The beams from the Innolight and Lightwave NPROs were both incident on a 1GHZ New Focus PD. Mott and I swept the temperature of the Lightwave and tracked the change in frequency of the beatnote between the two. The Innolight temperature was set to 39.61C although the actual temperature was reported to be 39.62C.

Freq. vs temperature is plotted below in the attached PDF. The slope is 2.8GHz/K.

Koji asked me to take a profile of the output of the 1W NPRO that will be used for green locking. I used the razor-scan method, plotting the voltage output of a PD vs the position of the razor across the beam, both vertically and horizontally. This was done at 6 points along the beam path out of the laser box.

I determined the beam spot size at each point by doing a least-squares fit on the plots above in Matlab (using w as one of the fitting parameters) to the cumulative distribution functions (error functions) they should approximate.

I then did another least-squares fit, fitting the above "measured" beam profiles to the gaussian form for w vs z. Below is a summary.

It seems reasonable, though I know that M^{2} < 1 is fishy, as it implies less divergence than ideal for that waist size. Also, like Koji feared, the waist is inside the box and thus the scan is almost entirely in the linear regime.

There is a clearly a difference in the divergence angle of the x and y beams - maybe 10-20%. Since the measurements are outside the Rayleigh range and approximately in the linear regime, the slope of the divergence in this plot should be inversely proportional to the waists - meaning the x- and y- waist sizes should differ by about 10-20%. You should check your fitting program for the waist.

Jenne, Koji and I opened up the package from Raicol and examined the crystals under the microscope. The results were mixed and are summarized below. There are quite a few scratches and there is residue on some of the polished sides. There is a large chip in one and there appear to be gaps or bands in the AR coatings on the sides.

I had a think about the algorithm we might use for the phase camera measurement. MATLAB has an fft function that will allow us to extract the data that we need with a single command.

We record a series of images from a camera and put them into a 3D array or movie, image_arr, where the array parameters are [x-position, y-position, time], i.e. a 2D slice is a single frame from the camera. Then we can do an FFT on that object with the syntax, f3D = fft(image_arr, [ ], 3), which only does the FFT on the temporal components. The resulting object is a 3D array where each 2D slice is an 2D array of amplitude and phase information across the image for a single temporal frequency of the movie.

So if we recorded a movie for 1s where the sample rate is 58Hz, then the 1st frame of f3D is just a DC image of the movie, the 2nd frame are the complex 1Hz components of the movie, etc all the way up to 29Hz.

Suppose then that we have a image, part of which is being modulated, e.g. a chopper wheel rotating at 20 or 24Hz, or a laser beam profile which contains a 1kHz beat between a sideband and a reference beam. All we have to do is sample at at least twice that modulation frequency, run the command in MATLAB, and then we immediately get an image which contains the phase and magnitude information that we're interested in (in the appropriate 2D slice o the FFT).

As an example, I recorded 58 frames of data from a camera, sampling at 58Hz, which was looking at a spinning chopper wheel. There was a white sheet of paper behind the wheel which was illuminated from behind by a flashlight. The outer ring was chopping at 24Hz and the inner ring was chopping at 20Hz. I stuck all the images into the 3D array in MATLAB, did the transformation and picked out the DC, 20Hz and 24Hz signals. The results are shown in the attached PDFs which are:

phase_camera_DC_comp.pdf - a single image from the camera and the DC component (zoomed in) of the FFT

phase_camera_F1_comp.pdf - the magnitude and phase information of the 20Hz component of the FFT

phase_camera_F2_comp.pdf - the magnitude and phase information of the 24Hz component of the FFT (this PDF contains a typo that says 25Hz).

load_raw_data.m - the MATLAB routine that loads the saved data from the camera and does the FFT

You can, and I have, run the MATLAB engine from C directly. This will allow you to transfer the data from the camera to MATLAB directly in memory, rather than via the disk, but it does need proper memory allocation to avoid segmentation faults - that was too frustrating for me in the short term. In this case, the 58 frames were recorded to a file as a contiguous block of data which I then loaded into MATLAB, so it was slower than it might've otherwise been. Also the computer I was running this on was a bit of a clunker so it took a bit of time to do the FFT.

