40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log  Not logged in ELOG logo
Entry  Mon Jul 9 17:29:28 2018, Udit Khandelwal, Summary, Tip-TIlt, TipTilt mirror holder final changes d_COM.png1-1.png1-2.png2-1.png
    Reply  Tue Mar 5 15:56:27 2019, gautam, Summary, Tip-TIlt, Discussion points about TT re-design 
Message ID: 14474     Entry time: Tue Mar 5 15:56:27 2019     In reply to: 14047
Author: gautam 
Type: Summary 
Category: Tip-TIlt 
Subject: Discussion points about TT re-design 

Chub, Koji and I have been talking about Udit's re-design. Here are a few points that were raised. Chub/Koji can add to/correct where necessary. Summary is that this needs considerable work before we can order the parts for a prototype and characterize it. I think the requirements may be stated as:

  1. The overall pendulum length should be similar to that of the SOS, i.e. ~0.3m (current length is more like 0.1m) such that the eigenfrequencies are lowered to more like ~1 Hz. Mainly we wan't to avoid any overlap with the stack eigenmodes. This may require an additional stiffening piece near the top of the tower as we have for the SOS. What is a numerical way to spec this?
  2. The center of the 2" optic should be 6" from the table.
  3. The mass of the optic + holder should be similar to the current design so we may use the same suspension wires (I believe they are a different thickness than that used for the SOS).
  4. Ensure we can extract any transmitted beams without clipping.
  5. Fine pitch adjustment capablity should be yyy mrad (20mrad?).
  6. We should preserve the footprint of the existing TTs, given the space constraints in vacuum. Moreover, we should be able to use dog-clamps to fix the tower in place, so the base plate should be designed accordingly.
  7. Keep the machining requirements as simple as possible while achieving the above requirements- i.e. do we really need rounded optic holder? Why not just rectangular? Similarly for other complicated features in the current design.

Some problems with Udit's design as it stands:

  1. I noticed that the base of the TT and the center of the 2" optic are 4" separated. The SOS cage base and center of 3" optic are separated by 6". Currently, there is an adaptor piece that raises the TT height to match that of the SOS. If we are doing a re-design, shouldn't we just aim for the correct height in the first place?
  2. Udit doesn't seem to have taken into account the torque due to the optic+holder in the pitch balancing calculations he did. Since this is expected to be >> that of any rod/screw we use for fine pitch balancing, we need to factor that into the calculation.
  3. For the coarse pitch adjustment, we'd need to slide the wire clamping piece relative to the optic holding piece. Rather than do this stochastically and hope for the best, the idea was to use a threaded screw to realize this operation in a controlled way. However, Udit's design doesn't include the threaded hole.
  4. There are many complicated machining features which are un-necessary.
ELOG V3.1.3-