40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 169 of 339  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  3884   Wed Nov 10 02:51:35 2010 yutaSummaryIOOlimitation of current MC aligning

(Suresh, Yuta)

Summary:
  We need MC to be locked and aligned well to align other in-vac optics.
  We continued to align the incident beam so that the beam passes the actuation nodes of MC1 and MC3.
  From the previous measurement, we found that beam height at IM1 has to be increased by ~3cm.
  Today, we increased it by ~1cm and achieved about 1/3 of the required correction.
  But we cannot proceed doing this because the beam is hitting IM1 at the edge already.

What is the goal of this alignment?:
  If the beam doesn't hit MC optics in the center, we see angle to length coupling, which is not good for the whole interferometer.
 
  Also, if the beam is tilted so much, transmitted beam though MC3 cannot go into FI at right after MC3.
  Say, FI has an aparture of 3mm and MC3-FT distance is 300mm. The beam tilt should be smaller than 3/300 rad. MC1-MC3 distance is 200mm, so the displacement at each mirror should be smaller than ~1mm.
  1mm is about 7% (see Koji's elog #2863) TO_COIL gain imbalance in A2L measurement.
 
  We are currently assuming that each coils are identical. If they have 5% variance, it is meaningless to try to reduce the beam displacement less than ~5%.

  So, we set the goal to 7%.

What we did:

  1. Leveled the MC table.

  2. Measured the table height using DISTO D3 laser gauge.
    PSL table 0.83m (+-0.01m)
    OMC table 0.82m
    MC table  0.81m

  3. Using the last steering mirror(SM@PSL) and IM1, tilted the beam vertically

Result:

MCalignNov9.png

  At t=0 (this morning), the beam tilt was ~40%/(MC1-MC3 distance). Now, it is ~30%/(MC1-MC3 distance).
  30%/(MC1-MC3 distance) is ~5/200 rad.

Plan:

 We have to somehow come up with the next story. Too much vertical tilt. What is wrong? Table leveling seems OK.
 - measure in-vac beam height
 - maybe OSEMs are badly aligned. we have to check that.

  3885   Wed Nov 10 11:46:19 2010 KojiSummaryIOOlimitation of current MC aligning

It didn't make sense in several points.

1. Is the Faraday aperture really 3mm? The beam has the gaussian radius of ~1.5mm. How can it be possible to go through the 3mm aperture?

2. Why the MC3-FT distance is the matter? We have the steering mirror after MC3. So we can hit the center of the Faraday.
But if we have VERTICAL TILT of the beam, we can not hit the center of the Faraday entrance and exit at the same time.
That would yield the requirement.

3. If each coil has 5% variance in the response, variance of the nodal point (measured in % of the coil imbalance) by those four coils will be somewhat better than 5%, isn't it?

  3886   Wed Nov 10 12:21:18 2010 yutaSummaryIOOlimitation of current MC aligning

1. We didn't measure the aperture size last night. We have to check that.

2. We have to measure the length of FI. Or find a document on this FI.

3. Yes, 5%/sqrt(4). But I didn't think the factor of 2 is important for this kind of estimation.

  3887   Wed Nov 10 14:28:33 2010 KojiSummaryIOOlimitation of current MC aligning

1. Look at the Faraday.

2. Look at the wiki. There is the optical layout in PNG and PDF.

3. 5% (0.8mm) and 2.5%(0.4mm) sounds a big difference for the difficulty, but if you say so, it is not so different.

Actualy, if you can get to the 5% level, it is easy to get to the 1-2% level as I did last time.
The problem is we are at the 15-20% level and can not improve it.

  3888   Wed Nov 10 22:29:42 2010 kiwamuUpdateIOOmisaligned the wideband EOM

For Yuta's business, I intentionally misaligned the wideband EOM slightly to Yaw direction.  Good luck.

It should show a big AM component at photo detectors.

I touched only the top right knob on the EOM mount and tweaked it by exactly  2 turns in counterclockwise direction.

  3892   Thu Nov 11 05:56:04 2010 yutaSummaryIOOsetting up temporary oplev for coil balancing of MCs

(Suresh, Yuta)

Background:
  Previous A2L measurement is based on the assumption that actuator efficiencies are identical for all 4 coils.
  We thought that the unbelievable "tilt" may be caused by imbalance of the coils.

Method:
  1. Setup an optical lever.
  2. Dither the optic by one coil and demodulate oplev outputs(OL_PIT or OL_YAW) in that frequency.
  3. Compare the demodulated amplitude. Ideally, the amplitude is proportional to the coil actuation efficiency.

What we did:
[MC2]
  MC2 is the least important, but the easiest.
  1. Placed a red laser pointer at MC2 trans table. During the installation, I moved the mirror just before QPD.
  2. Made a python script that measures coil actuation efficiency using the above method. I set the driving frequency to 20Hz.
  It is /cvs/cds/caltech/users/yuta/scripts/actuatorefficiency.py.
  The measurement result is as follows. Errors are estimated from the repeated measurement. (Attachment #1)

MC2_ULCOIL 1
MC2_URCOIL 0.953 ± 0.005
MC2_LRCOIL 1.011 ± 0.001
MC2_LLCOIL 0.939 ± 0.006


[MC1]
  For MC1, we can use the main laser and WFS1 QPD as an oplev.
  But we only have slow channels for QPD DC outputs(C1:IOO_WFS1_SEG#_DC).
  So, we intentionally induce RF AM by EOM(see Kiwamu's elog #3888) and use demodulated RF outputs of the WFS1 QPD(C1:IOO_WFS1_I/Q#) to see the displacement.
  1. Replaced HR mirror in the MCREFL path at AP table to BS so that we can use WFS1.(see Koji's elog #3878)
    The one we had before was labeled 10% pick-off, but it was actually an 1% pick-off.
  2. Checked LO going into WFS1 demodulator board(D980233 at 1X2).
    power: 6.4dBm, freq: 29.485MHz
  3. Turned on the hi-voltage(+100V) power supply going into the demodulator boards.
  4. Noticed that no signal is coming into c1ioo fast channels.
    It was because they were not connected to fast ADC board. We have to make a cable and put it in.

[MC3]
  Is there any place to place an oplev?

Plan:
 - prepare c1ioo channels and connections
 - I think we'd better start A2L again than do oplev and coil balancing.

Attachment 1: MC2coils.png
MC2coils.png
  3903   Fri Nov 12 00:42:11 2010 rana, kojiUpdateIOOMC alignment

We decided to ignore the computer script outputs for the beam positions and use instead the eyeball method to get the beam into the MC:

  1. Adjust PSL launch beam to get the beam centered on IM1.
  2. Eyeball the beam to hit the center of MC1. We can get this pretty good by using the brackets to get the vertical and using the centering of the input/refl beams to center it horizontally.
  3. Use MC3 suspension to hit the center of MC2. We did this by hitting each of the 3 EQ stop screw heads and triangulating the MC3 bias settings.
  4. Use MC2 bias to hit the center of MC1.
  5. Use MC1 to get good flashes.
  6. Use all 3 MC sus biases to maximize the transmitted light and minimize the REFL DC.

With this rough alignment in place, we leave it to Yuta to finish the coil balancing and the A2L. We will have an aligned MC in the morning and will start the BS chamber alignment.

  3905   Fri Nov 12 06:10:24 2010 yutaUpdateIOOMC aligned (without coil balancing)

Background:
  Last night, we found that one of DAC channels are poorly connected, so we fixed the connectors.
  Rana and Koji used their incredible eyeballs to roughly align MC.
  Next thing to do is to balance the coils, but it takes some time for the setup.
  So, we decided to do A2L anyway.

What I did:
  Using the last steering mirror at PSL table and IM1, changed the incident beam direction to align MC.

Result:
MCalignCALIB.png
 
  I was amazed by their eyeballs.
  I turned the nobs of SM@PSL and IM1 in small increments, so I never lost TEM00.

Is it enough?:
  The length of the whole faraday is about 20cm and aperture diameter is about 12mm. (I couldn't measure the aperture size of the core)
  The beam is about 9mm diameter at 6w.
  So, if the beam is vertically tilted at more than ~3/200rad, it(6w) cannot go through.
  3/200 rad is about 20% difference in position at MC1 and MC3.
  So, the result meets the requirement.

  Also, assuming that coils have 5% imbalance, the beam position I measured have ~3% error.
  So, to do more precise beam centering, we need to balance the coils.

  3923   Mon Nov 15 15:01:51 2010 kiwamuUpdateIOOrealigned the wideband EOM

Since we are going to lock the MC today, I aligned it back to the default place.