The data rate from the camera was 58fps x (1024 x 1024) pixels per frame x 2 bytes per pixel = 116MB per second. If we were to use this technique in a LIGO phase camera, where we want to measure a modulation which is around 1kHz, then we'd need a sample rate of at least 2kHz, so we're looking at at least a 30x reduction in the resolution. This is okay though - the original phase camera had only ~4000 spatial samples. So we could use, for instance, the Dalsa Falcon VGA300 HG which can give 2000 frames per second when the region of interest is limited to 64 pixels high.

Andri and I mounted the Raicol Crystal #724 in one of the new Covesion Ovens. The procedure was the same as before - see elog entry here.

There was one issue - the glass plate that goes on top of the crystal is coated on one side with ITO (Indium-Tin Oxide) and it's not 100% certain that this was mounted in the correct orientation. It is virtually impossible to tell which side of the glass is coated.

The base plate of the oven was tapped for an M3 hole. We retapped it for an 8-32 and bolted it to a post and that one of the New Focus 4-axis translation stage. The assembly is currently bolted to the PSL table, awaiting use.

I was giving a tour of the 40m yesterday. We were looking at the PSL table. About 30 seconds after I turned the lights on a glass cover from one of the lights (NW corner) popped out of its holder and smashed on the table.

I've cleaned up all the broken glass I could see but there may be some small shards there. Please use caution in that area.

We found the beat at 1064nm. T(PSL)=26.59deg, T(X-end)=31.15deg.

The X-end laser was moved to the PSL table.

The beating setup was quickly constructed with mode matching based on beam profile measurements by the IR cards.
We used the 1GHz BW PD, Newfocus #1611-FS-AC.

As soon as we swept the Xtal temp of the X-end laser, we found the strong beating.

I've been trying to get a PID loop running for the green locking and I've discovered that some of the directories in the path for the Perl Modules are now obselete. Specifically, since the scripts directory has been moved from /cvs/cds/caltech/scripts to /cvs/cds/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts the following locations in the Perl @INC path list need to be changed:

/cvs/cds/caltech/scripts/general

/cvs/cds/caltech/scripts/general/perlmodules

I've added the above directories to the PERL5LIB path in /cvs/cds/caltech/cshrc.40m.

I've set up a PID script that senses the EX-PSL Green Beat note (from the frequency counter) and actuates on the temperature of the end laser to drive the beat note to a given setpoint.

I've added the necessary EPICS channels to c1iscaux and rebooted it so that the channels are live. They are listed in a new database file slow_grnx_pid.db

This database was added to the list of those loaded by startup.cmd.

The PID script, GRNXSlowServo, is just a modified version of FSSSlowServo.

The version I've been running is currently in /cvs/cds/caltech/users/abrooks/.

There's also an MEDM screen in this directoy, C1LSC_EX_GRN_SLOW.adl, there that shows the PID settings.

Right now the script only passes the initial sanities checks, that is:

It runs.

You can enable/disable it without any errors and it starts actuating.

The settings all need to be tuned up - e.g. maximum_increment, hard_stops, time_step, PID constants.

Additionally, the units in the whole thing are pretty useless - some of the channels are in VOLTS, others in WATTS. I'd like to change all these to be in Hz.

Kiwamu and I roughly calibrated the analogue output from the SR620 frequency counter yesterday. The input channel, intuitively named C1:PSL-126MOPA_126MON, now reads the measured frequency in MHz with an error of about 0.1MHz - this is, I think, due to the bit noise on the D/A conversion that Kiwamu discovered earlier. That is, the output range of the SR620 corresponds to around 100MHz and is digitized at 10-bit resolution, and ...

100MHz/(10^2) ~= 0.098MHz. [Sad Face]

Calibration:

We set the EPICS range to [-100, 100] (corresponding to [-5V, 5V]), connected a Marconi to the Freq Counter, input a variety of different frequencies and measured the counts on the EPICS channel.

The linear fit to the calibration data was F = 2.006*EPICScount - 0.2942. From this we worked out the maximum and the minimum for the range settings that give the channel in MHz: EGUF = -200.8942 and EGUL = 200.3058. The previous range was [-410, 410]

I restored C1:PSL-126MOPA_126MON to its original settings (EGUF = -410, EGUL = 410) and added a new calc channel called C1:LSC-EX_GRNBEAT_FREQ that is derived from C1:PSL-126MOPA_126MON. The calibration in the new channel converts the input to MHz.

