Those 'peaks' for the oscillations seem ridiculously broad.  I think you should look again, really quickly, with smaller bandwidth at, say, the 2kHz oscillation, to make sure it looks reasonable.

 I did just this, and it looks okay to me:

 I tried shifting the notch frequencies on the D000186-revision D board given to me by Koji. The existing notches were at ~16 kHz and ~32 kHz. I shifted these to notches at ~64 kHz and ~128 kHz by effecting the following changes (see schematic for component numbering) on Channel 8 of the board-I decided to check things out on one channel before implementing changes en masse:

• R6 and R7 replaced with 511 ohm smts
• R8 replaced with 255 ohm smt
• R14 and R15 replaced with 549 ohm smts
• R16 replaced with 274 ohm smt

=> New notches should be at 66.3 kHz and 131.7 kHz.

I then measured the frequency response of the modified channel using the SR785, and compared it to the response I had measured before switching out the resistors. The SR785 only goes up to 102 kHz, so I cannot verify the 128 kHz notch at this point. The position of the 64 kHz notch looks alright though. I think I will go ahead and switch out the remaining resistors in the evening.

Note 1: These plots are just raw data from the SR785, I have not tried to do any sort of fitting to poles and zeros. I will do this at some point. 

Note 2: All these smts were taken from Downs. Todd helped me locate the non-standard value resistors. I also got a plastic 25-pin D-sub backshells (the spares are in the rack), with which I have fashioned the required custom ribbon cables (40 pin IDC to 25 pin D-sub with twisted ribbon wire, and a short, 10pin IDC to 10pin IDC with straight ribbon wire).

Summary 

I have been working on setting up a QPD which can eventually be used to calibrate the PZT, and also orient the PZT in the mount such that the pitch and yaw axes roughly coincide with the vertical and horizontal.

The calibration constants have been determined to be:

X-axis: -3.69 V/mm

Y-axis: -3.70V/mm

Methodology:

I initially tried using the QPD setup left behind by Chloe near MC2, but this turned out to be dysfunctional. On opening out the QPD, I found that the internal circuitry had some issues (shorts in the wrong places etc.) Fortunately, Steve was able to hand me another working unit. For future reference, there are a bunch of old QPDs which I assume are functional in the cabinet marked 'Old PDs' along the Y-arm. 

I then made a circuit with which to read out the X and Y coordinates from the QPD. This consists of 4 buffer amplifiers (one for each quadrant), and 3 summing amplifiers (outputs are A+B+C+D = sum, B+C-A-D = Y-coordinate, and A+B-C-D = X-coordinate) that take the appropriate linear combinations of the 4 quadrants to output a voltage that may be calibrated against displacement of the QPD. 

The output from the QPD is via a sub-D connector on the side of the pomona box enclosing the PD and the circuitry, with 7 pins- 3 for power lines, and 4 for the 4 quadrants of the QPD. It was a little tricky to figure the pin-out for this connector, as there was no way to use continuity checking to map the pins to quadrants. Therefore, I used a laser pointer, and some trial and error (i.e. shine the light on a given quadrant, and check the sign of the X and Y voltages on an oscilloscope) to map the pin outs. Steve tells me that these QPDs were made long before colour code standardisation, but I note here the pin outs in any case for future reference (the quadrant orientations are w.r.t the QPD held with all the circuitry above it, with the active surface facing me):

Red= +Vcc

Black= -Vcc

Green = GND

Blue = Upper Left Quadrant

White = Upper Right Quadrant

Purple = Lower Left Quadrant

Grey = Lower Right Quadrant

Chloe had noted that there was some issue with the voltage regulators on her circuit (overheating) but I suspect this may have been due to the faulty internal circuitry. Also, she had used 12 V regulators. I checked the datasheet of the QPD, Op-Amp LF347 (inside the pomona box) and the OP27s on my circuit, and found that they all had absolute maximum ratings above 18V, so I used 15V voltage regulators. The overheating problem was not a problem anymore.

I then proceeded to arrange a set up for the calibration (initially on the optical bench next to MC2, but now relocated to the SP table, and a cart adjacent to it). It consists of the following:

• He-Ne laser source
• Y2 2-inch mirror (AR and HR coated for 532nm) glued onto the PZT and mounted on a machined Newport U100P  - see this elog for details.
• QPD mounted on a translational stage whose micrometers are calibrated in tenths of an inch (in the plots I have scaled this to mm)
• A neutral density filter (ND = 2.0) which I added so that the QPD amplifier output did not saturate. I considered using a lens as well to reduce the spot size on the QPD but found that after adding the ND filter, it was reasonably small.
• High-voltage power supply (on cart)
• Two SR power supplies (for the PZT driver board and my QPD amplifier
• SR function generator
• Laser power source
• Two oscilloscopes
• Breadboard holding my QPD amplifier circuit

Having set everything up and having done the coarse alignment using the mirror mount, I proceeded to calibrate the X and Y axes of the QPD using the translational stage. The steps I followed were:

• Centre spot on QPD using coarse adjustment on the mirror mount: I gauged this by monitoring the X and Y voltage outputs on an oscilloscope, and adjusted things till both these went to zero.
• Used the tilt knob on the translational stage to roughly decouple the X and Y motion of the QPD.
• Kept Y-coordinate fixed, took the X-coordinate to close to its maximum value (I gauged this by checking where the voltage stopped changing appreciably for changes in the QPD position.
• Using this as a starting point, I moved the QPD through its X range, noting voltage output of the X-coordinate (and also the Y) on an oscilloscope.
• Repeated the procedure for the Y-coordinate.
• Analysis follows largely what was done in these elogs. I am attaching the script I used to fit an error function to the datapoints, this is something MATLAB should seriously include in cftool (note that it is VERY sensitive to the initial guess. I had to do quite a bit of guessing).

The plots are attached, from which the calibration values cited above are deduced. The linear fits for the orthogonal axis were done using cftool. There is some residual coupling between the X and Y motions of the QPD, but I think this os okay my purposes. 

My next step would be to first tweak the orientation of the PZT in the mount while applying a small excitation to it in order to decouple the pitch and yaw motion as best as possible. Once this is done, I can go ahead and calibrate the angular motion of the PZT in mrad/V.

                                                            X-Axis                                                                                                                                Y-axis                                                

 Yesterday, I mounted the first PZT in one of the modified mounts, and then glued a 2-inch Y2 mirror on it using superglue.

Details:

-The mirror is a 2-inch, Y2 mirror with HR and AR coatings for 532 nm light.