Quote: #3888

For Yuta's business, I intentionally misaligned the wideband EOM slightly to Yaw direction. 

  3929   Tue Nov 16 03:33:22 2010 yutaUpdateIOOaligned Faraday, beam reached SM just before PRM

(Koji, Yuta)

We aligned the Faraday after MC and we are now ready to install PRM.

Background:
  MC was roughly aligned (beam spot ~0.7mm from the actuation center).
  So, we started aligning in-vac optics.
  First thing to align was the Faraday after MC3.

What we did:
  1. Ran A2L.py for confirmation.(Second from the last measurement point on the A2L result plot)

  2. Aligned the Faraday so that MC3 trans can go through it. We moved the Faraday itself, while we didn't touch IM2.
     We turned the pitch nob of the last steering mirror at PSL table in CCW slightly in order to lower the beam at the Faraday by ~1mm.

  3. During the alignment, we found that the polarization of the incident beam was wrong. It should have been S but it was P.
     As there is the HWP right before the EOM, Rana rotated it so as to have the correct polarization of S on the EOM and the MC.
     Note that the PMC and the main interferometer are configured to have P-pol while the MC is to have S-pol.

  4. Setup the video camera to monitor the entrance aperture of the Faraday. It required 4 steering mirrors to convey the image to the CCD.

  5. Moved all of the OSEMs for MC1 and MC3 so that the sensor output can have roughly half of their maxima.

  6. Ran A2L.py. (The last measurement point on the A2L result plot)

  7. Aligned the IO optics so that the beam goes Faraday -> MMT1 -> MMT2 -> SM3.

Result:

  1. OSEM sensor outputs for MC1 and MC3 are;

(V) MC1 MC3
max current value max current value
ULSEN 1.3 0.708 1.37 0.699
URSEN 1.4 0.845 1.71 0.796
LRSEN 1.45 0.743 1.77 0.640
LLSEN 1.56 0.762 1.56 0.650
SDSEN 1.67 0.801 1.59 0.821



  2. A2L result is;
MCalignNov16.png


     The beam position slightly got lower(~0.2mm), because we touched SM at PSL table.
     Alignment slider values changed because we moved MC1 and MC3 OSEMs.

  3. Now, MC_RFPD_DCMON is ~0.39 when MC unlocked and ~0.083 when locked.
     So, the visibility of MC is ~79% (for S-pol).

  4. Now the incident beam to the MC has S polarization, the cavity has higher finesse. This results the increased MC trans power.
     It was ~8e2 when the polarization was P, now it is ~4.2e3 when the MC is locked.

  5. The beam reached SM3 at BS table. The alignment of the SM2, MMT1, MMT2 were confirmed and adjusted.

  6. All pieces of the leftover pizza reached my stomach.

Plan:
  - Install PRM to the BS chamber.
  - Align PRM and get IFO reflection beam out to the AP table
 

  3937   Wed Nov 17 02:53:41 2010 yutaUpdateIOOplaced new PRM to BS table

(Kiwamu, Yuta)

Background:
  Yesterday, we aligned the Faraday and the beam reached SM2 at BS table.
  Today, we placed a new PRM tower to BS table.

What we did:

  1. Moved IPPO, IPPOSSM1, IPPOSSM3, IPANGSM1, IPANGSM2 out from the BS chamber.

  2. Moved SRM tower(at PRM's place) to the ITMX chamber.

  3. Placed the new PRM tower at the BS chamber.

  4. Adjusted positions of the OSEMs for PRM and BS so that the sensor output can have roughly half of their maximum.

  5. Checked damping servo for PRM and BS. They were working and helped us when adjusting OSEM positions.

  6. Placed IPPO back and using SM2, made the beam hit PR2 at ITMX table.

  7. Aligned the PRM so that the reflected beam path overlaps the incident beam.
     We checked it by looking at MMT1.
     For the alignment, we used IFO align sliders(C1:SUS-PRM_PIT_COMM, YAW_COMM).
        To use them, we rebooted c1susaux.

Result:
  1. The new PRM tower is placed.

  2. OSEM sensor outputs for PRM and BS are;

(V) PRM BS
max current value max current value
ULSEN 1.72 1.006 1.50 0.757
URSEN 1.66 0.918 1.57 0.821
LRSEN 1.92 1.304 1.57 0.821
LLSEN 2.06 1.031 1.38 0.704
SDSEN 9.21 4.366 1.57 0.821

    We changed PRM aligning slider values, and they changed OSEM sensor outputs. We set the slider values to 0 when adjusting OSEM positions.

  3943   Thu Nov 18 00:40:31 2010 yutaUpdateIOOPRM reflected beam reached AP table

(Kiwamu, Yuta)

Summary:
  Yesterday, we placed the new PRM to BS chamber and the beam reached PR2 at ITMX chamber.
  Today, we lead the PRM reflected beam back to AP table.
  Also, we aligned PRs so that the beam hits ITMX and ITMY.

What we did:
  1. Aligned PR2 at ITMX chamber and PR3 at BS chamber so that the beam hits ITMY.

  2. Aligned ITMX using IFO_ALIGN sliders so that the reflected beam overlaps at BS.

  3. Aligned BS using IFO_ALIGN sliders so that the splitted beam to ITMX overlaps the green beam from the X-end.

  4. Roughly aligned ITMY using IFO_ALIGN sliders so that the reflected green goes to far x-end.

  5. From yesterdays in-vac work, the reflected beam from PRM reached the Faraday.
     Aligned 2 steering mirrors in MC chamber so that the beam reaches AP table.

  6. Found the beam is double-spotted by a steering mirror at just after the Faraday symmetric port.
      The mirror is Y1-2037-45S. The beam is hitting it in ~10deg, so we have to replace it.

Plan:
  - replace the steering mirror right next to the Faraday symmetric port.
  - recyled Michealson

Note:
  We had to use "ITMX" channels to align ITMY. We have to fix and check X-Y confusion.
  Also, damping servo for ITMs does not seem to work. We have to check this.

  3973   Tue Nov 23 10:48:31 2010 KojiUpdateIOOthe plan of the day

[Kiwamu/Koji]

- The tanks are open

Plan

[done] - Remove the PZT cable currently underlying between BS and ITMY chambers
[done] - Put this PZT cable between BS and IMC chambers. Connect it on the PZT on the IMC table (SM1)
[done]- Put the two OSEM cables between BS and ITMY chambers. Connect this cable to SRM.
  The connector for this cable at the BS side is coming from Bob's place on Wednesday. We left it disconnected for now.

- Energize all of four PZTs and check the functionality.

  3980   Tue Nov 23 22:01:49 2010 kiwamuUpdateIOOimmigration plan for in-vac PZT mirrors

 [Suresh, Kiwamu]

We found that two of three PZT mirrors are at wrong place in the chambers.

Therefore we have to move these PZT mirrors together with their connections.

Here is a diagram for the current situation and the plan.

Untitled.png

 

  Basically mirror (A) must be associated to the output beam coming out from the SRM, but it was incorrectly put as a part of the input optics.

Similar to that, mirror (C) must belong to the input optics, but it is incorrectly being used as a part of OMC stuff.

Therefore we have to swap the positions of mirror (A) and mirror (C) as shown in the diagram above.

In addition to the mirror immigration, we also have to move their cables as well in order to keep the right functions.

 

 We took a look at the length of the cables outside of the chambers in order to check if they are long enough or not.

And we found that the cables from c1asc (green line in the diagram) is not long enough, so we will put an extension D-sub cable.

  3988   Mon Nov 29 11:51:41 2010 kiwamuUpdateIOOswaped in-vac PZT mirrors

This morning I opened the chambers and started some in-vac works.

As explained in this entry, I swapped pzt mirror (A) and (C) successfully.

The chambers are still open, so don't be surprised.

 

(today's missions for IOO)

 - cabling for the pzt mirrors

 - energizing the pzt mirrors and slide them to their midpoint.

 - locking and alignment of the MC

 - realignment of the pzt mirrors and other optics.

 - letting the beam go down to the arm cavity

 

  3992   Tue Nov 30 04:22:52 2010 kiwamuUpdateIOOswaped in-vac PZT mirrors

As a result of the vacuum work, now the IR beam is hitting ETMX.

The spot of the transmitted beam from the cavity can be found at the end table by using an IR viewer.

Quote: #3988

(today's missions for IOO)

 - cabling for the pzt mirrors

 - energizing the pzt mirrors and slide them to their midpoint.