The PID loop is ready to be run on the green beat note but, since the tanks are open, there is no green transmission from the end getting to the PSL table. Nevertheless, here's the screen for the PID loop. The loop script is still in my directory /cvs/cds/caltech/users/abrooks/GRNXSlowServo

The medm screen is attached. It shows the current beat note frequency in MHz ()

In c1auxey/ETMYaux.db I added a couple of channels. These are all displayed on the MEDM screen. I added them to autoBurt.req as well.

C1:LSC-EX_GRNLSR_TEMP_NOM: the zero-volt setpoint temperature of the end laser (as set on the front panel of the Mephisto controller). This must be entered manually in EPICS as there is no way to read it remotely. [Sad Face]

C1:LSC-EX_GRNLSR_TEMP_CALC: the sum of the zero-volt set point temperature and the offset temperature set by the input voltage from C1:LSC-EX_GREENLASER_TEMP

I rebooted c1auxey to get these to work.

Once we get the green beat back again, the PID loop should servo on the end laser temperature to drive the Beat Frequency to the Frequency Setpoint, C1:LSC-EX_GRN_PID_SETPT, which can be set by the pink slider.

RA: All MEDM screens must be in the proper MEDM directory!! Also, all perl scripts must have a .pl extension!!! Also, all scripts must be in the scripts directory even if they are in development!!! And all scripts should use 'env' rather than have absolute pathnames for the location of perl, csh, tcsh, python, etc.

RA: All MEDM screens must be in the proper MEDM directory!! Also, all perl scripts must have a .pl extension!!! Also, all scripts must be in the scripts directory even if they are in development!!! And all scripts should use 'env' rather than have absolute pathnames for the location of perl, csh, tcsh, python, etc.

That's not unreasonable. But if we try

grep "perl" /cvs/cds/rtcds/caltech/c1/scripts/*/*

you can see that we've got a fair amount of housekeeping to attend to. We might want to think about tidying up the scripts directory as part of the cds upgrade.

Kiwamu and I plugged the output from a DS3456 function generator into the ADC and started recording the data. The func. generator output a 237.8Hz, 1Vpp sine wave. We chose this value because it corresponds to the FSR of a 38.5m cavity (=3.896MHz) divided by 2^14, the frequency divider amount we intend to use.

Since 1 FSR divided down is 237.8Hz and corresponds to a length change of the cavity of 532nm/2 = 266nm, then we can, roughly, say that a frequency change of 1Hz corresponds to a length change in the cavity of approximately 1nm. The width of the 237.8Hz peak in the spectra corresponds to an upper limit on the noise floor due to digitizing the signal (this could be limited by the ADC, or the function generator, or the windowing on the FFT).

The FWHM of the peak in the spectrum was approximately 5mHz, corresponding to an uncertainty in the length of the cavity of about 6pm (we used a Hanning Window, 50% overlap and a BW of 2.92mHz, 7 averages). Regardless of what is the dominant contribution to the width of the peak, this implies that the frequency noise associated with digitizing a signal in the ADC is much smaller than we require and will not limit our performance if we choose to use a frequency divider and digital PLL with the Green Locking.

If we use a digital PLL for locking the frequency of the PSL and END green lasers then we can expect a UGF of around 1kHz (assuming a sampling rate of 16kHz). Let's assume a simple 1/f loop giving a loop gain of ~1000x at 1Hz. If the free-swinging ETM pendulum motion at 1Hz is of the order of 1 micron, then the residual motion at 1Hz, once we lock the digital PLL by actuating on the ETM position, will be of the order of 1nm. This is bordering on too high.

Alternatively, is we use an analogue PLL then we can expect a much higher UGF and many orders of magnitude more gain at 1Hz (see here). So we would expect the residual motion of the pendulum to be much smaller - probably limited by some other noise source somewhere in the system (I doubt it's going to be reduced by 12 orders of magnitude).

RA: I think ballpark's not good enough for this. To see what's good enough, we need to to an analysis similar to what Bram has for the ALS. Get the 40m seismic spectrum from the arm locking spectrum or the green laser feedback signal and then correct it for a realistic loop shape.

If we use a digital PLL for locking the frequency of the PSL and END green lasers then we can expect a UGF of around 1kHz (assuming a sampling rate of 16kHz). Let's assume a simple 1/f loop giving a loop gain of ~1000x at 1Hz. If the free-swinging ETM pendulum motion at 1Hz is of the order of 1 micron, then the residual motion at 1Hz, once we lock the digital PLL by actuating on the ETM position, will be of the order of 1nm. This is bordering on too high.