-The AR side of the mirror had someone's fingerprint on it, which I removed (under Manasa's guidance) using tweezers wrapped in lens cleaning paper, and methanol.

-Before gluing the mirror, I had to assemble the modified mount. Manasa handed over the remaining parts of the mounts (which are now in my newly acquired tupperware box along with all the other Piezo-related hardware). I took the one labelled A, and assembled the holder part. I then used one of the new mounts (2.5 inches, these are with the clean mounts in a cardboard box in the cupboard holding the green optics along the Y-arm) and mounted the holder on it. 

-Having assembled the mount, I inserted the piezo tip-tilt into the holder. The wedge that the machine shop supplied is useful (indeed required) for this. 

-I then cleaned the AR surface of the mirror and the top-surface of the tip-tilt. 

-The gluing was done using superglue which Steve got from the bookstore (the remaining tube is in the small fridge). We may glue the other mirror using epoxy. I placed 4 small drops of superglue on the tip-tilt's top surface, placed the mirror with its AR face in contact with the piezo, and applied some pressure for a short while until the glue spread out fairly evenly. I then left the whole setup to dry for about half an hour.

-Steve suggested using a reference piece (I used two small bolts) to verify when the glue had dried.

-Finally, I attached the whole assembly to a base.

Here it is in action in my calibration setup (note that it has not been oriented yet. i.e. the two perpendicular axes of the piezo are for the time being arbitrarily oriented. And maybe the spreading of the glue wasn't that even after all...):

Sidenote:

Yesterday, while setting stuff up, I tested the piezo with a 0.05 Hz, 10Vpp input from the SR function generator just to see if it works, and also to verify that I had set up all my electronics correctly. Though the QPD was at this point calibrated, I did observe periodic motion of both the X and Y outputs of my QPD amp! Next step- calibration... 

 I carried some further modifications and tests to the AI Board. Details and observations here:

• I switched out the resistors for all the remaining 7 channels, using the same substitutions as detailed here. 
• I then verified that the modified transfer function for all 8 channels using the SR785. I did not collect data for all the channels as netgpib was taking ages, but I did use the cursor on the screen to verify the position of the first notch at ~64 kHz. I noticed that all the channels did not have the lowest point of the notch at the same frequency. Rather, (at least on the screen), this varied between 63kHz and 67kHz. I would put this down to component tolerance. Assuming 5% tolerance shifts the theoretical notch frequency from 66268 Hz to 63112 Hz. 
• After verifying the transfer functions, I went to 1Y4 and plugged the AI board into the eurocrate. I then connected the input of the AI board to the DAC output using my custom ribbon cable. Next, I used the excitation points set up earlier to send a 1 kHz, 32000 counts amplitude sine wave through the channels one at a time. I monitored the output using an oscilloscope and the LEMO monitor channels on the front panel of the board.
• I found that the single-ended output of the AI board swings between -10 V and 10 V (w.r.t ground, oscilloscope trace attached). This is good because this is the range of input voltage to the PZT driver boards required to realize the full actuation range of the PZTs.
• I also verified that the connections on the custom ribbon cable are correct (channel map was right) and that there were no accidental shorts (I checked other channels' output monitor while driving one channel). 

I think the board is okay to be used now.

 I have managed to orient the PZT in the mount such that its axes are approximately aligned with the vertical and the horizontal. 

In the process, I discovered that the 4 screws on the back face of the PZT correspond to the location of the piezoelectric stacks beneath the tip-tilt platform. The PZT can therefore be oriented during the mounting process itself, before the mirror is glued onto the tip-tilt platform.

In order to verify that the pitch and yaw motion of the mirror have indeed been roughly decoupled, I centred the spot on the QPD, fed to the 'pitch' input of the PZT driver board (connected to channel 1 of the PZT) a 10 Vpp, 1 Hz sine wave from the SR function generator (having turned all the other relevant electronics, HV power supply etc ON. The oscilloscope trace of the output observed on the QPD is shown. The residual fluctuation in the Y-coordinate (blue trace) is I believe due to the tilt in the QPD, and also due to the fact that the PZT isnt perfectly oriented in the mount.

It looks like moving the tip-tilt through its full range of motion takes us outside the linear regime of the QPD calibration. I may have to rethink the calibration setup to keep the spot on the QPD in the linear range if the full range is to be calibrated, possibly decrease the distance between the mirror and the QPD. Also, in the current orientation, CH1 on the PZT controls YAW motion, while CH2 controls pitch.

Oscilloscope Trace:

Yellow: X-coordinate

Blue: Y-coordinate

I mounted the second PZT in a modified mount, and then glued a 1-inch Y2 mirror on it using superglue.

 Details:

-The mirror is a Laseroptik 1-inch, Y2 mirror with HR and AR coatings for 532 nm light.

-The procedure for mounting the mirror was the same as detailed in elog 8874. This time, I tried to orient the Piezo such that the four screws on the back face coincided with the horizontal and vertical axes, as this appeared to (somewhat) decouple the pitch and yaw motion of the tip-tilt on the first PZT.

-One thing I forgot to mention in the earlier elog: it is best to assemble the mount fully before inserting the tip-tilt into it and gluing the mirror to the tip-tilt. In particular, the stand should be screwed onto the mount before inserting the tip-tilt into the holder, as once it is in, it will block the hole through which one can screw the stand onto the mount. 

 I recalibrated the QPD today as I had shifted its position a little. I then identified the linear range of the QPD and performed a preliminary calibration of the Piezo tip-tilt within this range.

Details:

-I recalibrated the QPD as I had shifted it around a little in order to see if I could move it to a position such that I could get the full dynamic range of the piezo tilt within the linear regime of the QPD. This proved difficult because there are two reflections from the mirror (seeing as it is AR coated for 532nm and I am using a red laser). At a larger separation, these diverge and the stray spot does not bother me. But it does become a problem when I move the QPD closer to the mirror (in an effort to cut down the range in which the spot on the QPD moves). In any case, I had moved the QPD till it was practically touching the mirror, and even then, could not get the spot motion over the full range of the PZTs motion to stay within the QPD's linear regime (as verified by applying a 20Vpp 1Hz sine wave to the PZT driver board and looking at the X and Y outputs from the QPD amplifier. 

-So I reverted to a configuration in which the QPD was ~40cm away from the mirror (measured using a measuring tape).