 - locking and alignment of the MC

 - realignment of the pzt mirrors and other optics.

 - letting the beam go down to the arm cavity

 

 

  3996   Tue Nov 30 12:33:27 2010 kiwamuSummaryIOOcabling of in-vac PZT mirrors

  4044   Sat Dec 11 00:41:55 2010 kiwamuUpdateIOOalignment of IP_ANG is done

  [Jenne, Koji and Kiwamu]

 We finished a coarse alignment of IP_ANG.

 The beam for IP_ANG successfully reached to the ETMY chamber and is ready for the final alignment.

 (Additionally we again tried looking for a resonance for TEM00 in the X arm, but we obtained only flashes of some higher order modes.)


--- what we did

 * installed the steering mirrors for IP_ANG and IP_POS.

 * checked PZT1 if it worked correctly or not. It was healthy.

 * neutralized and realigned PZT1.

 * flipped a window, which is standing before PRM, because the wedged side of the window was at wrong side.

 * realigned PZT2 and checked the spot positions on the TTs.

 * repositioned more carefully the TTs and aligned them to the correct angles.

 * aligned the beam to the center of both the BS and ITMY by rotating the last TT.

 * aligned the beam more precisely by tweaking PZT2 while looking at the spot at the Y end.

         The beam is still hitting the center of ETMY.

 * aligned the steering mirror for IP_ANG while looking at the spot at the Y end.

        In fact IP_ANG is visible with a card. 

 * aligned the BS by looking at the spot on ITMX.

 * covered ETMX with aluminum foil, and made a ~1cm hole on the foil as a target.

         The hole was placed on the center of ETMX.

 * more precisely aligned the BS by looking at the spot on the aluminum foil.

         The spot was clearly visible on CCD monitor.

 * aligned the ITMX by looking at a spot on the foil. The spot represented the beam reflected by ITMX back to ETMX.

 * saw flashes on the foil but couldn't make it TEM00 because it was difficult to see any flashes on the surface of either ETMX or ITMX.

        It means the flashes are visible only when the beam is hitting some scattering surface.

        The mirror surface of the test masses are less lossy than that of the old test masses ??

 

 

  4056   Wed Dec 15 12:46:18 2010 KojiSummaryIOOFinishing up the vac work

What else?

v: Edit on Dec 15 10PM
v: Edit on Dec 16 10PM

JD:  We should check OSEMs for all optics *after* table leveling.  Some of them (esp. BS and ITMX) are currently close to their limits right now.

KA: Check green alignment.

Take photos of the tables.

Fix the leveling weights



Location    Optics            Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
@ITMX -     v POX             alignment
            v POP1/POP2       alignment
            v Table Leveling

@ITMY -     POY               mirror replacement (45deg->0deg) / alignment
            v SR2-TT          alignment
            v SRM Tower       alignment / EQ-stop release
            v SRM             alignment
            v SRM OSEM
            vvSRM OPLEV (X2)  install (VIS)/ alignment
            v ITMY OPLEV (X2)   install (VIS)/ alignment
            v OM1/OM2         install (DLC 45deg)/ alignment       
            v Table Leveling

@BSC -      v OM3             install (DLC 45deg/ alignment)
            v OM4(PZT)          neutralize, adjustment
            IPPOS steering    alignment
            v BS OPLEV        alignment
           
v PRM OPLEV(x2)     alignment
            Beam dumps
            Table Leveling

@IMC -      v REFL              mirror replacement (45deg->0deg)

@ETMX -     Al foil removal
            Table Leveling

@ETMY -     ETMY damping
            OSEM
            OPLEV
            Al foil removal
            Table Leveling

@OMC -      v OM5(PZT)        neutralize, adjustment

@ITM/ETM -  Mirror Wiping

  4062   Wed Dec 15 23:10:40 2010 KojiUpdateIOOSRM Oplev / Dark Steering mirrors installed

I helped the vacuum installation work in the evening.

- Three steering mirrors after the SRM (OM1-OM3) were installed on the table. OM1 and OM2 were aligned.
  OM3 is in-place but not aligned to the OM4 (PZT).

- The ITMY oplev setup was disintegrated. The SRM/ITMY oplev beams were prepared.

- The SRM oplev mirrors were placed on the table and aligned.

- The ITMY oplev mirrors were placed on the table but not in-place.

  4066   Fri Dec 17 00:30:05 2010 KojiUpdateIOOITMY / SRM / BS / PRM OPLEVs aligned

[Steve and Koji]

The invac OPLEV mirrros were aligned before we get to the PMA party.

The OPLEV mirrors were adjusted in accordance with the optical layout.
Surprisingly the optical layout was enough precise such that we have the healthy red beams on the optical tables.
Steve placed the apertures at the position of the returning spots while I shook the stack to check if the range of the spot motion is sufficient.

The sole thing that has been deviated from the optical layout was that the SRM returning beam had to be reroute
as the SRM has better reflectivity on the AR surface in stead of the HR one.

  4067   Fri Dec 17 00:55:30 2010 KojiUpdateIOOThe dark port beams reached the AP table

[Koji and Kiwamu]

We obtained two dark port beams on the AP table: OMC REFL and AS

- First, IPANG and BS were aligned so as to have the beams on the center of the ETMs.

- Then ITMX/ITMY/PRM/SRM were aligned to have fringes in a single spot anywhere.

- As we already had the dark port beam on the steering mirrors on the BS table, today the PZT mirrors were adjusted.
This work was the beam steering between the BS table to the OMC table. After some tweaking of the mirror mounts, 
the spot on the last PZT mirror was found.

As we have not touched any of the OMC optics since they were aligned well, the alignment has been adjusted by the nobs of the PZT steering mirrors.
Once the beam is on the output mode matching telescope (OMMT), the work was quite easy thanks to the beam shrinking by the OMMT.

Note that the dark port beam is slightly clipped by the green steering mirror. The steering mirror will be moved next time.

After the alignment, we indeed obtained OMC REFL and AS beams on the AP table.
The fringes were visible on the OMC REFL CCD.

We keep the dark port setup on the OMC (in-vac) and AP tables so that they can be the reference of the dark port alignment.
In principle we can align the beams onto the OMC by the two PZT mirrors.


What is left?

Our minimum success of this vent is to setup the X arm cavity which is needed for the green locking.
This setup was already realized. So we fulfilled the condition to close the tank even if the damping of
the ETMY is not achieved. (But we should try)

Tomorrow, we make a light touches to POY, Green, IPPOS, and check the table leveling, clamping, etc, in general.

JD:  We should check OSEMs for all optics *after* table leveling.  Some of them (esp. BS and ITMX) are currently close to their limits right now.

KA: Check green alignment. / Take photos of the tables. / Fix the leveling weights


Location    Optics            Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
@ITMY -     POY               mirror replacement (45deg->0deg) / alignment

@BSC -      Green steering    alignment
            IPPOS steering    alignment
            Beam dumps
            Table Leveling

@ETMX -     Al foil removal
            Table Leveling

@ETMY -     ETMY damping
            OSEM
            OPLEV
            Table Leveling

@ITM/ETM -  Mirror Wiping

  4070   Sat Dec 18 01:17:04 2010 kiwamuUpdateIOOsome more alignments

 [Koji and Kiwamu]

 We did some more vacuum works today. It is getting ready to pump down.

 (what we did) 

 - alignment of the POY mirrors. Now the beam is coming out from the ITMY chamber successfully

  - leveling of the tables (except for the IOO and OMC chamber)

  - realigned the beam axis down to the Y arm because the leveling of the BS table changed the alignments.

 - installed IP_POS mirrors

 - aligned the green beam and made it overlap with IR beam path.

 - repositioned green steering mirrors since one of them are too close to the dark beam path

 - aligned everything.

  4076   Mon Dec 20 10:47:29 2010 KojiUpdateIOOPlan for closing the vacuum chambers

Monday

  • Place the bars on the in-vac tables to mark the positions of the test mass suspensions. (ITMX/ITMY/ETMX/ETMY)
  • Check the table leveling again (ITMX/ITMY/ETMX/ETMY/BSC)
  • Align the whole interferometer.
  • Check the OPLEV spots by either QPDs or apertures
  • Check the OSEM values (MC1/2/3, BS, PRM, SRM, ITMX, ITMY, ETMX, ETMY)
  • Energize OMC PZTs.
    • We have removed the cards at the back of the HV driver.
    • Insert the card and check the connection.
    • Adjust the DC values at the middle of the range.
      -> They have an internal bias circuit to provide +75V at the outputs. (D060287).
      The actual voltages confirmed.
    • Adjust the physical knobs of the PZTs such that we can see the spots at the OMCR cam
  • If everything is fine, attach the access connector.
  • If still everythig is fine, put the BS heavy door.