Alternatively, is we use an analogue PLL then we can expect a much higher UGF and many orders of magnitude more gain at 1Hz (see here). So we would expect the residual motion of the pendulum to be much smaller - probably limited by some other noise source somewhere in the system (I doubt it's going to be reduced by 12 orders of magnitude).

RA: I think ballpark's not good enough for this. To see what's good enough, we need to to an analysis similar to what Bram has for the ALS. Get the 40m seismic spectrum from the arm locking spectrum or the green laser feedback signal and then correct it for a realistic loop shape.

That's some pretty fast work! I thought we would be taking up to a week to get that happening. I wonder what's the right way to measure the inherent frequency noise of this thing?

Also, should the comparator part have some hysteresis (ala Schmidt trigger) or is it best to just let it twirl as is? Is it sensitive to DC offsets on the input or is there a high pass filter? What's the correct low pass filter to use here so that we can have a low phase lag feedback to the ETM?

We could try inputing a 4kHz carrier modulated width a depth of a few Hz at a modulation frequency of F1. Then we could take an FFT of the output of the discriminator and measure the width of the peak at F1 Hz. This seems like an arduous way to measure the frequency noise at a single frequency though.

It'll definitely be sensitive to DC offsets but there is already a filter bank on the INPUT filter so we can shape that as necessary. We could probably band-pass that from [4.5 - 5.3kHz] (which would correspond to a range of [73,87] MHz into a 2^14 frequency divider.

I've had a go at trying to estimate the frequency noise of the digital frequency discriminator (DFD). I input a 234.5Hz (0.5Vpp) signal from a 30MHz function generator into the ADC. The LP output of the DFD measured 234.5Hz. However, this signal is clearly modulated by roughly +/- 0.2Hz at harmonics of 234.5Hz (as you can see in the top plot in the dataviewer screenshot below). So the frequency noise can be estimated as rms of approximately 0.2Hz.

This is supported by taking the spectra of the LP output and looking at the RMS. Most of the power in the RMS frequency noise (above the minimum frequency) comes from the harmonics of the input signal and the RMS is approximately 0.2Hz.

I believe this stems from the rather basic LP filter (three or four poles around 10Hz?) that is used in the LP filter to remove the higher frequency components that exist after the mixing stage. (The currently loaded LPF filter is not the same as the saved one in Foton - and that one won't load at the moment, so I'm forced to remember the shape of the current filter).

The attached screen capture from data viewer shows the LP_OUT hovering around 234.5Hz.

I've had a go at trying to estimate the frequency noise of the digital frequency discriminator (DFD). I input a 234.5Hz (0.5Vpp) signal from a 30MHz function generator into the ADC. The LP output of the DFD measured 234.5Hz. However, this signal is clearly modulated by roughly +/- 0.2Hz at harmonics of 234.5Hz (as you can see in the top plot in the dataviewer screenshot below). So the frequency noise can be estimated as rms of approximately 0.2Hz.

This is supported by taking the spectra of the LP output and looking at the RMS. Most of the power in the RMS frequency noise (above the minimum frequency) comes from the harmonics of the input signal and the RMS is approximately 0.2Hz.

I believe this stems from the rather basic LP filter (three or four poles around 10Hz?) that is used in the LP filter to remove the higher frequency components that exist after the mixing stage. (The currently loaded LPF filter is not the same as the saved one in Foton - and that one won't load at the moment, so I'm forced to remember the shape of the current filter).

The attached screen capture from data viewer shows the LP_OUT hovering around 234.5Hz.

Here is the spectrum of the input into the DFD (a 234.5Hz sine wave, 0.5 Vpp) and the spectrum and RMS of the LP output. The linewidth of the input signal is clearly much less than 0.1Hz, where as the RMS noise (above 2mHz) is approximately 0.2Hz and the main contributions are clearly the harmonics of the 234.5Hz signal.

This is a plot showing the old filters and the new ones we added this morning.

The new ones have a Cheby for AC coupling below 10 Hz and then a 500 Hz LP after the mixer. The LP frequency has been increased so that we can use this signal in a feedback loop to the ETM with a ~100 Hz UGF.