-The new calibration constants are as follows (see attached plots):

X-Coordinate: -3.43 V/mm
Y-Coordinate: -3.41 V/mm

-I then determined the linear range of the QPD to be when the output was in the range [-0.5V 0.5V]. 

-Next, at Jenne's suggestion, I decided to do a preliminary calibration of the PZT within this linear range. I used an SR function generator to supply an input voltage to the PZT driver board's input (connected to Channel 1 of the piezo). In order to supply a DC voltage, I set a DC offset, and set the signal amplitude to 0V. I then noted the X and Y-coordinate outputs, being sure to run through the input voltages in a cyclic fashion as one would expect some hysteresis. 

-I did this for both the pitch and yaw inputs, but have only superficially analysed the latter case (I will put up results for the former later). 

Comments:

-There is indeed some hysteresis, though the tilt seems to vary linearly with the input voltage. I have not yet included a calibration constant as I wish to perform this calibration over the entire dynamic range of the PZT. 

-There is some residual coupling between the pitch and yaw motion of the tip tilt, possibly due to its imperfect orientation in the holder (I have yet to account for the QPD's tilt).

-I have not included a graphical representation here, but there is significantly more pitch to yaw coupling when my input signal is applied to the tip-tilts pitch input (Channel 2), as compared to when it is input to channel 1. It is not clear to me why this is so.

-I have to think of some smart way of calibrating the PZT over its entire range of motion, keeping the spot in the QPD's linear regime throughout. One idea is to start at one extreme (say with input voltage -10V), and then perform the calibration, re-centering the spot to 0 on the QPD each time the QPD amp output reaches the end of its linear regime. I am not sure if this will work, but it is worth a shot. The other option is to replace the red laser with a green laser (from one of the laser pointers) in the hope that multiple reflections will be avoided from the mirror. Then I will have to recalibrate the set up, and see if I can get the QPD close enough to the mirror such that the spot stays within the linear regime of the QPD. More investigation needs to be done.

Plots:

QPD Calibration Plots:
            

Piezo tilt vs input voltage plots:

                                                          Yaw Tilt                                                                                                                                         Pitch Tilt

The spot on the IPANG QPD was checked. The spot is higher than the center and South side of the lens.
Some photos are found below.

The spot on the IPANG steering mirrors in the ETMY chamber was also checked.
It is clipped at the top of the steering mirror. (See attachment 4)
So basically the spot is about 1" above the center of the mirror.

 After the vent, the IPang spot position on the steering mirrors on the Yend table moved approximately by 1 inch down.

Inside the chamber, the spot position is in the center of the steering mirror. (difficult to take a picture because the PSL beam power has been reduced)

 Given that the green beam is to be used as the reference during the vent, it was decided to first test the PZT mounted mirrors at the X-endtable rather than the Y-endtable as originally planned. Yesterday, I prepared a second PZT mounted mirror, completed the full range calibration, and with Manasa, installed the mirrors on the X-endtable as mentioned in this elog. The calibration constants have been determined to be (see attached plots for aproximate range of actuation):

M1-pitch: 0.1106 mrad/V

M1-yaw: 0.143 mrad/V

M2-pitch: 0.197 mrad/V

M2-yaw: 0.27 mrad/V

Second 2-inch mirror glued to tip-tilt and mounted:

• The spot sizes on the steering mirrors at the X-end are fairly large, and so two 2-inch steering mirrors were required.
• The mirrors already glued to the PZTs were a CVI 2-inch and a Laseroptik 1-inch mirror.
• I prepared another Laseroptik 2-inch mirror (45 degree with HR and AR coatings for 532 nm) and glued it to a PZT mounted in a modified mount as before.
• Another important point regarding mounting the PZTs: there are two perforated rings (see attached picture) that run around the PZT about 1cm below the surface on which the mirror is to be glued. The PZT has to be pushed in through the mount till these are clear of the mount, or the actuation will not be as desired. In the first CVI 2-inch mirror, this was not the the case, which probably explains the unexpectedly large pitch-yaw coupling that was observed during the calibration [Thanks Manasa for pointing this out]. 

Full range calibration of PZT:

Having prepared the two steering mirrors, I calibrated them for the full range of input voltages, to get a rough idea of whether the tilt varied linearly and also the range of actuation. 

Methodology:

• The QPD setup described in my previous elogs was used for this calibration. 
• The linear range of the QPD was gauged to be while the output voltage lay between -0.5V and 0.5V. The calibration constants are as determined during the QPD calibration, details of which are here.
• In order to keep the spot always in the linear range of the QPD, I stared with an input signal of -10V or +10V (ie. one extreme), and moved both the X and Y micrometers on the translational stage till both these coordinates were at one end of the linear range (i.e -0.5V or 0.5V). I then increased the input voltage in steps of ~1V through the full range from -10V to +10V DC. The signal was applied using a SR function generator with the signal amplitude kept to 0, and a DC offset in the range -5V to 5V DC, which gave the desired input voltages to the PZT driver board (between -10V DC and 10V DC).
• When the output of the QPD amp reached the end of the linear regime (i.e 0.5V or -0.5V), I moved the appropriate micrometer dial on the translational stage to take it to the other end of the linear range, before continuing with the measurements. The distance moved was noted. 
• Both the X and Y coordinates were noted in order to investigate pitch-yaw coupling.

Analysis and remarks:

• The results of the calibration are presented in the plots below. 
• Though the measurement technique was crude (and maybe flawed because of a possible z-displacement while moving the translational stage), the calibration was meant to be rough, and I think the results obtained are satisfactory. 
• Fitting the data linearly is only an approximation, as there is evidence of hysteresis. Also, PZTs appear to have some drift, though I have not been able to quantify this (I did observe that the output of the QPD amp shifted by an amount equal to ~0.05mm while I left the setup standing for an hour or so).  
• The range of actuation seems to be different for the two PZTs, and also for each degree of freedom, though the measured data is consistent with the minimum range given in the datasheet (3.5 mrad for input voltages in the range -20V to 120V DC). 

PZT Calibration Plots

The circles are datapoints for the degree of freedom to which the input is applied, while the 'x's are for the other degree of freedom. Different colours correspond to data measured with the position of the translational stage at some value.

                                            M1 Pitch                                                                                             M1 Yaw

                                              M2 Pitch                                                                                        M2 Yaw 

Installation of the mirrors at the X-endtable:

The calibrated mirrors were taken to the X-endtable for installation. The steering mirrors in place were swapped out for the PZT mounted pair. Manasa managed (after considerable tweaking) to mode-match the green beam to the cavity with the new steering mirror configuration. In order to fine tune the alignment, Koji moved ITMx and ETMx in pitch and yaw so as to maximise green TRX. We then got an idea of which way the input pointing had to be moved in order to maximise the green transmission.

