40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
 OMC elog, Page 8 of 10 Not logged in
ID Date Author Type Category Subject
137   Wed Jun 5 01:06:35 2013 ZachGeneralCharacterizationL1 OMC as-built diagram

136   Mon Jun 3 21:19:03 2013 KojiGeneralGeneralPlanning

Monday - Evening
(Koji)
[done] - DCPD alignment
[done] - DCPD test & through-put measurement
[done] - Power dependence test
[done] - Apply Protective First Contact Layer on the optic surfaces
[done] - Wiping the OMC

Tuesday - Morning
(Chub)
[done] - Bring the cable from the oven

Tuesday - Afternoon
(Chub/Jeff)
[done] - Cabling of the OMC

Wednesday - Morning
(Jeff/Koji)
[done] - Cable tying down
[done] - Screw tightening for the PDs
[done] - Wrapping / Packing
[done] - Weighting? (65lb for everything)

(Jeff/George)
[done] - Shipping? (or Wednesday)

Items to be shipped together
v - OMC cables between the cable harness to the suspension
v - 1 PZT cable pin
v - DCPD preamp kit
v - toruqe driver & bits
v - kapton sheet/tube
v - Test PD cables
v - Spare diodes
v - QPD amp circuits (just in case)
v - 1GHz PD / Power supply banana-PD cable / 1GHz PD cables

[done] - Installation scheduling with Peter/Brian/(Mike?)
- Travel plan
[done] Koji goes LLO immediately (possible?) 6/6-6/22
Jeff goes LLO next week?

(Koji)
[done] - Room cleaning

--------------------------
Optical testing plan

Day 0
- Freight and Koji moving

Day 1 Arrival (Thursday or Friday)
- Inspect the shock detector
- Unpacking
- Check the condition of the breadboard
- Place the transportation fixture on the table
- Removing the First Contact layers
- Locking
- Mode matching

Day 2
- Transmission measurement
- Power dependence test
- PD installation / (diode can opening, optional)
- (PD realign, optional)
- diode test

Day 3
- Power dependence test

---------------------------
OMC installation plan

TBD

---------------------------
OMCS installation plan

TBD

---------------------------
Documents

- OMC Hazard analysis (done)
- OMCS Hazard analysis (done)
- OMC instllation procedure
- OMCS instllation procedure
- Work permits

cf. previous documents: E080024, E1300201

---------------------------

---------------------------
Misc
- LIGO access card
controls@lloisc0-work:~$2.23-5mW T 2.23-5mW: command not found controls@lloisc0-work:~$ 2.17 \pm 0.01 R
controls@lloisc0-work:~$67-68mV inlock 67-68mV: command not found controls@lloisc0-work:~$ 973mV unlock
controls@lloisc0-work:~\$ Pin 5.47+-0.014.4
No command 'Pin' found, did you mean:

135   Mon Jun 3 18:58:08 2013 KojiOpticsConfigurationOMC final tests

- QPD mount aligned, QPD output checked
The spots are with 100um from the center of the diodes. [ELOG Entry (2nd photo)]

- TMS/FSR dependence on the PZT V
Shows significant dependence on the PZT voltages

It seems that the curvartures get longer when the voltages are applied to the PZTs.
The effect on these two PZTs are very similar. The dependence is something like
(TMS/FSR) ~ 0.219 - 1e-5 V
May cause resonance of the higher-order modes (like 13th order of the 45MHz sidebands) at a specific range of the PZTs.
We can't change anything any more, but the impact needs to be assessed

- DC response of the PZTs [ELOG Entry]
PZT voltages were swept. Observed multiple fringes during the sweep.
The data to be analyzed.

- AC response of the PZTs [ELOG Entry]
PZT1 and PZT2 well matched. The first resonance at 10kHz.

- Open loop TF of the servo
The UGF more than ~30kHz.

- Cleaning of the main optics with First Contact
Done. Visible scattering seen with an IR was reduced, but still exist.
All four cavity mirrors have about the same level of scattering.
Each scattering is a group of large or small bright spots.
It's actually a bit difficult to resolve the bright spots with the IR viewer.