Joe injected a 234.567 etc. Hz sine wave into the excitation channel in the DFD INPUT filter. The spectrum of the output of the LP filter with the new filter is shown below with the RMS calculated from 300Hz down to 1mHz - see first attachment. The RMS is equal to about 2.5Hz. (Incidentally, the RMS is very much higher (slightly less than 400Hz - see second attachment) if you calculate it from 7kHz down to 1mHz).

Joe and I were looking at the RCG VCO algorithm to determine if we could adapt it to run at a faster rate (you can currently change its frequency at 1Hz). I noticed that the algorithm that is used to calculated the values of sine and cosine at time T1 is a truncated Taylor series which uses the values of sine and cosine calculated at time T1 - Delta t . I was concerned that there would be an accumulating phase error so I tested the algorithm in MATLAB and compared it to a proper calculation of sine and cosine. It turns out that at a given 'requested' frequency there is a constantly accumulating phase error - which means that the 'actual' frequency of the RCG VCO is incorrect. So I have plotted the frequency error vs requested VCO frequency. It gets pretty bad!

Here's the code I used:

dt = 1/16384;

diffList = [];
% set the frequencies
flist = 1:5:8192;
for f = flist;

% get the 'accurate' values of sine and cosine
tmax = 0.05;
time1 = dt:dt:tmax;
sineT = sin(2.0*pi*f*time1);
cosineT = cos(2.0*pi*f*time1);

% determine the phase change per cycle
dphi = f*dt*2*pi;
cosT1 = 1:numel(time1);
sinT1 = 0*(1:numel(time1));

% use the RCG VCO algorithm to determine the values of sine and cosine
for ii = 1:numel(time1) - 1;
cosNew = cosT1(ii)*(1 - 0.5*dphi^2) ...
- (dphi)*sinT1(ii);
sinNew = sinT1(ii)*(1 - 0.5*dphi^2) ...
+ (dphi)*cosT1(ii);

cosT1(ii+1) = [ cosNew];
sinT1(ii+1) = [ sinNew];

end % extract the phase from the VCO values of sine and cosine
phaseT = unwrap(angle(cosineT + i* sineT));
phaseT1 = unwrap(angle((cosT1 + i*sinT1)));

% determine the phase error for 1 cycle
diff = phaseT1 - phaseT; % determine the frequency error
slope = (diff(2) - diff(1))/(dt);

diffList = [diffList, slope];
disp(f)
pause(0.001)
end
% plot the results
close all
figure
orient landscape
loglog(flist, abs(diffList/(2.0*pi)))
xlabel('Requested VCO Frequency (Hz)')
ylabel('Frequency error (Hz)')
grid on

I did a quick back of the envelope calculation of the expected green phase change on reflection from the aLIGO ITM.

The phase change per nm, K1 = delta phi/delta Lambda, around 532nm is ~1.5 degrees/nm (from the LMA data) [this number is approximately 100x smaller at 1064nm]

I assumed that very small changes in the thickness of the coating appear equivalent to shifting the spectra for reflection/transmission/phase-change-on-reflection up or down by delta lambda, where

delta Lambda/Lambda = delta h/h

where h is the total thickness of the coating and delta h is the change in the thickness of the coating.

Assume that delta h/h = alpha deltaT, where alpha is the coefficient of thermal expansion and delta T is the change in temperature. (approximately 1K)

Then delta phi = K1* Lambda * alpha * delta T = 1.5 degrees/nm * 532nm * 10^-5 K^-1 * 1.0 K = 8 * 10^-3 degrees.

Assume that 360 degree phase change corresponds to one FSR.

Therefore, the frequency shift due to temperature change in the coating = 8*10^-3/360 * FSR = 2.2 *10^-5 * FSR.

Therefore, the expected frequency shift per degree temperature change = 2.2*10^-5 * FSR [Hz/K]

The following code is incredibly useful when creating MATLAB plots as it adds the filename of the script to the plot itself. I think it should be used for all MATLAB plots that go on the elog.

I did a quick calculation to determine the amount of sideband transmission through the FP cavity.

The modulation frequency of the end PDH is 216kHz. The FSR of the cavity is about 3.9MHz. So the sidebands pick up about 0.17 radians extra phase on one round trip in the cavity compared to the carrier.

The ITM reflectance is r_ITM^2 = 98.5% of power, the ETM reflection is r_ETM^2 = 95%.