 Yend table picture updated on the wiki page

I have updated the schematic of the D980323 PZT driver boards to reflect the changes made. The following changes were made (highlighted in red on the schematic):

• Gain of all four HV amplifier stages changed from ~15 to ~5 by swapping 158k resistors R43, R44, R69 and R70 for 51k resistors.
• Electrolytic 10 uF capacitors C11, C12, C29 and C31 swapped for 470pF, 500V mica capacitors.
• Fixed resistor in voltage divider (R35, R40, R59 and R64) replaced with 0 ohm resistors so as to be able to apply a bias of -10V to the HV amplifier
• The DC-DC Series components, which I think were originally meant to provide the 100V DC voltage, have been removed.
• The path between the point at which +100V DC is delivered and jumpers J3 and J6 has been shorted (bypassing R71 and R11 for J3, R73 and R12 for J6).
• Tantalum capacitors C38 and C39 have been replaced with electrolytic capacitors (47 uF, 25V). One of the original tantalum capacitors had burned out when I tried installing the board in the eurocrate, shorting out -15V to ground. At Koji's suggestion, I made this switch. The AD797s do not seem to be oscillating after the switch.
  
  
  

I have also changed the routing of the 100V from the HV power supply onto the board, it is now done using an SMA T-connector and two short lengths of RG58 cable with SMA connectors crimped on.

The boards are functional (output swings between 0 and 100V as verified with a multimeter for input voltages in the range -10V to +10V applied using a function generator.

Revised schematics:

 The following hardware has been installed on rack 1X9;

• KEPCO high voltage power supply (kept in a plastic box at the bottom of the rack, with the 3m SMA cable carrying 100V running along the inside side wall of the rack). The HV supply has not been connected to the driver board yet.
• AI board D000186 installed in top eurocrate. The board does not seem to fit snugly into the slot, so I used a longish screw to bolt the front panel to the eurocrate.
• PZT driver board D980323 installed in top eurocrate adjacent to the AI board.
• Six 11m SMB-LEMO cables have been laid out from 1X9 to the endtable. I have connected these to the PZT driver board, but the other end (to the PZTs) is left unconnected for now. They have been routed through the top of the rack, and along the cable tray to the endtable. All the cables have been labelled at both ends. 
  

I have also verified that the AI board is functional in the eurocrate by using the LEMO monitoring points on the front panel.

The driver boards remain to be verified, but this cannot be done until we connect the HV supply to the board. 

 [Alex, Gautam]

The signal chain from the DAC output to the output of the PZT driver board (including the HV supply) has been verified. 

I had installed the two boards in the eurocrate yesterday and laid out the cables from 1X9 to the endtable. The output of the AI board had been verified using the monitor port on the front panel, but the output from the PZT driver board was yet to be checked because I had not connected the HV supply yesterday.

When I tried this initially today, I was not getting the expected output from the monitor channels on the front panel of the PZT driver board, even though the board was verified to be working. Alex helped debug the problem, which was identified as the -15V supply voltage not making it onto the board.

I changed the slot the board was sitting in, and used a long screw to bolt the board to the crate. Both the AI board and the PZT driver board seem to be slightly odd-sized, and hence, will not work unless firmly pushed into the eurocrate and bolted down. This would be the first thing to check if a problem is detected with this system. 

In any case, I have bolted both boards to the eurocrate, and the output from the PZT driver board is as expected when I sent a 10Vp sine wave out from the DAC. I think the cables can now be hooked up to the PZTs once we are pumped down.

 I have glued a fourth mirror to a PZT (using superglue) and inserted it into a modified mount. This is to be used together with the 1-inch Laseroptik mirror I had glued a couple of weeks back at the Y-endtable. I will be calibrating both these mirrors tonight such that these are ready to put in as soon as we are pumped down.

The mirror was one of those removed from the X-endtable during the switch of the steering mirrors. It is a CVI 2-inch mirror, with HR and AR coatings for 532 nm. 

 I had prepared two more PZT mounted mirrors for the Y-end some time back. These are:

• A 2-inch CVI mirror (45 degree, HR and AR for 532nm, was originally one of the steering mirrors at the X-endtable, and was removed while switching those out for the PZT mounted mirrrors).
• A 1-inch Laseroptik mirror (45 degree, HR and AR for 532nm).

I used the same QPD set-up and the methodology described here to do a full-range calibration of these PZTs. Plots attached. The calibration constants have been determined to be:

CVI-pitch: 0.316 mrad/V

CVI-yaw:  0.4018 mrad/V

Laseroptik pitch: 0.2447 mrad/V

Laseroptik yaw:  0.2822 mrad/V

Remarks:

• These PZTs, like their X-end counterparts, showed evidence of drift and hysteresis. We just have to deal with this.
• One of the PZTs (the one on which the CVI mirror is mounted) is a used one. While testing it, I thought that its behaviour was a little anomalous, but the plots do not seem to suggest that anything is amiss.

Plots:

                                                        CVI YAW                                                                                                                         CVI PITCH

                                                        Laseroptik YAW                                                                                                             Laseroptik PITCH

   

Aluminum shield replaced by razor beam dump.

More details about this east end  " acrylic + "   enclosure ( optical table cover ) can be found elog entry 6210, 7194 and  7106

Window tinted layer transmission plot is below.

We have a film which may meet your requirements and the values are shown below:

               Wavelength (nm)              Transmission                     Reflectance(front)            Reflectance (back)

                        1060                               .0772                               .604                                     .759

                        1070                               .0723                               .615                                     .772

These values are taken from the LBNL Optics 6 program and if you have access to that program, the NFRC ID for the film is 202.   If you do not have access to the program, I have a captured the graph which may be of some help.  I apologize for the appearance of the graph but someone at LBNL decided it would look better with a dark gray background – the yellow is the transmission curve, the blue is the reflectance (front) and the green is the reflectance (back).

The ETMY enclosure feedthrough - north is installed. The sealing material is hard to work with.

The upper empty blocks will be replaced by something soft to make changing cables easy.

ETMY optical table enclosure feedthrough- south is in. Now it is time to see how air tightness increases performance.

I doubt we'll see any effect until we carefully seal the holes. If there's 1 hole in your boat it still sinks.