Tuesday

- Do the following list for all of the testmass chambers.

  • Check if the OSEMs and the OPLEV are still fine.
  • Inspect the surface of the mirror with a laser pointer or a fiber coupled halogen light.
  • Blow the mirrors by the ionization gun.
  • Inspect the mirror surface again.
  • Move the suspension tower close to the door.
  • Make a single drag-wipe with iso
  • Move the SOS tower at the original place.
  • Check the OSEMs and the OPLEVs. Adjust the alignment.
  • Put the heavy door.

- Start slow pumping

  4077   Mon Dec 20 16:57:58 2010 steveUpdateIOOchecking out & closing the vacuum chambers
  • Check EQ-stops
  • clamp down counter weights
  • check other components are clamped
  • remove all tools
  • check cabling is not is not shorting out seismic stack or blocking beam
  • confirm well centered spots on mirrors
  4078   Mon Dec 20 22:56:20 2010 JenneUpdateIOOPlan for closing the vacuum chambers

Tuesday

  • If still everythig is fine, put the BS heavy door.

- Do the following list for all of the testmass chambers.

  • Check if the OSEMs and the OPLEV are still fine. (ITMX and ITMY were not done on Monday, so need extra care.)
  • Inspect the surface of the mirror with a laser pointer or a fiber coupled halogen light.
  • Blow the mirrors by the ionization gun.
  • Inspect the mirror surface again.
  • Move the suspension tower close to the door.
  • Make a single drag-wipe with iso
  • Move the SOS tower at the original place.
  • Check the OSEMs and the OPLEVs. Adjust the alignment.
  • Put the heavy door.

- Start slow pumping

  4080   Mon Dec 20 23:32:58 2010 kiwamuUpdateIOORe:checking out & closing the vacuum chambers

  4103   Tue Jan 4 02:58:53 2011 JenneUpdateIOOPower into Mode Cleaner increased

What was the point:

I twiddled with several different things this evening to increase the power into the Mode Cleaner.  The goal was to have enough power to be able to see the arm cavity flashes on the CCD cameras, since it's going to be a total pain to lock the IFO if we can't see what the mode structure looks like.

Summed-up list of what I did:

* Found the MC nicely aligned.  Did not ever adjust the MC suspensions.

* Optimized MC Refl DC, using the old "DMM hooked up to DC out" method.

* Removed the temporary BS1-1064-33-1025-45S that was in the MC refl path, and replaced it with the old BS1-1064-IF-2037-C-45S that used to be there.  This undoes the temporary change from elog 3878.  Note however, that Yuta's elog 3892 says that the original mirror was a 1%, not 10% as the sticker indicates. The temporary mirror was in place to get enough light to MC Refl while the laser power was low, but now we don't want to fry the PD.

* Noticed that the MCWFS path is totally wrong.  Someone (Yuta?) wanted to use the MCWFS as a reference, but the steering mirror in front of WFS1 was switched out, and now no beam goes to WFS2 (it's blocked by part of the mount of the new mirror). I have not yet fixed this, since I wasn't using the WFS tonight, and had other things to get done.  We will need to fix this.

* Realigned the MC Refl path to optimize MC Refl again, with the new mirror.

* Replaced the last steering mirror on the PSL table before the beam goes into the chamber from a BS1-1064-33-1025-45S to a Y1-45S.  I would have liked a Y1-0deg mirror, since the angle is closer to 0 than 45, but I couldn't find one.  According to Mott's elog 2392 the CVI Y1-45S is pretty much equally good all the way down to 0deg, so I went with it.  This undoes the change of keeping the laser power in the chambers to a nice safe ~50mW max while we were at atmosphere.

* Put the HWP in front of the laser back to 267deg, from its temporary place of 240deg.  The rotation was to keep the laser power down while we were at atmosphere.  I put the HWP back to the place that Kevin had determined was best in his elog 3818.

* Tried to quickly align the Xarm by touching the BS, ITMX and ETMX.  I might be seeing IR flashes (I blocked the green beam on the ETMX table so I wouldn't be confused.  I unblocked it before finishing for the night) on the CCD for the Xarm, but that might also be wishful thinking.  There's definitely something lighting up / flashing in the ~center of ETMX on the camera, but I can't decide if it's scatter off of a part of the suspension tower, or if it's really the resonance.  Note to self:  Rana reminds me that the ITM should be misaligned while using BS to get beam on ETM, and then using ETM to get beam on ITM.  Only then should I have realigned the ITM.  I had the ITM aligned (just left where it had been) the whole time, so I was making my life way harder than it should have been.  I'll work on it again more today (Tuesday). 

What happened in the end:

The MC Trans signal on the MC Lock screen went up by almost an order of magnitude (from ~3500 to ~32,000).  When the count was near ~20,000 I could barely see the spot on a card, so I'm not worried about the QPD.  I do wonder, however, if we are saturating the ADC. Suresh changed the transimpedance of the MC Trans QPD a while ago (Suresh's elog 3882), and maybe that was a bad idea? 

Xarm not yet locked. 

Can't really see flashes on the Test Mass cameras. 

  4104   Tue Jan 4 11:06:32 2011 KojiUpdateIOOPower into Mode Cleaner increased

- Previously MC TRANS was 9000~10000 when the alignment was good. This means that the MC TRANS PD is saturated if the full power is given.
==> Transimpedance must be changed again.

- Y1-45S has 4% of transmission. Definitively we like to use Y1-0 or anything else. There must be the replaced mirror.
I think Suresh replaced it. So he must remember wher it is.

- We must confirm the beam pointing on the MC mirrors with A2L.

- We must check the MCWFS path alignment and configuration.

- We should take the picture of the new PSL setup in order to update the photo on wiki.

Quote:

What was the point:

I twiddled with several different things this evening to increase the power into the Mode Cleaner.  The goal was to have enough power to be able to see the arm cavity flashes on the CCD cameras, since it's going to be a total pain to lock the IFO if we can't see what the mode structure looks like.

Summed-up list of what I did:

* Found the MC nicely aligned.  Did not ever adjust the MC suspensions.

* Optimized MC Refl DC, using the old "DMM hooked up to DC out" method.

* Removed the temporary BS1-1064-33-1025-45S that was in the MC refl path, and replaced it with the old BS1-1064-IF-2037-C-45S that used to be there.  This undoes the temporary change from elog 3878.  Note however, that Yuta's elog 3892 says that the original mirror was a 1%, not 10% as the sticker indicates. The temporary mirror was in place to get enough light to MC Refl while the laser power was low, but now we don't want to fry the PD.

* Noticed that the MCWFS path is totally wrong.  Someone (Yuta?) wanted to use the MCWFS as a reference, but the steering mirror in front of WFS1 was switched out, and now no beam goes to WFS2 (it's blocked by part of the mount of the new mirror). I have not yet fixed this, since I wasn't using the WFS tonight, and had other things to get done.  We will need to fix this.

* Realigned the MC Refl path to optimize MC Refl again, with the new mirror.

* Replaced the last steering mirror on the PSL table before the beam goes into the chamber from a BS1-1064-33-1025-45S to a Y1-45S.  I would have liked a Y1-0deg mirror, since the angle is closer to 0 than 45, but I couldn't find one.  According to Mott's elog 2392 the CVI Y1-45S is pretty much equally good all the way down to 0deg, so I went with it.  This undoes the change of keeping the laser power in the chambers to a nice safe ~50mW max while we were at atmosphere.

* Put the HWP in front of the laser back to 267deg, from its temporary place of 240deg.  The rotation was to keep the laser power down while we were at atmosphere.  I put the HWP back to the place that Kevin had determined was best in his elog 3818.

* Tried to quickly align the Xarm by touching the BS, ITMX and ETMX.  I might be seeing IR flashes (I blocked the green beam on the ETMX table so I wouldn't be confused.  I unblocked it before finishing for the night) on the CCD for the Xarm, but that might also be wishful thinking.  There's definitely something lighting up / flashing in the ~center of ETMX on the camera, but I can't decide if it's scatter off of a part of the suspension tower, or if it's really the resonance. 

What happened in the end:

The MC Trans signal on the MC Lock screen went up by almost an order of magnitude (from ~3500 to ~32,000).  When the count was near ~20,000 I could barely see the spot on a card, so I'm not worried about the QPD.  I do wonder, however, if we are saturating the ADC. Suresh changed the transimpedance of the MC Trans QPD a while ago (Suresh's elog 3882), and maybe that was a bad idea? 