- Raw transmission: i.e. Ratio between the sum of the DCPD paths and the incident power
May 8th (before the baking):      0.918
May 8th (First Contact applied): 0.940 (improved)
Jun 2nd (after the baking):         0.927 (worse)
Jun 2nd (First Cotact applied):   0.964 (improved)

 Date 2013/6/2 2013/6/2 2013/6/2 Condition Before the cleaning After the FC cleaning After drag wiping Input Power [mW] 39.8 38.4 38.4 REFLPD dark offset [V] -0.0080 -0.0080 -0.0080 REFLPD locked [V] 0.048 0.0437 0.046 REFLPD unlocked [V] 6.41 6.39 6.37 Transmitted Power to DCPD1 (T) [mW] 18.8 18.8 18.8 Transmitted Power to DCPD2 (R) [mW] 18.1 18.2 18.2 FM2 transmission [mW] - - - CM1 transmission [mW] 0.200 0.193 0.198 CM2 transmission [mW] 0.204 0.204 0.205 Input BS transmission [mW] 0.260 0.228 0.245 Cavity Finesse 396.9 403.79 403.79 Junk Light Power (Pjunk) [mW] 0.303 0.302 0.317 Coupled beam power (Pcouple) [mW] 39.50 38.10 38.08 Mode Matching (Pcouple/Pin) [mW] 0.992 0.992 0.992 Cavity reflectivity in power 0.00112 0.000211 0.000206 Loss per mirror [ppm] 111 35.9 34.8 Cavity transmission for TEM00 carrier 0.934 0.971 0.972

- TMS/FSR/Finesse change before/after cleaning [ELOG Entry]
Just a small change from the parameters before the bake.
No quantitative difference.

Method:
BB EOM produces the AM sidebands together with the PM sidebands.
Ideally, the PM sidebands does not produce the signal at the transmission, the output is dominated by the AM component.
This is only true when there is no lock offset. In reality the curve is contaminated by the PM-AM conversion by the
static offset or dynamic deviation of the locking point. So I had to take the central part of the TF and check the
dependence of the fit region and the finesse.

Before the cleaning: Finesse 396.9
After the cleaning: Finesse 403.8

To Do

- Placement of the DCPD housings
- Through-put test with DCPDs
- Transmission dependence on the incident power
(although the max incident is limited to ~35mW)

- Application of the first contact for the surface protection

134   Fri May 31 14:07:54 2013 KojiOpticsCharacterizationTransverse Mode Spacing measurement afte the baking

Measurement for pitch

Free Spectral Range (FSR): 264.9703 +/− 0.0007 MHz
Cavity roundtrip length: 1.131419 +/− 0.000003 m
Transverse mode spacing (TMS): 57.9396 +/− 0.0002 MHz
TMS/FSR: 0.218664 +/− 0.000001

Assuming the line width of the cavity 1/400 of the FSR...
- the 9th modes of the carrier is 12.8 line width (LW) away from the carrier resonance
- the 13th modes of the lower f2 sideband are 5.7 LW away
- the 19th modes of the upper f2 sideband are -6.8 LW away

Measurement for yaw

Free Spectral Range (FSR): 264.9696 +/− 0.0004 MHz
Cavity roundtrip length: 1.131422 +/− 0.000002 m
Transverse mode spacing (TMS): 58.0479 +/− 0.0002 MHz
TMS/FSR: 0.219074 +/− 0.000001

- the 9th modes of the carrier is 11.3 line width (LW) away from the carrier resonance
- the 13th modes of the lower f2 sideband are 7.8 LW away
- the 19th modes of the upper f2 sideband are -3.7 LW away

The followings are the previous values before the bake
[from this entry]

- After everything was finished, more detailed measurement has been done.