I think there should be a scientifically based aveluation of the ETMY enclosure so we can make the ETMX better.

Meanwhile I'm counting pieces to move on with the south end table cover.

I did a quick sweep of the lab to find out what hardware has already been acquired for the X-end table upgrade. The attached PDF is an inventory check in the spirit of this elog.

Some things we have to decide:

• Are we okay with using the old green coloured faraday mount for the IR faraday? I have in hand a piece identical to the one used at the Y-end for the green faraday, that is red in colour, so I guess we can switch this out.
• The way in which the doubling oven is currently mounted at the X-end is using some posts cobbled together. The Y-end looks to have a custom mount machined for it (see Attachment #2). Do we want to go ahead and get something like this done?
• I suppose it is okay to reuse all the old optics (mirrors, lenses, harmonic separators) and PDs? It may be that we need to order som extra mirrors/lenses/posts (this will become clear once I do the layout)

I have not gotten around to planning the layout or doing drawings. I will try and first work through a mode-matching solution to make sure we have all the required lenses. It may be that we need some 1" or 2" mirrors as well. The beam from the lightwave NPRO is quite elliptical, but we have a number of cylindrical lenses in hand already if we decide we want to use these, so I guess we don't have to worry about this...

This is quite a preliminary list, and I will add/update over the coming days as I do more detailed planning, but have I missed out anything obvious?

Its not a good idea to use green mounts with green lasers. Steve should be able to get another copy of the EY doubler mount made up if we really don't have another one sitting in the Manasa end table box which Koji mentioned.

I located the second doubler mount, it was sitting inside a cabinet along the Y-arm. So this will not have to be machined. The doubling oven mount is black in colour.

So as things stand now, the only thing that needs to be machined is a non-green mount for the IR faraday (IO-5-1064-HP) - is it possible to just coat the existing mount with a different color? I've got a drawing for this part ready, but it seems unnecessary to machine the whole thing from scratch when only the color is an issue. Steve was talking about dipping this in some sort of solution and taking the green off. But if this isn't possible, I'll send Steve the drawings tomorrow so that he can place the order with the machine shop...

I will work on the mode-matching calculations over the next couple of days to make sure we have all the mirrors and lenses we need.

Attachment 1: This is a photo of the current X end table optical layout with the beampaths of the various sub-systems overlaid. For the labels, see Attachment #2.

Attachment 2: This is a summary of all the optical components that are currently being used. I've noted some things we may want to change when we effect the swap. The important ones are:

• Switch out all 1" and 2" optic mounts which are not of the Polaris type to the Polaris type. I have checked that we have sufficient numbers of these in hand.
• Adjust the collimating lens of the fiber collimating telescope to get a better mode
• Many of the labels are probably outdated, now would be a good time to update them
• For the mode-matching of the AUX IR into the doubling crystal, a la mode suggests a better (i.e. less sensitive to lens position) solution is effected with L2 as a 100mm fl lens rather than 88.3mm. I did not change this during the laser swap in order to minimize the number of components changed. Since we are doing a wholesale change now, it may not be a bad idea to swap this out as well. I have checked that we have a suitable AR1064 coated lens.
• Some optics probably need to be cleaned...
• PZT mirror 2 has a new mount ready that is the "correct" height so we don't have to keep using makeshift stacked posts.
• The plan as it stands is to use the green coloured mount for the IR faraday (IO-5-1064-HP).

Have I missed anything important?

Attachment #3: I've made a CAD drawing of the proposed new layout and have overlaid the beampath in an amateur way because I couldn't figure OptoCad out - I figure this will suffice for now. I have adopted elements from the current Y-end layout, but have used Anders' mode-matching solution (same lenses, same positions of optics) to make sure we have good Guoy phase separation between the two PZT steering mirrors. Some notes:

• I've tried to palce the optics for the AUX IR into the doubler and subsequent steering of green into the arm cavity as per the mode matching solution. These should be pretty accurate, and the layout suggests we have some room to maneuver 
• The Green REFL beampath is exaggerated but I think we have enough room to place Y16 appropriately and steer the reflected beam into the PDA36A
• We need two more 1" 1064nm coated mirrors for the initial steering into the doubling oven, I have checked we have these in hand.
• The IR pickoff into the fiber coupler may change somewhat once we change the mode and redo the mode-matching calculations. But again, I think we have sufficient room to implement a workable solution.
• After accounting for the fact that the new endtable will be a little closer to the vacuum chamber, Y12 in the proposed layout will be ~10cm further away from ETMX than it is currently. But as discussed at the meeting today, the Rayleigh range of the green beam should be large enough here such that this shouldn't be a significant change.

Steve says the table is ready - so if we are happy with this layout, we can move forward...

Beam colors: 1064 nm red, 514 nm green and 633 nm yellow.

There should be room for lens in front of the pd at red3 and a mirror for alignment in the new layout.

This picture may help you how to improve the new ETMX 4' x 3' optical layout.

The major changes from the previous layout:

1. I've depicted the Green reflected beam path more accurately - I approximately measured the angle of the rejected beam from the faraday from the Y-end setup. This looks like a workable solution, and is similar to what we have currently at the Y-end
2. I've added some optics to monitor the DC power and RIN of the AUX laser
3. I've added two lenses to the input path of the Oplev beam (the path is such that I think we can use the same lenses that are currently being used. 
4. I've now drawn the beams in CAD so that is marginally neater.

To do:

1. Post mode matching solutions for AUX laser to doubler and green beam to arm for this proposed layout (should be identical to what we have now, which at least according to the calculation is a good solution, but I will double check - I also need to quantify what the effect of the elliptical beam is)
2. Check the Gouy phase of the transmitted IR beam at the QPD - we may need to change some lenses in this path. But I think the path as such is close enough (distance-wise) to what we have currently at the X end (after accounting for the fact that the new endtable edge will be closer to the ETM) so I don't expect this to be a show-stopper.

Does any part of this layout need a radical redesign? 

I realized I had overlooked an important constraint in the layout, which is that the enclosure will have two supports that occupy some region of the table - these are denoted in blue in v3 of the layout (Attachment #1). I measured the dimensions for these from the existing Y-endtable. The main subsystem this has affected is the IR transmission monitors, but I've been able to move the photodiodes a little to accommodate this constraint.