Xarm not yet locked. 

Can't really see flashes on the Test Mass cameras. 

 

  4105   Tue Jan 4 13:57:48 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOincident mirror changed from 45deg to 0 deg

I replaced the final steering mirror (Y1-1037-45-S) in the zig-zag path on the PSL table by a 0 deg mirror Y1-1037-0.

With a sensor card I confirmed the transmission reduced a lot after the replacement.

As we expected, the replacement of the mirror caused a mis-alignment of the incident beam axis to the MC, so I compensated it by touching the angle of the mirror a little bit.

After the alignment of the mirror, the MC is still resonating at TEM00.

We will check the spot positions more accurately by A2L technique.

Quote:

- Y1-45S has 4% of transmission. Definitively we like to use Y1-0 or anything else. There must be the replaced mirror. 

I think Suresh replaced it. So he must remember wher it is.

  4106   Tue Jan 4 15:12:33 2011 SureshUpdateIOOMC Trans Mon QPD gain decreased by 10

 Decreased the gain of MC-Trans-Mon QPD ckt

The resistors R1, R2, R3, R4 are now 49.9 kOhm. The previous elog on this subject 3882 has the ckt details. 

  4107   Tue Jan 4 18:37:18 2011 JenneUpdateIOOMCWFS aligned

I undid Yuta's temporary setup, and put beam back on both WFS.  Since Koji had just aligned the Mode Cleaner, I centered the beam on the WFS using the WFS QPD screen, while watching the WFS Head screen, to make sure that the beam was actually hitting the QPD, and not off in lala land. 

Quote from Koji:

- We must check the MCWFS path alignment and configuration.

Quote from Jenne:

* Noticed that the MCWFS path is totally wrong.  Someone (Yuta?) wanted to use the MCWFS as a reference, but the steering mirror in front of WFS1 was switched out, and now no beam goes to WFS2 (it's blocked by part of the mount of the new mirror). I have not yet fixed this, since I wasn't using the WFS tonight, and had other things to get done.  We will need to fix this.

 

  4108   Tue Jan 4 21:21:57 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOPZTs are connected to c1iscaux

I connected PZT1 and PZT2 to a slow front end machine c1iscaux.

Now we are able to align these PZTs from the control room via epics.

 

   Since we removed C1ASC that was controlling the voltage applied on the PZTs, we didn't have the controls for them for a long time.

So Rana and I decided to hook them up to an existing slow front end machine temporarily.

(probably the best solution is to connect them to C1LSC, which is fast enough to dither them.)

We actually found that c1iscaux is the proper machine, because it looked like it used to control the PZTs a long long time ago.

Moreover, c1iscaux still has DAC channels named like C1:LSC-PZT1_X, and so on.

 

  Below shows a screen shot of the medm screen for controlling the PZTs, invoked from a button on sitemap.adl ( pointed by a black arrow in the picture below)

The current default values are all zero at the right top sliders.

Screenshot20110104.png

  4110   Wed Jan 5 03:06:02 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOObeam spots on MC mirrors

I checked the spot positions on MC1 and MC3 by running Yuta's A2L script.

The amounts of the off-centering were good except for YAW of MC1.

 So we have to adjust the YAW alignment of the beam axis by steering the mirrors at the PSL table.

- - - (measured off-centering) - - - 

MC1_PIT  =  -0.711 mm

MC1_YAW =  1.62 mm

MC3_PIT  =   -0.0797 mm

MC3_YAW  =  - 0.223 mm

 

Quote:

We will check the spot positions more accurately by A2L technique.

 

  4113   Wed Jan 5 16:11:17 2011 kiwamuSummaryIOOtemporary PZT connection

PZTconnection.png

This is a connection diagram for the input PZTs (i.e. PZT1 and PZT2).

As drawn in the diagram, the signals don't go through the anti-imaging filter D000186 in the current configuration.

  4120   Thu Jan 6 00:06:01 2011 JenneUpdateIOOMagical absorbing PZT mirror

[Kiwamu, Jenne]

We have a measely 465mW going into the MC.  We lose a boatload of power on the PZT mirror that is part of the last zigzag for steering into the MC.  Just before this mirror, we measure 1.21W .  Just after this mirror, we measure ~475mW.  Then a teeny bit gets picked off for the PSL POS/ANG.  But we're losing a factor of 3 on this one mirror.  Need to fix!!!!!!!!!

  4122   Fri Jan 7 00:14:36 2011 kiwamuUpdateIOOEOM triple resonant box is working

 I checked the triple resonant box for the broadband EOM this afternoon, and found it was healthy.

So I installed it again together with a power combiner and succeeded in locking the MC.

Since the box has a non-50 Ohm input impedance at 29.5 MHz, so it maybe needed to adjust the phase of the LO for the demodulation of the PDH signal.

A good thing is that now we are able to impose the other sidebands (i.e. 11 MHz and 55MHz) via the power combiner.

  4138   Tue Jan 11 18:41:43 2011 JenneUpdateIOOPut MC PZT offset onto MC board, instead of on awkward cart

[Larisa and Jenne]

We wanted to get rid of the awkward cart that was sitting behind the 1Y1 rack.  This cart was supplying a +5V offset to the PZT driver, so that we could use the MC length signal to feedback to lock the laser to the MC cavity.  Instead, we put the offset on the last op amp before the servo out on the Mc Servo Board.  Because we wanted +5V, but the board only had +5, +15, -15V as options, and we needed -5 to add just before the op amp (U40 in the schematic), because the op amp is using regular negative feedback, we made a little voltage divider between -15V and GND, to give ourselves -5V.  We used the back side of the voltage test points (where you can check to make sure that you're actually getting DC voltage on the board), and used a 511Ohm and 1.02kOhm resistor as a voltage divider. 

Then we put a 3.32kOhm resistor in ~"parallel" to R124, which is the usual resistor just before the negative input of the op amp.  Our -5V goes to our new resistor, and should, at the output, give us a +5V offset. 

Sadly, when we measure the actual output we get, it's only +2.3V.  Sadface.

We went ahead and plugged the servo out into the PZT driver anyway, since we had previously seen that the fluctuation when the mode cleaner is locked was much less than a volt, so we won't run into any problems with the PZT driver running into the lower limit (it only goes 0-10V).

Suresh has discovered that the op amp that we're looking at, U40 on the schematic, is an AD829, which has an input impedance of a measely 13kOhm.  So maybe the 3.32kOhm resistors that we are using (because that's what had already been there) are too large.  Perhaps tomorrow I'll switch all 3 resistors (R119, R124, and our new one) to something more like 1kOhm.  But right now, the MC is locked, and I'm super hungry, and it's time for some arm locking action.

I've attached the schematic.  The stuff that we fitzed with was all on page 8.

 

Attachment 1: D040180-B.pdf
D040180-B.pdf D040180-B.pdf D040180-B.pdf D040180-B.pdf D040180-B.pdf D040180-B.pdf D040180-B.pdf D040180-B.pdf
  4140   Wed Jan 12 01:38:52 2011 KojiUpdateIOOPut MC PZT offset onto MC board, instead of on awkward cart

I can not think of any reason that the input impedance of 13kOhm between the pos/neg inputs produces such a big change at the output. In any case, the differential voltage between the pos/neg inputs produces a big output. But the output was just 2V or so. This means that the neg input was actually about zero volt. This ensures the principle of the summing amplifier of this kind.

Because the input impedance of the summing node (the additional resister you put at the negative input) is not infinity, the voltage divider is not perfect and shows 10% reduction of the voltge (i.e. the output will have +4.5V offset instead of +5V). But still it is not enough to explain such a small output like 2.3V.

What I can think of is that the earlier stages somehow have the offset for some reason. Anyway, it is difficult to guess the true reason unless all of the nodes around the last stage are checked with the multimeters.

At least, we can remove the voltage divider and instead put a 10k between -15V and the neg input in order to impose +5V offset at the output. This costs 1.5mA instead of 10mA.

Quote:

[Larisa and Jenne]

We wanted to get rid of the awkward cart that was sitting behind the 1Y1 rack.  This cart was supplying a +5V offset to the PZT driver, so that we could use the MC length signal to feedback to lock the laser to the MC cavity.  Instead, we put the offset on the last op amp before the servo out on the Mc Servo Board.  Because we wanted +5V, but the board only had +5, +15, -15V as options, and we needed -5 to add just before the op amp (U40 in the schematic), because the op amp is using regular negative feedback, we made a little voltage divider between -15V and GND, to give ourselves -5V.  We used the back side of the voltage test points (where you can check to make sure that you're actually getting DC voltage on the board), and used a 511Ohm and 1.02kOhm resistor as a voltage divider. 

