Proposing a DMT monitor for studying micro- seismic noise and up-conversions S. Mukherjee & R. Grosso UTB & U. Erlangen, Germany LSC Det Char Telecon,

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Bicoherence studies on LLO data Vijay Chickarmane, Gabriela Gonzalez LSU Offline analysis of bicoherence of 6hrs of data, July 12, 2002 using functions.

Advertisements

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

E2 Correlations Nelson Christensen Carleton College LSC Detector Characterization LIGO-G Z.

Median Based Line Tracker Soumya D. Mohanty Max Planck Insitut für Gravitationsphysik LIGO-G Z.

G Z 1 Block-Normal, Event Display and Q-scan Based Glitch and Veto Studies Shantanu Desai for Penn. State Burst Group And Glitch Working Group.

S5 Data Quality Investigation Status John Zweizig LIGO/Caltech LSC/Virgo DetChar Session Baton Rouge, March 21, 2007.

LIG O HW S Update on Monitoring Bicoherence Steve Penn (HWS) LIGO-G Z.

G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R Upconversion Study with the Hilbert-Huang Transform Jordan Camp Kenji Numata John Cannizzo Robert Schofield.

R. Stone for the LSC Center for Gravitational Wave Astronomy Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Texas at Brownsville. GWDAW, Boston, MA,

S4 Environmental Disturbances Robert Schofield, U of O I.Pre-S4 “fixes” II.Some S4 veto issues III. Early coupling results from S4 PEM injections.

1 Environmental Disturbances: S4 and Pre-S5 Robert Schofield, U of O Doug Cook, Fred Raab, Richard McCarthy, LHO I.Seismic up-conversion II.Some peak identification.

Noise Floor Non-stationarity Monitor Roberto Grosso*, Soma Mukherjee + + University of Texas at Brownsville * University of Nuernburg, Germany Detector.

LIGO-G D 1 Requirements Environment and constraints Performance requirements Functional requirements.

1 Environmental Disturbances: Early S5 and S4 Robert Schofield, U of O Rana Adhikari, CIT, Richard McCarthy, John Worden, LHO I.HVAC flow rate reduction.

1 S4 Environmental Disturbances Robert Schofield, U of O John Worden, Richard McCarthy, Doug Cook, Hugh Radkins, LHO Josh Dalrymple, SU I.Pre-S4 “fixes”

Enhanced NoiseFloorMon : offline analysis results R. Stone & S. Mukherjee Center for Gravitational Wave Astronomy Department of Physics and Astronomy University.

LIGO-G Z1 E2e modeling of violin mode S. Yoshida Southeastern Louisiana University V. Sannibale M. Barton, and H. Yamamoto Caltech LIGO NSF: PHYS

LIGO-G Z NSF Review LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Michigan 1 LSC Participation in Initial LIGO Detector Characterization.

Waveburst DSO: current state, testing on S2 hardware burst injections Sergei Klimenko Igor Yakushin LSC meeting, March 2003 LIGO-G Z.

UF S.Klimenko LIGO-G Z l Introduction l Goals of this analysis l Coherence of power monitors l Sign X-Correlation l H2-L1 x-correlation l Conclusion.

LIGO-G Z Detector characterization for LIGO burst searches Shourov K. Chatterji for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 10 th Gravitational Wave.

LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization SummaryK. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of Detector Characterization Sessions Keith Riles (University.

Potsdam, Germany Identification and removal of glitches in GEO 600 Joshua Smith ILIAS WG

THE EVENT DISPLAY TOOL Shantanu Desai Penn. State University Scimon Camp, Livingston, LA August 18, 2006.

1 Environmental Coupling During S5 Robert Schofield (University of Oregon) I. PEM injection overview II.Acoustic/seismic coupling III.Seismic upconversion.

Japan Earthquake 3/11/2011 Climate and Milankovich Cycles.

Analysis of nonstationarity in LIGO S5 data using the NoiseFloorMon output A proposal for a seismic Data Quality flag. R. Stone for the LSC The Center.