I've also done the mode-matching calculations explicitly for the proposed new layout (Attachments #2 and #3, code in Attachment #4). While the layout was largely adopted from what Andres posted in this elog, I found that some of the parameters he used in his a la mode code were probably incorrect (e.g. distance between the 750mm lens and the ETM). More critically, I think the Gouy phase for the optimized solution in the same elog is more like 60 degrees. I found that I could get a (calculated) Gouy phase difference between the two PZT mirrors of ~81 degrees by changing the green path slightly, and making the two PZT mirrors Y7 and Y8 (instead of Y7 and Y11, for which the Gouy phase difference is more like 50 degrees). But this way the two steering mirrors are much closer to each other than they were before. Other misc. remarks about the mode matching calculations:

• The beam diameter at the locations where the Faraday isolators should go is well below 5mm, the aperture size of the Faraday isolators
• The calculated mode-matching efficiencies suggest that we don't need any cylindrical lenses though the mode from the NPRO is elliptical
• Attachment #5 is a CAD drawing of the layout with all dimensions used for the mode-matching calculations included (although they are in inches)

These changes also necessitated minor changes to the transmitted IR beampath and the Oplev system, but these changes are minor. I've also switched the positions of the AUX IR power monitoring PD and the fiber coupler as suggested by Koji. The shutter has also been included. 

I'm planning to start removing components from the X endtable tomorrow morning at ~10AM - if anyone thinks I should hold off and do some further checks/planning, let me know before this so that I can do the needful.

There is currently no table at the X end!

We have moved the vast majority of the optics to a temporary storage breadbord, and moved the end table itself to the workbench at the end. 

Steve says Transportation is coming at 1PM to put the new table in.

I've begun cleaning the optics that will eventually go back onto the newly installed X-endtable. We decided that First Contact was the way to go (as opposed to methanol drag wiping). Koji demonstrated the application of the (red) First Contact solution onto a 2" mirror - I then proceeded to work on the rest of the optics. We are broadly following the procedure in E1000079 - first one coat of First Contact solution is applied, then a small piece of PEEK is embedded by applying a second layer of solution over it (this will enable us to pull off the First Contact once we are ready - the plan is to do this after roughly placing the optic on the table. As of now, I've finished coating most of the optics that are part of the IR Transmon path - I will continue later in the evening.

The new endtable is almost ready for re-population. Steve just needs to shim the enclosure which will be done tomorrow morning. The game-plan as discussed at the meeting today is to first try and set up the IR Transmon path. This will allow us to verify that the endtable height is such that we can maintain a beam height of 4" everywhere on the table (I suspect we may have to compromise at some poing and do some fine adjustment of 1/4 to 1/2" somewhere though). It will also allow me to define the cavity axis relative to the table, which will be useful to place the green steering optics eventually. Doing this will be challenging though as right now, I can't see any of the arm flashes on the endtable using an IR card. Ideally, we want to somehow lock the X arm and then do the checks mentioned at the endtable, before beginning to put the endtable back together. 

Steve has finished installing the enclosure on the new endtable. So Eric and I decided to try and lock the X arm and measure the beam height of the transmitted IR beam relative to the endtable. We initially thought of using POX DC as a the LSC trigger but this did not work as there was no significant change in it when the arm was flashing. Eric then tried misaligning the ITM and using AS110 as a trigger - this worked. We then recompiled the ASS model to take AS110 as an input, and ran the dither alignment. After doing so, I measured the beam height at two points on the new endtable.

Bottom line:

• The beam is roughly level across the table (along the North-South direction, within the precision to which I could place the irides and measure the height). The table has also been levelled pretty well...
• The beam height is ~4.7" across the endtable

So the beam is about 0.7" higher relative to the endtable than we'd like it to be. What do we do about this?

• Is it even possible to raise the table by 0.7" so we can have a level beam everywhere? Are there some constraints related to how the enclosure is attached to the window?
• Are we okay with tolerating a solution where we keep the beam level at 4", and use Y10 and Y11 (see layout in elog 12060) to raise the beam by 0.7", and then have slightly higher posts for the optics downstream of this point?

I've also placed two irides extending the cavity axis on the endtable. These should be helpful in aligning the green to the arm eventually.

The new TMC 4' x 3' x4" optical table and enclosure is installed - aligned- leveled.

Atm2,  Picture is taken ~42" from the window at 3.75 camera height. The leveled table height is wthin 1/4 at the center of the window.

I think this is close enough to move on with the installation of the optics.

We can raise the loaded table in the future if it is needed.

Atm4, Optical table height to floor 33" at the south west corner

Atm3, Enclosure top cover transmission at 1064 nm, 1mm beam size, power level 157 mW, 0 degree incident angle,   T 1.3% Metal shield is required above 100 mW hitting the wall of the enclosure!

Atm5, window to enclosure Kapton seal

X arm resonating after alignment, beam height on ETMX optical table ~4.75"

Over the last couple of days, I've been working on restoring the optical layout on the X-endtable. Some notes about the status as of today:

Lightwave NPRO output power

The output power from the lightwave NPRO is about 210mW (as measured with the calorimeter). This is significantly lower than the value of ~300mW reported in this elog. It may be that the laser crystal temperature has changed compared to that measurement, but the "ADJ" parameter is at 0, both today and in that measurement. The laser has also been on for more than a day now, that should be sufficient time for the crystal to equilibriate to its final operating state? Is such a large change in output power possible just because of a change in laser crystal temperature? Or did the laser really lose ~1/3rd of its output power over the last two months?

Alignment into IR Faraday, and changes to the planned layout

I've set up the layout until steering the beam through the IR faraday. The input power into the IR Faraday is ~210mW. The output power is ~186mW, after optimizing the angle of the HWP. These numbers seem consistent with what I had reported in this elog (although this was for the Innolight NPRO). The alignment looks reasonably good to the eye as well.

I've made one change to the planned layout (latest version here). Y1 is now a 2" 99% reflective for S polarization beam splitter, instead of a 1" HR mirror. I made this change because we want some light from the NPRO to be transmitted through this optic to couple into the fiber eventually, for the IR beat. I measured the transmitted power to be ~1.5mW, which is around what we were coupling into the fiber before, and should suffice now. The Lightwave NPRO datasheet (page 4) suggests that the polarization of the output of the laser is S, and the measured power before and after this optic suggests that it is working as advertised. This means that HWP 1 also has to be moved downstream (to rotate the polarization so as to maximize transmission through the IR faraday). Space constraints meant that I could not mount HWP 1 on the baseplate+3/4" OD post assembly which is what we want where possible on the new table, so for this optic, I used a 1" OD post and a fork. There may be a couple of other optics in the final layout where space constraints dictate we compromise in this way.