Then we put a 3.32kOhm resistor in ~"parallel" to R124, which is the usual resistor just before the negative input of the op amp.  Our -5V goes to our new resistor, and should, at the output, give us a +5V offset. 

Sadly, when we measure the actual output we get, it's only +2.3V.  Sadface.

We went ahead and plugged the servo out into the PZT driver anyway, since we had previously seen that the fluctuation when the mode cleaner is locked was much less than a volt, so we won't run into any problems with the PZT driver running into the lower limit (it only goes 0-10V).

Suresh has discovered that the op amp that we're looking at, U40 on the schematic, is an AD829, which has an input impedance of a measely 13kOhm.  So maybe the 3.32kOhm resistors that we are using (because that's what had already been there) are too large.  Perhaps tomorrow I'll switch all 3 resistors (R119, R124, and our new one) to something more like 1kOhm.  But right now, the MC is locked, and I'm super hungry, and it's time for some arm locking action.

I've attached the schematic.  The stuff that we fitzed with was all on page 8.

 

 

  4145   Wed Jan 12 22:19:54 2011 KojiUpdateIOOMC flakiness solved

[Koji Suresh Kiwamu]

Suresh modified the MC board to have +5V offset at the output. (To be reported in the separated elog)

The MC lock has not been obtained at this point. An investigation revealed that there was very small (~5mVpp) PDH signal.

Kiwamu removed his triple resonant adapter and put the 50Ohm termination insted.
This restored the signal level normal although this changed the demodulation phase about 20deg.
We left the demodulation phase as it is because this is a temporary setup and the loss of the signal is not significant.

Now the MC is steadily locked with the single super boost.

  4147   Wed Jan 12 22:39:16 2011 SureshUpdateIOOPut MC PZT offset onto MC board, instead of on awkward cart

Quote:

I can not think of any reason that the input impedance of 13kOhm between the pos/neg inputs produces such a big change at the output. In any case, the differential voltage between the pos/neg inputs produces a big output. But the output was just 2V or so. This means that the neg input was actually about zero volt. This ensures the principle of the summing amplifier of this kind.

Because the input impedance of the summing node (the additional resister you put at the negative input) is not infinity, the voltage divider is not perfect and shows 10% reduction of the voltge (i.e. the output will have +4.5V offset instead of +5V). But still it is not enough to explain such a small output like 2.3V.

What I can think of is that the earlier stages somehow have the offset for some reason. Anyway, it is difficult to guess the true reason unless all of the nodes around the last stage are checked with the multimeters.

At least, we can remove the voltage divider and instead put a 10k between -15V and the neg input in order to impose +5V offset at the output. This costs 1.5mA instead of 10mA.

Quote:

[Larisa and Jenne]

We wanted to get rid of the awkward cart that was sitting behind the 1Y1 rack.  This cart was supplying a +5V offset to the PZT driver, so that we could use the MC length signal to feedback to lock the laser to the MC cavity.  Instead, we put the offset on the last op amp before the servo out on the Mc Servo Board.  Because we wanted +5V, but the board only had +5, +15, -15V as options, and we needed -5 to add just before the op amp (U40 in the schematic), because the op amp is using regular negative feedback, we made a little voltage divider between -15V and GND, to give ourselves -5V.  We used the back side of the voltage test points (where you can check to make sure that you're actually getting DC voltage on the board), and used a 511Ohm and 1.02kOhm resistor as a voltage divider. 

Then we put a 3.32kOhm resistor in ~"parallel" to R124, which is the usual resistor just before the negative input of the op amp.  Our -5V goes to our new resistor, and should, at the output, give us a +5V offset. 

Sadly, when we measure the actual output we get, it's only +2.3V.  Sadface.

We went ahead and plugged the servo out into the PZT driver anyway, since we had previously seen that the fluctuation when the mode cleaner is locked was much less than a volt, so we won't run into any problems with the PZT driver running into the lower limit (it only goes 0-10V).

Suresh has discovered that the op amp that we're looking at, U40 on the schematic, is an AD829, which has an input impedance of a measely 13kOhm.  So maybe the 3.32kOhm resistors that we are using (because that's what had already been there) are too large.  Perhaps tomorrow I'll switch all 3 resistors (R119, R124, and our new one) to something more like 1kOhm.  But right now, the MC is locked, and I'm super hungry, and it's time for some arm locking action.

I've attached the schematic.  The stuff that we fitzed with was all on page 8.

 

 

 

[Koji, Suresh]

    We looked at the board and found that the resistor R119 (the feed back) is 1.65k instead of the 3.32k that was needed for unity gain.  The gain has been intentionally reduced to 0.5 so that output range would be close to the 0-10V that is required at the input range of the PZT driver which follows.   A note to this effect is already present in the D040180-B, page 8.

    The voltage divider with 1k and 0.5k provides 4.5V (ref Koji's note above) this provides 2.25V at the output due to the gain of 0.5.  To get to the original goal of introducing a 5V offset on the output, we introduced the modification shown in the  'D040180-B with 5V offset.pdf' uploaded below.  Please check page 8, the changes are marked in red.  We checked to make sure that the output is 5V when the input is disconnected. 

D040180-B_with_5V_offset.pdf

The PCB pics at the end are also attached.  The 4.99k resistor is glued onto the PCB with epoxy and placed as close to the opamp possible.

Attachment 1: P1120508.JPG
P1120508.JPG
Attachment 2: P1120509.JPG
P1120509.JPG
  4148   Thu Jan 13 03:00:01 2011 JenneUpdateIOOWFS shenanigans

My goal this afternoon was to measure the quantum efficiency of the MC WFS.  In the process of doing this, I discovered that when I reverted a change in the MCWFS path (see elog 4107 re: this change), I had not checked the max power going to the WFS when the MC unlocks.

Current status:

MC locks (is locked now).  No light going to WFS at all (to prevent MC WFS french-fry action).  Quantum Efficiency measured.

The Full Story:

Power to WFS:

Rana asked me to check out the quantum efficiency of the WFS, so that we can consider using them for aLIGO.  This involves measuring the power incident on the PDs, and while doing so, I noticed that WFS1 had ~160mW incident and WFS2 had ~240mW incident while the mode cleaner was unlocked.  This is bad, since they should have a max of ~10mW ever.  Not that 200mW is going to destroy the PD immediately, but rather the current out, with the 100V bias that the WFS have, is a truckload of power, and the WFS were in fact getting pretty warm to the touch.  Not so good, if things start melting / failing due to extended exposure to too much heat.

The reason so much power was going to the WFS is that it looks like Yuta/Koji et. al., when trying to use the WFS as a MC1 oplev, changed out 2 of the beam splitters in the MC WFS / MC Refl path, not just one.  Or, we've just been crispy-frying our WFS for a long time.  Who knows?  If it is option A, then it wasn't elogged.  The elog 3878 re: BS changeout only mentions the change of one BS.

Since the MC Refl path has a little more than ~1W of power when the MC is unlocked, and the first BS (which was reverted in elog 4107) is a 10% reflector, so ~100mW goes to the MC Refl PD, and ~900mW goes to the MC WFS path.  In front of a Black Hole beam dump was sitting a BS1-33, so we were getting ~300mW reflected to be split between the 2 WFS, and ~600mW dumped.  The new plan is to put a W2 window in place of this BS1-33, so that we get hopefully something like 0.1% reflected toward the WFS, and everything else will be dumped.  I could not find a W2-45S (everything else is S, so this needs to be S as well).  I found a bunch of W2-0deg, and a few W2-45P.  Does anyone have a secret stash of W2-45S's???  To avoid any more excessive heat just in case, for tonight, I have just left out this mirror entirely, so the whole MC WFS beam is dumped in the Black Hole.  The WFS also have aluminum beam dumps in front of them to prevent light going in.  None of this affects the MC Refl path, so the MC can still lock nice and happily.

Quantum Efficiency Measurement:

I refer to Jamie's LHO elog for the equation governing quantum efficiency of photodiodes: LHO 2 Sept 2009

The information I gathered for each quadrant of each WFS was: [1] Power of light incident on PD (measured with the Ophir power meter), [2] Power of light reflected off the PD (since this light doesn't get absorbed, it's not part of the QE), and [3] the photo current output by the PD (To get this, I measured the voltage out of the DC path that is meant to go to EPICS, and backed out what the current is, based on the schematic, attached). 