1 Data quality and veto studies for the S4 burst search: Where do we stand? Alessandra Di Credico Syracuse University LSC Meeting, Ann Arbor (UM) June.

Glitch Group S5 Activities Laura Cadonati for the Glitch Working Group LSC meeting, Hanford March 21, 2006 G Z.

LIGO-G Z Detchar Introduction (8/16/06)K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 StrainBandsMon and SixtyHertzMon Keith Riles (University of Michigan)

GWDAW11, Postdam 18th-21th December 2006 E. Cuoco, on behalf of Virgo collaboration 1 “Data quality studies for burst analysis of Virgo data acquired during.

G R LSC UL 13 Aug 011 Detector Characterization; Triggers, code infrastructure; Followup Analysis for the UL groups Nelson Christensen, Szabi.

LSC glitch group report Shourov K. Chatterji for the LSC glitch group LSC/Virgo meeting 2007 October 24 Hannover, Germany LIGO-G Z.

LIGO- G Z August 16, 2006August 2006 LSC Meeting - DetChar 1 Spectral Line Working Group Report Keith Thorne, Chair.

1 Hierarchical glitch classification analysis. Soma Mukherjee CGWA, UTB LSC/Virgo Det Char, Baton Rouge, March 21, 2007 LIGO-G

Status of coalescing binaries search activities in Virgo GWDAW 11 Status of coalescing binaries search activities in Virgo GWDAW Dec 2006 Leone.

Detector Noise Characterization with the Hilbert-Huang Transform

G Z 1 New Glitches seen/studied in Block-Normal Shantanu Desai Pennsylvania State University for Glitch Working Group and many others Detchar.

LIGO-G Z Status of MNFTmon Soma Mukherjee +, Roberto Grosso* + University of Texas at Brownsville * University of Nuernberg, Germany LSC Detector.

1 LIGO-G Z Glitch and veto studies in LIGO’s S5 search for gravitational wave bursts Erik Katsavounidis MIT for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

Gabriele Vajente ILIAS WG1 meeting - Frascati Noise Analysis Tools at Virgo.

APPLICATION OF A WAVELET-BASED RECEIVER FOR THE COHERENT DETECTION OF FSK SIGNALS Dr. Robert Barsanti, Charles Lehman SSST March 2008, University of New.

LIGO-G Z Detchar Introduction (8/16/06)K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 SixtyHertzMon Update Junyi Zhang & Keith Riles (University of Michigan)

Development of a Readout Scheme for High Frequency Gravitational Waves Jared Markowitz Mentors: Rick Savage Paul Schwinberg Paul Schwinberg.

Joshua Smith, Elba, Italy Elba, Italy Joshua Smith for the GEO 600 team Picture of GEO in stormy weather?? Or pics of tractors with.

May 29, 2006 GWADW, Elba, May 27 - June 21 LIGO-G0200XX-00-M Data Quality Monitoring at LIGO John Zweizig LIGO / Caltech.

S.Klimenko, LSC, August 2004, G Z BurstMon S.Klimenko, A.Sazonov University of Florida l motivation & documentation l description & results l.

LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization SummaryK. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of Detector Characterization Sessions Keith Riles (University.

Multidimensional classification analysis of kleine Welle triggers in LIGO S5 run Soma Mukherjee for the LSC University of Texas at Brownsville GWDAW12,

Geology 6600/7600 Signal Analysis 30 Sep 2015 © A.R. Lowry 2015 Last time: The transfer function relating linear SISO input & output signals is given by.

S.Klimenko, March 2003, LSC Burst Analysis in Wavelet Domain for multiple interferometers LIGO-G Z Sergey Klimenko University of Florida l Analysis.

LSC meeting – Mar05 Livingston, LA A. Di Credico Syracuse University Glitch investigations with kleineWelle Reporting on work done by several people: L.