I've also installed beam dumps for the rejected light from the Faraday. For now, these are the old beam dumps. They looked reasonably intact. I believe we have a bunch of new beam dumps on hand as well, so these can be swapped out if deemed necessary.

Cleaning of optics

All the optics are being cleaned using first contact before being installed on the table. 

As I found out the hard way, it is not a good idea to clean small optics like half-wave plates while in their mounts. The first contact tends to bond to the frame while drying, and doesn't come off cleanly. Koji helped me clean the offending pieces (he used tweezers to manually remove the residual first contact, and then some acetone to clean up any remaining residue). Subsequently, he re-cleaned these optics, again using first contact, but this time being careful not to extend all the way out to the edge of the optic. The idea is to cover as much area as possible with first contact, while staying clear of the edge. This approach worked reasonably well.

The next major step is to achieve optimal alignment into the doubler. I've placed the doubler on the table in it's approximate final position, I wanted to make sure the enclosure support wasn't in the way (it isn't). The cable from the oven won't run all the way to the Thorlabs temperature controller in it's usual place, we need to either extend the cable, or figure out a new place where we can keep the temperature controller.

ETMX optical table is grounded to ETMX chamber through 1 Mohms

The doubling oven temp controller is installed to reach its cable.

[Koji,gautam]

Lightwave NPRO information:

Model: 126-1064-700

Serial Number: 337

Manufactured: December 1998!!

Details of checks performed:

Koji tuned the parameters on the laser controller and we observed the following:

1. Turning "ADJ" to +10 and the pumping current all the way up to the maximum (2.62A) allowed us to recover an output power of 300mW, at a laser crystal temperature of ~45degrees
2. The output power increased almost monotonically as a function of the laser crystal temperature - why? We were able to see powers as high as 250mW (at ADJ=0) for the maximum crystal temperature of ~60 degrees.
3. We checked that we could believe the readout of the power meter by measuring the power using the Scientech power meter - we saw ~270mW after the Faraday with this meter, accounting for ~10% loss through the Faraday, this corresponds to an output power of 300mW (all this was done at ADJ=+10, DC=2.62A). I suspect that the display is dodgy though, because changing the Diode Current from 2.52A to 2.62A increased the output power by almost 100mW, which seems hard to believe?
4. The Lightwave NPRO does not have heat dissipation fins attached - could this be affecting the power output somehow? In any case, this has to be rectified. So if we decide to keep the Lightwave NPRO, the layout will still need minor changes to accommodate the heat fins. Steve, do we have these in hand?

Way forward

Ericq has begun the characterization of the repaired Innolight. We checked that it outputs 1W of power. We will now have to perform the following measurements:

• Frequency noise using PLL
• AM/PM response of the PZT
• Laser power output as a function of diode current - this will be useful for diagnostic purposes in the future
• AUX temperature vs PSL temperature at which beatnotes can be found
• Waist measurement - the mode matching and optical layout upstream of the doubling oven at least will have to be modified significantly

All of these will have to be done before installing this laser at the endtable.

I believe the consensus as of now is to go ahead with carrying out the above measurements. Meanwhile, we will keep the Lightwave NPRO on and see if there is some miraculous improvement. So the decision as to whether to use the Innolight is deferred for a day or two.

I re-measured the power levels today.

We have ~205mW out of the NPRO, and ~190mW after the Faraday. It doesn't look like the situation is going to improve dramatically. I'm going to work on a revised layout with the Innolight as soon as I've profiled the beam from it, and hopefully, by Monday, we can decide that we are going ahead with using the Innolight.

Summary of work done over the last two days

1. Lightwave NPRO + controller moved to PSL table
   • ​​The interlock is not connected to the controller
   • Controller is not powered
2. Innolight NPRO + controller installed at endtable
   • ​​​​Interlock has been connected
   • For initial alignment purposes, I'm running it at an injection current of 1.000A (~50mW of IR out of the NPRO)
   • Temperature of crystal set to 31.66 degrees in anticipation of operation in the nominal state
3. Laying out optics
   • ​​Given that the mode out of the NPRO is different from that from the Lightwave, the mode-matching had to be re-done
   • Attachment #1 shows the mode-matching solution being implemented
   • Current state - I've placed all the optics up to and including the doubling crystal + oven. Alignment through IR Faraday is pretty good, QWP+HWP angles optimized to maximize transmission through the Faraday (<10% loss). Oven has been hooked up to temperature controller, and is currently set to 36.3 degrees. Coarse alignment into doubling crystal done at lower power. Even with the low IR power, I am able to see some green. It remains to turn the injection current up and do the fine alignment + lens position tweaking to maximize the green power from the doubling crystal - with ~1W of power, assuming 2%/W SHG efficiency, we should be seeing 20 mW of green (which is probably way too much)

Immediate next steps:

1. Some optimization to be done with regards to beam dumps for rejected beam from IR Faraday. Also double check to make sure that the reflected beam from L1 doesn't go back directly to the laser (at the moment it doesn't, is there a standard way to do this? I was trying to have the lens as close to normal incidence as possible, but I may not have been entirely successful which is why the reflected beam is not going straight back at the moment).
2. Optimize mode-matching into the doubling crystal
3. Once the desired green mode is obtained, continue with the rest of the layout
4. Update CAD drawing to reflect new layout

I've made progress on the new layout up to the doubling oven. After doing the coarse alignment with the diode current to the NPRO at ~1A, I turned it back up to the nominal 2A. I then rotated the HWP before the IR Faraday such that only ~470mW of IR power is going into the doubler (the rest is being dumped on razor beam dumps). After tuning the alignment of the IR into the doubling oven using the steering mirror + 4 axis translation stage on which the doubling oven is mounted, I get ~3.2mW of green after the harmonic separator and a HR mirror for green. The mode looks pretty good to the eye (see attachment #1), and the conversion efficiency is ~1.45%/W - which is somewhat less than the expected 2%/W but in the ballpark. It may be that some fine tweaking of the alignment + polarization while monitoring the green power can improve the situation a little bit (I think it may go up to ~4mW, which would be pretty close to 2%/W conversion efficiency). The harmonic separator also seems to be reflecting quite a bit of green light along with IR (see attachment #2) - so I'm not sure how much of a correction that introduces to the conversion efficiency. 