- FSR&TMS (final)

FSR: 264.963MHz => 1.13145m
TMS(V): 58.0177MHz => gamma_V = 0.218966
TMS(H): 58.0857MHz => gamma_H = 0.219221
the 9th modes of the carrier is 10.8~11.7 LW away
the 13th modes of the lower f2 sideband are 7.3~8.6 LW away
the 19th modes of the upper f2 sideband are 2.6~4.5 LW away

Attachment 1: Cav_scan_response_130530_Pitch.pdf
Attachment 2: Cav_scan_response_130530_Yaw.pdf
133   Fri May 31 05:46:54 2013 KojiOpticsGeneralQPD alignment

Peter F suggested to check the bottom surface of the PD housings if there is any protrusion/interference/whatever.
And that was true! It was found that the front side of QPD1 (Left) was lifted by a machining burr.
It seems that this burr consistently exists as the other one also have it (see QPD2 picture (right)) although it is not too terrible compared to the one in QPD1.

Once these burrs were removed, the spots were found on the right position of each diode.
From the measurement of the power on each segment, the positions of the spots were estimated. (listed in the table)
They indicate that the spots are within 0.1mm from the center. This is good enough.

The quantum efficiency was measured from the incident power and the sum output. It seems that there are
some difference between the diodes. The numbers are consistent with the measurement the other day.

QPD#              QPD1       QPD2 Diode#            #43        #38 ------------------------------------- Power Incident     84.7 uW   86.2 uW Sum Out            56   mV   61   mV Vertical Out       -6.8 mV   10   mV Horizontal Out      4.2 mV    8.8 mV SEG1              -17   mV  -15   mV SEG2              -14.5 mV  -11   mV SEG3              -11   mV  -15   mV SEG4              -13   mV  -20   mV ------------------------------------- Spot position X   +25   um  +46   um  (positive = more power on SEG1 and SEG4) Spot position Y   -42   um  +46   um  (positive = more power on SEG3 and SEG4) ------------------------------------- Responsivity[A/W] 0.66      0.71 Q.E.              0.77      0.82 -------------------------------------

Arrangement of the segments View from the beam / 2 | 1 X |---+---| \ 3 | 4 /

---------------

I(w,x,y) = Exp[-2 (x^2 + y^2)/w^2]/(Pi w^2/2)

(SEG_A+SEG_B-SEG_C-SEG_D)/(SEG_A+SEG_B+SEG_C+SEG_D) = Erf[sqrt(2) d/w]

d: distance of the spot from the center w: beam width

Attachment 3: QPD_calib.nb.zip
132   Thu May 30 15:00:28 2013 KojiOpticsGeneralQPD alignment

The QPD alignment was adjusted using the aligned beam to the cavity and the 4ch transimpedance amplifier.

As I have a test cable for the QPD, I attached a DB9 connector on it so that I can use the QPD transimpedance
amplifier to read the photocurrent. The transimpedance of the circuit is 1kV/A.
As this board (D1001974) does not have X/Y/SUM output, I quickly made the summing circuit on a universal
board I took from Japan a while ago.

The spot on the QPD1 (shorter arm side) seems too low by ~0.64mm. It seems that the QPD is linearly responding
to the input misalignment, so there is no optical or electrical problem.

As I wonder how much I can improve the situation by replacing the diodes, I swapped the diodes between QPD1 and QPD2.
Now QPD1 and QPD2 have the diode #43 and #38, respectively. It improved the situation a llitle (about 60um).
But the beam is still 0.58mm too low. 95% of the power is on the upper two elements.
Of course this is at the edge of the linear range.
I confirmed we still can observe the cavity is fringing even with the beam is aligned on this QPD. So this may be
sufficient for the initial alignment.

The QPD2 was in a better situation. The spot is about 100um too low but this is still well with in the linear range.

The incident powers on the diodes were also measured. The estimated responsivities and Q.E.s are listed below.
The reflection from the diode is adjusted to hit the beam dump properly.