So the percentage of sideband power reflected from the cavity is R_SB = r_ITM*r_ETM*(exp(i*0.17) - 1)^2 / (1 - r_ETM*r_ITM exp(i*0.17) )^2 = 0.85 = 85%

So about 15% of the sideband power is transmitted through the cavity. The ratio of the sideband and carrier amplitudes at the ETM is 0.05

So, on the vertex PD, the power of the 80MHz +/-200kHz sidebands should be around sqrt(0.15)*0.05 = 0.02 = 2% of the 80MHz beatnote.

Once we get the green and IR locked to the arm again, we're going to look for the sidebands around the beatnote.

Can we set up a fiber-PD on the end table to look at the beat between the "end laser IR beam" and the "PSL IR beam fiber-transmitted end beam"?

We should see the same thing on that PD that we see on the green PD (plus any fiber noise and I'm not really sure how much that'll be off the top of my head). If we unlock the lasers from the arm cavity then the free-running noise of the lasers wrt to each other will probably swamp the 50kHz and 150kHz signals. Maybe we could lock the end laser to the free-running PSL by demodulating the beat note signal from the fiber-PD and then we could look for the extra sidebands in the IN-LOOP signal. Then we could progressively lock the PSL to the MC and arm cavity and see if the sidebands appear on the fiber-PD at some point in that process.

It's possible that the 216kHz drive of the PZT on the Innolight is somehow driving up some sub-harmonics in the crystal. I think this is unlikely though: if you look at Mott's measurements of the Innolight PZT response, there are no significant PM resonances at 50 or 150kHz.

Quote:

Other than the +/-216 kHz sidebands, we can see some funny peaks at +/- 50 kHz and +/-150 kHz.

Quote: #4351 by Aidan

So, on the vertex PD, the power of the 80MHz +/-200kHz sidebands should be around sqrt(0.15)*0.05 = 0.02 = 2% of the 80MHz beatnote.

Once we get the green and IR locked to the arm again, we're going to look for the sidebands around the beatnote.

As previously noted, there are multiple beams coming back from the ETM surface onto the PDH PD on the end table. They are spread out in a vertical pattern. All the spots swing together (as the ETM moves?).

I moved the PDH Green PD on the end table so that it was further away from the Faraday and I added an iris in between the Faraday and the PD. Now only the principle reflection from the ETM is incident on the PD. See attached photos. In order to sneak past the neighbouring optics, I had to steer the beam down a bit, so the PD is now lower than it previously was.

Just FYI: the angle between the returning beams is about 5 or 6 mrad at the PD. Before the beams get to the PD they go through a telescope that de-magnifies the beam by about 5 or 6 times. This implies that the angle between adjacent returning beams from the ETM is around 1 mrad at the ETM.

This does make the position of the spot on the PD more susceptible to the alignment of the ETM - we should use a short focal length lens and image the ETM plane onto the PD.

First image - overview of table

Second image - the three returning beams immediately before the IRIS

Kiwamu and I noticed that there is a ghost beam on the green beam going into the ETM. What we see is some interference fringes on the edge of the transmission of the green beam through the dichroic beam splitter (DCBS). If we look at the reflection from the dichroic beam splitter these are much more pronounced.

The spacing of the fringes (about 2 per 10mm) indicates an angle between the fields of around 0.1 mrad.

We were able to cause significant motion of the fringes by pushing on the knobs of the steering mirrors that steer the beam into the DCBS. A rough calculation of the derivative of optical path difference between the ghost and the primary beam as a function of input angle gives about 15 microns per mrad. What filtering the effect the arm cavity will have on the ghost beam is not immediately clear, but the numbers shouldn't be too difficult to determine.

With the exception of a 2" mirror mount, I've confirmed that we have everything for the Y-end green production and mode-matching.

We need to calculate a mode-matching solution for the Lightwave laser so that it gives the correct beam size in the doubling crystal.

Additionally, Rana has suggested that we change the pedestals from the normal 1" diameter pedestal+fork combo to the 3/4" diameter posts and wider bases that are used on the PSL table (as shown in the attached image).

I tidied up some of the stuff that was on the SP table. The ISS box that has been sitting on there for months is now underneath the X-arm on top of the spare Marconi which is stored there.

I gutted one of the $2 red laser pointers to build a laser source whose amplitude we could modulate at RF frequencies. Basically, I cut off the bulk of the housing from the pointer and soldered a BNC connection into the two terminals that the 2x 1.5V batteries were connected to. When I applied 3V across this BNC connector the diode still worked. So far so good.