I found a nifty 25 pin Dsub breakout board, that you can put in like a cable extension, and you can use clip doodles to look at any of the pins on the cable.  Since this was a PD activity, and I didn't want to die from the 100V bias, I covered all of the pins I wasn't going to use with electrical tape.  After turning down the 100V Kepco that supplies the WFS bias, I stuck the breakout board in the WFS.  Since I was able to measure the voltage at the output of the DC path, if you look at the schematic, I needed to divide this by 2 (to undo the 2nd op amp's gain of 2), and then convert to current using the 499 Ohm resistor, R66 in the 1st DC path.  

I did all 4 quadrants of WFS1 using a 532nm laser pointer, just to make sure that I had my measurement procedure under control, since silicon PDs are nice and sensitive to green.  I got an average QE of ~65% for green, which is not too far off the spec of 70% that Suresh found.

I then did all 8 WFS quadrants using the 1064nm CrystaLaser #2, and got an average QE of ~62% for 1064 (58% if I exclude 2 of the quadrants....see below).  Statistics, and whatever else is needed can wait for tomorrow.

Problem with 2 quadrants of WFS2?

While doing all of this, I noticed that quadrants 3 and 4 of WFS2 seem to be different than all the rest.  You can see this on the MEDM screens in that all 6 other quadrants, when there is no light, read about -0.2, whereas the 2 funny quadrants read positive values.  This might be okay, because they both respond to light, in some kind of proportion to the amount of light on them.  I ended up getting QE of ~72% for both of these quadrants, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense since the spec for green is 70%, and silicon is supposed to be less good for infrared than green.  Anyhow, we'll have to meditate on this.  We should also see if we have a trend, to check how long they have been funny.

Attachment 1: D990249-B-1_MCWFS_schematic.pdf
D990249-B-1_MCWFS_schematic.pdf
  4149   Thu Jan 13 12:56:57 2011 ranaUpdateIOOWFS shenanigans

Actually, I just found out that there are different flavors of 'YAG-444'.

There's a YAG-444AH and also a YAG-444-4AH. I'm not sure which one we have or even which is better. The diode's internal resistance is not listed.

They also say explicitly that he 'YAG Enhancement' is just using thicker Silicon. Since the absorption of 1064 nm light in Silicon is very small, most of the light just goes in and then comes back out without depositing much of the power.

Attachment 1: PerkinElmerQPDs.pdf
PerkinElmerQPDs.pdf PerkinElmerQPDs.pdf
  4222   Fri Jan 28 13:07:31 2011 JenneUpdateIOOBeam is back on the WFS

The MC WFS have had beam dumps in front of them for the past ~2 weeks, until I could find the appropriate optic to put in the WFS path, to avoid melting the WFS' electronics. 

Koji noted that Steve had a W2-45S in a secret stash near his desk (which Steve later had put into the regular optics storage shelves down the Yarm), so I used that in front of the black hole beam dump on the AS table.  Now the beam is ~1W reflected from the unlocked mode cleaner, and ~100mW goes to the MC REFL PD.  The other 900mW now goes to this W2, and only ~5mW is reflected toward the MC WFS.  Most of the 900mW is transmitted through the window and dumped in the black hole.  There is a ghost beam which is reflected off the back surface of the wedged window, and I have blocked this beam using a black anodized aluminum dump.  I will likely change this to a razor dump if space on the table allows.  I have aligned the beam onto WFS1 and WFS2, although I did not re-align the mode cleaner first, so this alignment of the WFS will likely need to be redone. 

WFS1 has about 2mW incident, and WFS2 has about 3mW incident, when the mode cleaner is unlocked.  I have not yet measured the power incident when the MC is locked, although obviously it will be much smaller.

Except that I might temporarily remove one of the WFS for more quantum efficiency measurements later today, the WFS should be ready to turn back on for alignment stabilization of the mode cleaner. 

Quote:

My goal this afternoon was to measure the quantum efficiency of the MC WFS.  In the process of doing this, I discovered that when I reverted a change in the MCWFS path (see elog 4107 re: this change), I had not checked the max power going to the WFS when the MC unlocks.

Current status:

MC locks (is locked now).  No light going to WFS at all (to prevent MC WFS french-fry action).  Quantum Efficiency measured.

The Full Story:

Power to WFS:

Rana asked me to check out the quantum efficiency of the WFS, so that we can consider using them for aLIGO.  This involves measuring the power incident on the PDs, and while doing so, I noticed that WFS1 had ~160mW incident and WFS2 had ~240mW incident while the mode cleaner was unlocked.  This is bad, since they should have a max of ~10mW ever.  Not that 200mW is going to destroy the PD immediately, but rather the current out, with the 100V bias that the WFS have, is a truckload of power, and the WFS were in fact getting pretty warm to the touch.  Not so good, if things start melting / failing due to extended exposure to too much heat.

The reason so much power was going to the WFS is that it looks like Yuta/Koji et. al., when trying to use the WFS as a MC1 oplev, changed out 2 of the beam splitters in the MC WFS / MC Refl path, not just one.  Or, we've just been crispy-frying our WFS for a long time.  Who knows?  If it is option A, then it wasn't elogged.  The elog 3878 re: BS changeout only mentions the change of one BS.

Since the MC Refl path has a little more than ~1W of power when the MC is unlocked, and the first BS (which was reverted in elog 4107) is a 10% reflector, so ~100mW goes to the MC Refl PD, and ~900mW goes to the MC WFS path.  In front of a Black Hole beam dump was sitting a BS1-33, so we were getting ~300mW reflected to be split between the 2 WFS, and ~600mW dumped.  The new plan is to put a W2 window in place of this BS1-33, so that we get hopefully something like 0.1% reflected toward the WFS, and everything else will be dumped.  I could not find a W2-45S (everything else is S, so this needs to be S as well).  I found a bunch of W2-0deg, and a few W2-45P.  Does anyone have a secret stash of W2-45S's???  To avoid any more excessive heat just in case, for tonight, I have just left out this mirror entirely, so the whole MC WFS beam is dumped in the Black Hole.  The WFS also have aluminum beam dumps in front of them to prevent light going in.  None of this affects the MC Refl path, so the MC can still lock nice and happily.

 

  4224   Fri Jan 28 18:19:21 2011 JenneUpdateIOOWFS2 has some kind of oil on it

Mystery solved!

I removed WFS2 from the AP table (after placing markers so I can put it back in ~the same place) so that I could take some reflectivity as a function of angle measurements for aLIGO WFS design stuff.

I was dismayed to discover, upon glancing at the diode itself, that half of the diode is covered with some kind of oil!!!.  The oil is mostly confined to quadrants 3 and 4, which explains the confusion with their quantum efficiency measurements, as well as why the readback values on the MEDM WFS Head screen for WFS2 don't really make sense. 

The WFS QPD has a piece of glass protecting the diode itself, and the oil seems to be on top of the glass, so I'm going to use some lens tissue and clean it off.

Pre-cleaning photos are on Picasa.

Update:  I tried scrubbing the glass with a Q-tip soaked with Iso, and then one soaked in methanol.  Both of these failed to make any improvement.  I am suspicious that perhaps whatever it is, is underneath the glass, but I don't know.  Rana suggested replacing the diode, if we have spares / when we order some spares.

Oily_WFS2.jpg

Quote:

Problem with 2 quadrants of WFS2?

While doing all of this, I noticed that quadrants 3 and 4 of WFS2 seem to be different than all the rest.  You can see this on the MEDM screens in that all 6 other quadrants, when there is no light, read about -0.2, whereas the 2 funny quadrants read positive values.  This might be okay, because they both respond to light, in some kind of proportion to the amount of light on them.  I ended up getting QE of ~72% for both of these quadrants, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense since the spec for green is 70%, and silicon is supposed to be less good for infrared than green.  Anyhow, we'll have to meditate on this.  We should also see if we have a trend, to check how long they have been funny.

 

  4289   Mon Feb 14 15:59:49 2011 JenneUpdateIOOWFS quantum efficiency as a function of angle

[Larisa and Jenne]

A few weeks ago (on the 28th of January) I had tried to measure the quantum efficiency of one quadrant of the WFS as a function of angle.  However, Rana pointed out that I was a spaz, and had forgotten to put a lens in front of the laser.  Why I forgot when doing the measurement as a function of angle, but I had remembered while doing it at normal incidence for all of the quadrants, who knows?