While doing the alignment, I noticed that some amount of IR light is actually transmitted through the HR mirrors. With ~500mW of incident light at ~45 degrees, this transmitted light amounts to ~2mW. Turns out that this is also polarization dependant (see attachment #3) - for S polarized light, as at the first two steering mirrors after the NPRO, there is no transmitted light, while for P-polarized light, which is what we want for the doubling crystal, the amount transmitted is ~0.5%. The point is, I think the measured levels are consistent with the CVI datasheet. We just have to take care find all these stray beams and dump them.

I will try and optimize the amount of green power we can get out of the doubler a little more (but anyway 3mW should still be plenty for ALS). Once I'm happy with that, I will proceed with laying out the optics for mode-matching the green to the arm.

Gautom is progressing with the layout nicely. The X-arm transmission window have not seen cleaning for decades. This should be the time to do it. Here is picture of dirtiness.

It is not that simple... How much effort should we put in it? The hole table with 1W inno laser plus... set up now about ~500 lbs  We can pull it off carefully, but it is not risk free.

We should look at our other signal port windows! Gautom's long reach able him to do the first contact cleaning without moving anything. It is great!
 

Attachment #1

Layout as of today. Most of the green path is done. The Green REFL PD + PZT mirrors have not been hooked up to their respective power sources yet (I wonder if it's okay to start laying cables through the feedthroughs on either end of the table already, or if we want to put whatever it is that makes it airtight eventually in first?). A rough power budget has been included (with no harmonic separator just before the window), though some optimization can be done once the table is completely repopulated.

Attachment #2

A zoomed-in version of the REFL path.

Some general notes:

1. I've tried to use the custom 3/4" O.D. posts + baseplate arrangement wherever possible (only 1 steering mirror is on a 1" post clamped with a fork to the table because of space constraints). Where the baseplates could not be bolted onto the table directly, I've used Newport SS Dogs to do the job.
2. I checked for continuity between the PZT outer case and the table top with a multimeter, and found none. So I chose to leave the Thorlabs baseplates in place. For the REFL PD, I've used an insulating baseplate given to me by Steve.
3. I've used some custom length 3/4" O.D. posts to get the beam up to the right height (~4.75") just before sending the green beam in. The beam height is 4" elsewhere.
4. I was playing around with positioning the harmonic separator immediately before the vacuum chamber window - I found that there is a substantial amount of green light that is reflected, though there doesn't seem to be any IR leaking through. The mirror was labelled Y1-1037-45P, which is a code for CVI mirrors, though I believe it is a LaserOptik product and that we have a couple of other such mirrors in the optics cabinet - though they are all 1". This document suggests that from the back side, there should be <0.1% reflection of green while on the front side it should be < 3%. I will have to hunt a little more for the specs, and measure the powers to see if they match the previously quoted numbers. In any case, I'll have to think of how to separate the (unwanted) reflected green and the transmitted IR from the cavity in the IR transmon path.
5. There are some minor changes to the planned layout posted here - I will update these in due course once the Transmon path and Oplev have been set up.

I am closing the PSL shutter and the EX laser shutters for the night as I have applied a layer of first contact to the window for cleaning purposes, and we don't want any laser light incident on it. It may be that the window is so dirty that we may need multiple F.C. cleaning rounds, we will see how the window looks tomorrow...

It looks very promising.

The IR Transmon system is almost completely laid out, only the QPD remains to be installed. Some notes:

1. The "problem" with excessive green power reflected from the harmonic separator has been resolved. It is just very sensitive to the angle of incidence. In the present configuration, there is ~10uW of green power reflected from either side, which shouldn't be too worrisome. But this light needs to be dumped. Given the tiny amount, I think a black glass + sticky tape solution is best suited, given the space constraints. This does not reach the Transmon PDs because there is a filter in the path that is transmissive to IR only. 
2. I aligned the transmitted beam onto the Thorlabs PD, and reconnected the signal BNC cable (the existing cable wasn't long enough so I had to use a barrel connector and a short extension cable). I then reverted the LSC trigger for the X arm back to TRX DC and also recompiled c1ass to revert to TRX for the dither alignment. At the moment, both arms are stably locked, although the X arm transmission is saturated at ~0.7 after running the dither alignment. I'm not sure if this is just a normalization issue given the new beam path or if there is something else going on. Further investigations tomorrow.
3. It remains to dump some of the unwanted green light from the addition of the harmonic separator...
4. We may want to redesign some (or all) of the Transmon path - the lens currently in use seems to have been chosen arbitrarily. Moreover, it is quite stubbornly dirty, there are some markings which persist after repeated first contact cleaning...

I feel like once the above are resolved, the next step would be to PDH lock the green to the arm and see what sort of transmission we get on the PSL table. It may be the polarization or just alignment, but for some reason, the transmitted green light from the X arm is showing up at GTRY now (up to 0.5, which is the level we are used to when the Y arm has green locked!). So a rough plan of action:

1. Install transmon QPD
2. PDH lock green to X arm
3. Fix the window situation - as Steve mentioned in an earlier elog, the F.C. cleaning seems to have worked well, but a little remains stuck on the window (though away from where any laser radiation is incident). This is resolved easily enough if we apply one more layer of F.C., but the bottle-neck right now is we are out of PEEK which is what we use to remove the F.C. once dried. Steve thinks a fresh stock should be here in the next couple of days...
4. Once 3 is resolved, we can go ahead and install the Oplev.
5. Which leaves the lst subsystem, coupling to the fiber and a power monitor for the NPRO. I have resolved to do both these using the 1% transmitted beam after the beamsplitter immediately after the NPRO rather than pick off at the harmonic separator after the doubling oven. I need to do the mode-matching calculation for coupling into the fiber and also adjust the collimating lens...
6. Clean-up: make sure cables are tied down, strain-relieved and hooked up to whatever they are supposed to be hooked up to...

Using the modulation frequency suggested here, I hooked up the PDH setup at the X-end and succeeded in locking the green to the X arm. I then rotated the HWP after the green Faraday to maximize TRX output, which after a cursory alignment optimization is ~0.2 (I believe we were used to seeing ~0.3 before the end laser went wonky). Obviously much optimization/characterization remains to be done. But for tonight, I am closing the PSL and EX laser shutters and applying first contact to the window once more courtesy more PEEK from Koji's lab in W Bridge. Once this is taken care of, I can install the Oplev tomorrow, and then set about optimizing various things in a systematic way.. MC autolocker has also been disabled...

Side note: for the IR Transmon QPD, we'd like a post that is ~0.75" taller given the difference in beam height from the arm cavity and on the endtable. I will put together a drawing for Steve tomorrow..