Next I added a bias tee to the input. I put 3V across the DC input of the bias tee and added a -3dBm signal into the RF port of the tee. The laser beam was incident on a PDA100A (bandwidth of 1.7MHz) and, sure enough, Kiwamu and I could see a flat response in the amplitude at a given drive frequency out to around 1.7MHz.

We should check the response on a faster PD to see how fast the laser diode is, but we should be able to use this now to check the RF response of the green beat note PD.

TO DO:

1. Add some capacitors across the DC input of the bias tee.

2. Do something about the switch on the laser diode.

3. Attach some labels to the laser that specify what is the required DC voltage and the maximum acceptable RF modulation amplitude.

Power into PD at DC (green laser pointer) = 285 uW
Voltage out of PD = 552mV/(100x SR560gain) = 5.52mV
Photocurrent = 5.52mV/(241 Ohms)*3 = 68.7uA
Responsivity = 68.7/285 = 0.24 A/W

Therefore, since the responsivity is in the correct range for a Silicon PD at 532nm, the DC output is giving us sensible response to an input signal.

But, there is a 2.12MHz, 328mV oscillation on the DC output irrespective of the incident power.

I moved the Hartmut Green PD to the Jenne laser bench to try to determine if the response at RF was reasonable or somehow very much smaller than it should be. It was set up as shown in the attached diagram. The first pass at this was by comparing the ratio of the RF photocurrent of the green PD to the RF photocurrent of the New Focus 1611 InGaAs PD. That ratio (at a sufficiently low frequency) should be the same as the ratio the DC photocurrents of the two PDs.

Using the network analyzer I measured the ratio of the voltages of the two RF signals (and then scaled each of these by the respective transimpedances of the PDs: 700 Ohms for the 1611 and 240 Ohms for the Harmut PD). The resulting ratio is shown in the attached plot.

I measured the DC voltages from each PD and scaled those by the transimpedances to get the photocurrent (10 kOhm for the 1611 and 80 Ohm effective for the Harmut PD). The ratio of the DC photocurrents was 0.37. This is roughly 3x the ratio of the RF photocurrents at 500kHz (=0.14). This discrepancy is uncomfortably large.

The full set of measurements is given in the table below:

Measurement

Value

DC voltage from Hartmut PD

6.5mV (checked by turning laser on and off and measuring the difference)

DC voltage from 1611 InGaAs PD

2.20V

Transimpedance of Harmut PD at DC

80 Ohm (effective)

Transimpedance of Harmut PD at RF

240 Ohm

Transimpedance of 1611 InGaAs at DC

10 KOhm

Transimpedance of 1611 InGaAs at RF

700 Ohm

Incident Power on Hartmut PD (100% on PD area)

0.28mW (measured by Ophir power meter)

Incident Power on 1611 InGaAs (<100% on PD area)

0.64mW

Responsivity of Silicon PD at 1064nm

0.02 A/W (estimate)

Responsivity of 1611 New Focus PD at 1064nm

~0.8 A/W

There is one other troubling point: using the estimate of responsivity on the Harmut PD * incident power * transimpedance at DC = (0.02A/W) * (0.28mW) * (80 V/A) = 0.45 mV.

But the measured DC voltage is 6.5mV = inconsistent.

I think I had underestimated the responsivity of the Silicon PD at 1064nm. The previous value was based on a rough search online for the responsivity of Silicon (I couldn't find the product number of the actual PD we are using). For instance, the PDA100A Si detector from Thorlabs has a responsivity of 0.35-0.4A/W at 1064nm.

If we calculate the responsivity of the Hartmut PD from the measurements I made today (input power = 0.300mW, output voltage = 5.56mV, effective transimpedance = 80 Ohms), then the responsivity at 1064nm is 0.23 A/W which is not an unreasonable number given the response of the Thorlabs detector.

Quote:

Measurement

Value

Responsivity of Silicon PD at 1064nm

0.02 A/W (estimate)

Responsivity of 1611 New Focus PD at 1064nm

~0.8 A/W

There is one other troubling point: using the estimate of responsivity on the Harmut PD * incident power * transimpedance at DC = (0.02A/W) * (0.28mW) * (80 V/A) = 0.45 mV.

But the measured DC voltage is 6.5mV = inconsistent.