Here are the raw numbers

QPD#            QPD1       QPD2 Diode#          #43        #38 ------------------------------------- Power Incident  118.8 uW   115.7uW Sum Out          78.8 mV   84.6 mV Vertical Out     69.1 mV   11.9 mV Horizontal Out    9.8 mV   -1.6 mV SEG1             -1.90 mV -17.8 mV SEG2             -2.18 mV -17.5 mV SEG3            -32.0 mV  -25.3 mV SEG4            -42.0 mV  -23.8 mV ------------------------------------- Responsivity[A/W] 0.66      0.73 Q.E.              0.77      0.85 -------------------------------------

Arrangement of the segments View from the beam / 2 | 1 X |---+---| \ 3 | 4 /

131   Thu May 30 14:38:42 2013 KojiElectronicsGeneralCable fitting

Yesterday Jeff and Chub worked on the cabling of the OMC. It turned out that the gender of the cable connectors
going from the cavity side to the connector bracket on top of the OMC were opposite from what is needed.
This way, the connectors can't fixed on the cable harness, thus they are free during the shipping.

We considered several ideas to mitigate this issue and decided to swap the gender of the Mighty Mouse connectors.

In order to check this operation may cause the shortage of the cable length, we made the fitting of the cables.
They seem all long enough for Chub to replace the Mighty Mouse connectors with the proper gender.

We also checked the polarity of the PZT wires. We marked the positive side of the PZT by a knot at the wire end.

130   Thu May 23 23:41:48 2013 KojiMechanicsGeneralDCPD/QPD Mount

DCPD mounts and QPD mounts were attached on the breadboard. They are not aligned yet and loosely fastened.

DCPD (mounting 4-40x5/16 BHCS Qty4)

Face plates fatsened by 4-40x5/16 BHCS (24 out of 40)

Housing   Face plate Destination  PD 002       002        L1OMC DCPD1  #10 003       003        L1OMC DCPD2  #11 004       004        H1OMC DCPD1 008       005        H1OMC DCPD2 009       006        I1OMC DCPD1 010       007        I1OMC DCPD2 

QPD (mounting 4-40x5/16 BHCS Qty4)

Face plates fatsened by 4-40x1/4 BHCS (24 out of 80)

Housing   Face plate Destination QPD 002       002        L1OMC QPD1  #38 #43 swapped on 29th May. 003       003        L1OMC QPD2  #43 #38 swapped on 29th May. 004       004        H1OMC QPD1 005       005        H1OMC QPD2 006       006        I1OMC QPD1 007       007        I1OMC QPD2

* 4-40x5/16 BHCS Qty 8 left
* 4-40x5/16 BHCS Qty 56 left

Cut the diode legs by 3mm

129   Tue May 21 18:28:08 2013 KojiGeneralGeneralCurrent most reliable OMC schedule

- The wrong Mighty Mouse connectors for the PZT wires were prepared. The correct ones are in the vacuum oven till Tuesday morning.

- The thread holes for the cable pegs are 1/4-20 rather than 10-24.  This requires re-machining of the cable pegs & the C&B.

- We are waiting for the fast shipment of the from LHO

May
Thu 23rd Diode mount adjustment / Optical tests
Fri 24th Optical tests
Tue 28th Mighty mouse connector available / Diode mounting finalization
Wed 29th final check
Thu 30th shipment
Fri 31th

June
Mon  3rd ? Arrival to LLO / Koji fly to LLO
Tue  4th Suspension test done?
128   Mon May 20 14:59:21 2013 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC is out from the oven

The OMC came back to the table again.

No obvious change is visible: no crack, no delamination

The OMC was fixed on the table and the beam was aligned to the cavity

127   Tue May 14 19:06:00 2013 KojiCleanGeneralOMC Baking

The OMC is in the air bake oven now.

126   Mon May 13 15:00:23 2013 KojiGeneralGeneralCurrent most reliable OMC schedule
May
Tue 14th The OMC given to Bob (Air bake & Vac bake)

Mon 20th The OMC received from Bob
Apply First contact
Diode mount adjustment / Electronic tests
Tue 21st Diode mount adjustment / Electronic tests / Optical tests
Wed 22nd Final cabling (***Chub***)
Thu 23rd Final cabling / Packing
Fri 24th Packing / Shipping

Mon 27th? Arrival to LLO / Koji fly to LLO
Tue 28th Test on the optical bench
Wed 29th Test on the optical bench
Thu 30th Suspension test? (***Jeff B***)

June
Tue  4th Suspension test done?
125   Mon May 13 14:59:16 2013 KojiMechanicsGeneralInvar shim gluing

The invar reinforcement shims were glued on the glass brackets on the breadboard.
We worked on the light side on May 10th and did on the dark side on May 13rd.

