40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  OMC elog  Not logged in ELOG logo
Entry  Thu Jan 10 18:37:50 2013, Koji, Optics, Characterization, Wedging of the PZTs PZT_wedging.pdf
    Reply  Thu Aug 22 12:35:53 2019, Stephen, Optics, Characterization, Wedging of the debonded PZTs 2019 August IMG_4775.JPGIMG_4770.JPG
       Reply  Thu Aug 29 11:51:49 2019, shruti, Optics, Characterization, Wedging of the debonded PZTs - Calculation PZT_Wedging_Results.pdfPZT_Wedging_Calc.pdf
Message ID: 371     Entry time: Thu Aug 22 12:35:53 2019     In reply to: 53     Reply to this: 373
Author: Stephen 
Type: Optics 
Category: Characterization 
Subject: Wedging of the debonded PZTs 2019 August 

Wedge and thickness measurements of PZTs 12 and 13 took place after debonding and cleaning - results are shown in the first image (handwritten post-it format).

These thickness measurements seem to have come back thinner than previous measurements. It is possible that I have removed some PZT material while mechanically removing glue. It is also possible that there is systematic error between the two sets of measurements. I did not run any calculations of wedge ange or orientation on these data.

Note that cleaning of debonded PZTs involved mechanically separating glue from the planar faces of PZTs. The second image shows the razer blade used to scrape the glue away.

There were thick rings of glue where there had been excess squeezed out of the bond region, and there was also a difficult-to-remove bond layer that was thinner. I observed the presence of the thin layer by its reflectivity. The thick glue came off in patches, while the thin glue came off with a bit of a powdery appearance. It was hard to be certain that all of the thin bond layer came off, but I made many passes on each of the faces of the 2 PZTs that had been in the bonded CM assemblies. I found it was easiest to remove the glue in the bonded

I was anticipating that the expected 75-90 micron bond layer would affect the micrometer thickness measurements if it was still present, but I did not notice any irregularities (and certainly not at the 10 micron level), indicating that the glue was removed successfully (at least to the ~1 micron level).

 

Quote:

Yesterday I measured the thickness of the PZTs in order to get an idea how much the PZTs are wedged.

For each PZT, the thickness at six points along the ring was measured with a micrometer gauge.
The orientation of the PZT was recognized by the wire direction and a black marking to indicate the polarity.

A least square fitting of these six points determines the most likely PZT plane.
Note that the measured numbers are assumed to be the thickness at the inner rim of the ring
as the micrometer can only measure the maximum thickness of a region and the inner rim has the largest effect on the wedge angle.
The inner diameter of the ring is 9mm.



The measurements show all PZTs have thickness variation of 3um maximum.

The estimated wedge angles are distributed from 8 to 26 arcsec. The directions of the wedges seem to be random
(i.e. not associated with the wires)



As wedging of 30 arcsec causes at most ~0.3mm spot shift of the cavity (easy to remember),
the wedging of the PZTs is not critical by itself. Also, this number can be reduced by choosing the PZT orientations
based on the estimated wedge directions --- as long as we can believe the measurements.



Next step is to locate the minima of each curved mirror. Do you have any idea how to measure them?

 

Attachment 1: IMG_4775.JPG  2.967 MB  Uploaded Thu Aug 22 13:43:34 2019  | Hide | Hide all
IMG_4775.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_4770.JPG  2.518 MB  Uploaded Thu Aug 22 13:44:05 2019  | Hide | Hide all
IMG_4770.JPG
ELOG V3.1.3-