Anyhow, Larisa measured the quantum efficiency today.  She used WFS2, quadrant 1 (totally oil-free), since that was easier than WFS1.  She also used the Jenne Laser (with a lens), since it's more stable and less crappy than the CrystaLasers.  We put a 50 Ohm terminator on the RF input of the Jenne Laser, since we weren't doing a swept sine measurement.  Again, the Ophir power meter was used to measure the power incident on the diode, and the reflected power, and the difference between them was used as the power absorbed by the diode for the quantum efficiency measurement.  A voltmeter was used to measure the output of the diode, and then converted to current as in the quote below. 

Still on the to-do list:  Replace the WFS2 diode.  See if we have one around, otherwise order one.  Align beams onto WFS so we can turn on the servo.

QE = (h*c)/(lambda*e) * (I/P)

Where I = (Volts from Pin1 to GND)/2 /500ohms
P = Power from laser - power reflected from diode.
h, c, e are the natural constants, and lambda is 1064nm.
Also, I/P = Responsivity


Larissa is going to put her data and plots into the elog shortly....

Quote:

Quantum Efficiency Measurement:

I refer to Jamie's LHO elog for the equation governing quantum efficiency of photodiodes: LHO 2 Sept 2009

The information I gathered for each quadrant of each WFS was: [1] Power of light incident on PD (measured with the Ophir power meter), [2] Power of light reflected off the PD (since this light doesn't get absorbed, it's not part of the QE), and [3] the photo current output by the PD (To get this, I measured the voltage out of the DC path that is meant to go to EPICS, and backed out what the current is, based on the schematic, attached). 

I found a nifty 25 pin Dsub breakout board, that you can put in like a cable extension, and you can use clip doodles to look at any of the pins on the cable.  Since this was a PD activity, and I didn't want to die from the 100V bias, I covered all of the pins I wasn't going to use with electrical tape.  After turning down the 100V Kepco that supplies the WFS bias, I stuck the breakout board in the WFS.  Since I was able to measure the voltage at the output of the DC path, if you look at the schematic, I needed to divide this by 2 (to undo the 2nd op amp's gain of 2), and then convert to current using the 499 Ohm resistor, R66 in the 1st DC path.  

I did all 4 quadrants of WFS1 using a 532nm laser pointer, just to make sure that I had my measurement procedure under control, since silicon PDs are nice and sensitive to green.  I got an average QE of ~65% for green, which is not too far off the spec of 70% that Suresh found.

I then did all 8 WFS quadrants using the 1064nm CrystaLaser #2, and got an average QE of ~62% for 1064 (58% if I exclude 2 of the quadrants....see below).  Statistics, and whatever else is needed can wait for tomorrow.

Problem with 2 quadrants of WFS2?

While doing all of this, I noticed that quadrants 3 and 4 of WFS2 seem to be different than all the rest.  You can see this on the MEDM screens in that all 6 other quadrants, when there is no light, read about -0.2, whereas the 2 funny quadrants read positive values.  This might be okay, because they both respond to light, in some kind of proportion to the amount of light on them.  I ended up getting QE of ~72% for both of these quadrants, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense since the spec for green is 70%, and silicon is supposed to be less good for infrared than green.  Anyhow, we'll have to meditate on this.  We should also see if we have a trend, to check how long they have been funny.

 

  4303   Tue Feb 15 17:48:22 2011 JenneUpdateIOOMode Cleaner resonating again

[Valera, Jenne]

After Steve and Valera switched out the PMC, the Mode Cleaner resonance needed to be brought back.  We spent some time playing with the 2 steering mirrors directly after the PMC, to get the beam through the EOM, and to achieve flashing in the MC.  Valera then adjusted those 2 steering mirrors to minimize MC_REFL_DC.  I did a little bit more, and it's kind of close now, but we're only at ~half normal transmitted power.  Since the 2 steering mirrors after the PMC are so close together, the beam alignment is pretty sensitive to even small touches.  So it's probably time to move on to using the last zigzag steering mirrors on the PSL table, since they're farther apart. 

I have to head out for a little while, but I'll be back in a few hours. Kiwamu said he might continue the alignment into the MC, if he needs the IFO.  Also, we should measure the power before and after the EOM, just to confirm that we're getting through it optimally.  The beam looks good after the EOM, and the MC is resonating, so it should be fine, but it can't hurt to check.

  4304   Tue Feb 15 21:45:08 2011 ranaUpdateIOOThe MC TRANS Story

I forgot to elog that last night I touched up the MC2_TRANS QPD setup. I was perplexed by it always going out of alignment so I investigated.

I found that the fork clamp for the steering mirror for the QPD was not tightened. Shame. The beam diameter was equal to the aperture of the QPD and was clipping. Double shame.

I added a lens and tightened the mounts and centered the beam at ~9 PM yesterday. You can see in the attached trend that the measured power went up by ~10%.

Later, there's a big gap where Valera and Steve change out the PMC. You can see that the MC REFL voltage goes from 4.5 V to 5 V (10% increase in the power delivered to the MC).

There's essentially no change in the total transmission - this indicates that although the PMC transmission is now higher by ~10%, the matching to the IMC has been degraded by an equivalent fraction.

Needs some mode matching work.

Attachment 1: a.png
a.png
  4305   Wed Feb 16 01:03:59 2011 JenneUpdateIOOMC alignment work

So.... Kiwamu and I were concerned (still a little concerned) that ETMY is not damping as nicely as it should be.  (It's fine, but the UL rms is ~5, rather than ~1 or less. BURT restores by Kiwamu didn't change anything.) Anyhow, I was heading out to push the annoying ribbon cables more firmly into the satellite adapter board things that are tied to the racks in various places (The back of 1X5 for the corner optics and the end station racks for the ETMs).  The point was to push in the ETMY one, but while I was out in the lab and thinking about it, I also gave all of the corner connectors (MC1, MC2, MC3, ITMx, ITMY, BS, PRM, SRM) a firm push. 

Kiwamu noticed that when I did this, the Mode Cleaner alignment got a little bit worse, as if the connection to the satellite adapter boards hadn't been great, I pushed the connectors in and the connection got better, but we also got a bit of a DC offset in the MC alignment.  Anyhow, the MC_TRANS power went down by ~2, to about the place it had been before Kiwamu adjusted the position of the lens in between the zigzag mirrors.  (I don't know if Kiwamu elogged it earlier, but he scooted the lens a teensy bit closer in the optical path to the Mode Cleaner). 

To counteract this loss in MC transmitted power as a result of my connector actions, I went back to the PSL table and fiddled with the zigzag steering mirrors that steer the beam from the PSL table over to the mode cleaner.  I got it a little better, but it's still not perfect.

Kiwamu has noted that to improve the mode matching into the Mode Cleaner with the new PMC in place, we might have to move the lens which is currently between the zigzag steering mirrors, and put it after the second mirror (so in between the last steering mirror and the pickoff window that sends a piece of the beam over to PSL_POS and PSL_ANG).  This will make the waist between MC1 and MC3 tighter. 

Moral of the story:  To improve IMC mode matching we need to move the last lens closer in the optical path to the mode cleaner waist. Twiddle with zigzag steering mirrors to optimize.

  4307   Wed Feb 16 10:35:40 2011 Larisa ThorneUpdateIOOWFS quantum efficiency as a function of angle

 Here is the followup on Jenne's February 14th, 2011 update on the quantum efficiency measurements of WFS2.

http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/4289

 

Attached is a PDF of my calculations, based on measurements ranging between 0-25 degrees in 5 degree increments.

The graph at the bottom plots these angles versus the calculated quantum efficiency at each point and the responsivity. Since quantum efficiency and responsivity only differ by a factor of some natural constants (lamda, e, h, c), I used a graph with two vertical axes, because the points would be plotted at essentially the same location if quantum efficiency (%)  and responsivity (Amps/Watts) were graphed on two separate plots.

The calculated values for quantum efficiency based on my measurements (labelled "ExpAverage") were pretty close to what Jenne had calculated in earlier attempts, which was around 60%. Just to test, I compared my quantum efficiency result against the calculation of quantum efficiency using the responsivity value for silicon, 0.5 Amps/Watt, which is labelled as "Spec". Comparison of "ExpAverage" and "Spec" shows that they differ by only about 2%, so I conclude that the theoretical quantum efficiency calculated using a given responsivity agrees with my measurement-based experimental result.

Attachment 1: QEcalcs.pdf
QEcalcs.pdf
ELOG V3.1.3-