calibration A cast of thousands… including Peter Fritschel, Gabriela González, Corey Gray, Mike Landry, Greg Mendell, Brian O’Reilly, William Quintero, Rick Savage Xavier Siemens, Myungkee Sung, Patrick Sutton, Rai Weiss…

LIGO-G Z S3 Calibration S3 Final calibration V3: released Jan First version to use “demodulated” lines for alpha, beta estimates (X. Siemen’s code). Also, first science run to use “dynamic beta”. Somewhat reviewed (?) Document, paper with details and errors in preparation. Measurement errors in alpha, beta <0.5%, DC calibration ~few-10%, reference functions ~few %, 5 o new flag CALIB_LINE_V03 (supersedes all the old flags, except no EXC).

LIGO-G Z S4 calibration Two gw channels, with different (but related!) calibrations: –DERR(t)=  (t) ASQ(t); C DERR (f)=k 0 C ASQ (f) –AS_Q, with h(f)=R ASQ (f,t) ASQ(f) and R ASQ (f,t)=(1+  (t)  (t)G(f))/(  (t)C ASQ (f)) –DARM_ERR (“darma”), with h(f)=R DERR (f,t) DARM_ERR(f) and R DERR (f,t)=(1+  (t)  (t)G(f))/(  (t)  (t)C DERR (f))

LIGO-G Z S4 online calibration Released ~ a week before S4 (a first!) Not reviewed yet (errors?) Online coefficients (OLOOP_GAIN, CAV_FACTOR) from SenseMon Problems: Dropouts Recommend: use DARM_ERR with  (t)*  (t)=1.

LIGO-G Z S4 to-do list A few more measurements (electronics, cavity poles,…) DC vs AC calibration, sign of calibration Revised model and reference functions Coefficients from demodulated lines (M. Sung) -- ~a week after S4 Error estimates DQ flags (dropouts, large fluctuations, large errors…) H1 Photon calibrator: validation

LIGO-G Z S4 photon calibrator previously installed and tested – laser troubles with rotating polarization recently reinstalled at LHO (Corey Gray) on new LLO-designed shelves (Oddvar Spjeld) Expectations: photon calibration would be precise but not necessarily accurate (~20%?). Official calibration method more accurate (approaching 5%), but question of precision remains (do we have poorly understood systematics?)

LIGO-G Z photon calibrator injected lines Single test in EX made at LHO ~9h prior to S4 5 calibration lines briefly injected Calibration for these five curves: standard, official method

LIGO-G Z response to photon calibrator Displacement equivalent noise of photon calibrator calibration peaks (scaled by size of excitation) Calibration here is obtained via official method Peak displacement due to photon calibrator falls like 1/f 2

LIGO-G Z Comparison: official calibration vs photon calibrator Magnitude of response functions in strain/rtHz is shown for two different calibrations red blocks: ‘official’ blue diamonds: photon calibrator Good agreement (one to nine percent) PRELIMINARY

LIGO-G Z Matlab models: L1

LIGO-G Z H1, Seg 17, 60 sec Warm-up ~-0.3 rad “systematic error” in G0 at 1144 Hz, ~0.2% “statistical error” in  estimate

LIGO-G Z H1, Seg 17, 16 Hz Noise bursts Gain fluctuation ~-0.3 rad systematic error ~5% statistical error

LIGO-G Z Calibration dropouts For first 3 weeks in S4: –L1: 83 instances, 283 sec flagged –H1: 56 instances, 168 sec flagged –H2: 120 instances, 360 sec (0.02%)