S.Klimenko, LSC March, 2001 Line Noise Investigation l Outline Ø Line Noise Investigation task Ø E2 data, line monitoring Ø Documentation Ø Lines observed.

Soma Mukherjee LSC, Hanford, Aug.19 '04 Generation of realistic data segments: production and application. Soma Mukherjee Centre for Gravitational Wave.

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.

Enhanced NoiseFloorMon : offline analysis results R. Stone & S. Mukherjee Center for Gravitational Wave Astronomy Department of Physics and Astronomy University.

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 LineMonitor Sergey Klimenko University of Florida Other contributors: E.Daw (LSU), A.Sazonov(UF), J.Zweizig (Caltech)

Feature Matching and Signal Recognition using Wavelet Analysis Dr. Robert Barsanti, Edwin Spencer, James Cares, Lucas Parobek.

LIGO-G Z March 21, 2007 March 2007 LIGO/Virgo Meeting - DetChar 1 S5 Spectral Line Cataloguing Keith Thorne for the Spectral Line Working Group.

Team LYF: Applying Python to Waveform Matching Detection Xin Liu (USC), Dongdong Yao(GT), Lili Feng(CU-Boulder)

MNFT : Robust detection of slow nonstationarity in LIGO Science data Soma Mukherjee Max Planck Institut fuer Gravitationsphysik Germany. LSC Meeting, Livingston,

LIGO-G05????-00-Z Detector characterization for LIGO burst searches Shourov K. Chatterji For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 10 th Gravitational Wave.

LIGO-G Z Results from LIGO Observations Stephen Fairhurst University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee on behalf of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

3D Array Processing Sept 8, 2016, DUGL telecon

LIGO S6 Detector Characterization Studies

Amplifier noise.

WaveMon and Burst FOMs WaveMon WaveMon FOMs Summary & plans

S2 Bilinear Couplings Study

LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Michigan

13F – skewness.

Presentation transcript:

Proposing a DMT monitor for studying micro- seismic noise and up-conversions S. Mukherjee & R. Grosso UTB & U. Erlangen, Germany LSC Det Char Telecon, 05/18/07

Motivation NoiseFloorMon has been running since the onset of S5. This monitor looks for non-stationarities in 4 frequency bands – 0-16, 16-32, and Hz. This monitor looks at the cross-correlations with the seismic channels and reports the 10 loudest events everyday. These events are analyzed in the time-frequency domain and also looked at using Q-scan and BN event displays. (Graduate student R. Stone is working on the off-line analysis). Following discussions with Robert Schofield, we have come up with the idea of using the same median based statistics as used in the NoiseFloorMon to analyze the noise seen in micro-seismic bands and the possible up-conversions. It is thus proposed that we write a new monitor that will look at specific frequency bands of interest and will correlate them with the higher frequencies to look for up-conversions. The following slides give the details of the frequency bands, why we choose them and the physical questions that we want to answer.

Bands to be analyzed (in Hz) 0.03 – 0.1 : Distant earthquake 0.1 – 0.3 : Micro-seismic peak 0.7 – 0.8 Large optic pendulum 0.9 – 1.1 Small optic pendulum 1.1 – 1.3 : BSC H-H mode 2.1 – 2.3 : BSC H-H mode 5.0 – 7.0 : BSC H-H mode 9.0 – 11.0 : BSC modes 11.5 – 12.5 : Optic bounce modes 15.0 – 17.0 : Mystery bounce modes 17.0 – 19.0 : Optic roll mode 19.0 – 20.0 : Motors (6 poles) 28.0 – 30.0 : Motors (4 poles) The median based estimate Of the noise floor variation Of these bands are to be correlated to that in the Hz band. Coil current to be used instead of the seismic channels.

Output The channels to be analyzed are : DARM-ERR, coil currents (e.g. SUS-ETMY_COIL_LL) Correlations will be studied between each of the low frequency bands and the Hz band. Output of the monitor will be a series of plots of peak correlation vs. time. Large correlation epoch can be further analyzed in time domain and also using other existing tools.