U-shaped holding pieces are used to prevent each invar shim to be slipped from the right place.

We are going to bring the OMC breadboard to the bake oven tomorrow to cure the epoxies and promote the outgasing.

124   Mon May 13 14:49:35 2013 KojiMechanicsCharacterizationMounting Glass Bracket still broke with tightenin stress

[Koji / Jeff]

This is the elog about the work on May 9th.

We made two glass brackets glue on the junk 2" mirrors with the UV glue a while ago when we used the UV bonding last time.

On May 7th:

We applied EP30-2 to the glass brackets and glued invar shims on them. These test pieces were left untouched for the night
and brought to Bob for heat curing at 94degC for two hours.

On May 9th:

We received the test pieces from Bob.

First, a DCPD mount was attached on one of the test pieces. The fasteners were screwed at the torque of 4 inch lb.
It looked very sturdy and Jeff applied lateral force to break it. It got broken at once side of the bracket.

We also attached the DCPD mount to the other piece. This time we heard cracking sound at 2 inch lb.
We found that the bracket got cracked at around the holes. As the glass is not directly stressed by the screws
we don't understand the mechanism of the failure.

After talking to PeterF and Dennis, we decided to continue to follow the original plan: glue the invar shims to the brackets.

We need to limit the fastening torque to 2 inch lb.

123   Fri May 10 09:33:22 2013 KojiSupplyGeneralCOMSOL simulation on the glass bracket stress

122   Wed May 8 15:36:50 2013 KojiGeneralGeneralLatest OMC schedule
May
(done) Mon  6th: Invar plate arrival / Spot position measurement
(done) Tue  7th: Invar plate cleaning / Spot position measurement / EP30-2 arrival / Invar plate gluing to the test mounting brackets
(done) Wed  8th: Invar plate cleaning done / Baking of the test pieces (with Bob's oven)
Thu  9th: ***After bake torque/force test***

***If the invar plate passes the test***
Thu  9th Light side invar plate gluing
Fri 10th Cable side invar plate gluing

Mon 13th The OMC given to Bob (Air bake & Vac bake)

Mon 20th The OMC received from Bob
Apply First contact
Diode mount adjustment / Electronic tests
Tue 21st Diode mount adjustment / Electronic tests / Optical tests
Wed 22nd Final cabling (***Chub***)
Thu 23rd Final cabling / Packing
Fri 24th Packing / Shipping

Mon 27th? Arrival to LLO / Koji fly to LLO
Tue 28th Test on the optical bench
Wed 29th Test on the optical bench
Thu 30th Suspension test? (***Jeff B***)

June
Tue  4th Suspension test done?
121   Wed May 8 15:08:57 2013 KojiOpticsCharacterizationSpot position measurement on the diode mounts

Remeasured the spot positions:

DCPD1: 1.50mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.084mm too high

DCPD2: 1.50mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.023mm too high

QPD1:   1.25mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.001mm too low

QPD2:   1.25mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.155mm too low

Attachment 1: DCPD1.png
Attachment 2: DCPD2.png
Attachment 3: QPD1.png
Attachment 4: QPD2.png
120   Mon May 6 19:31:51 2013 KojiOpticsCharacterizationSpot position measurement on the diode mounts

Measurement Order: DCPD2->DCPD1->QPD1->QPD2

DCPD1: 1.50mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.027mm too low

DCPD2: 1.75mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.051mm too high (...less confident)

QPD1:   1.25mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.077mm too low

QPD2:   1.25mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.134mm too low
or 1.00mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.116mm too high

Attachment 1: DCPD1.png
Attachment 2: DCPD2.png
Attachment 3: QPD1.png
Attachment 4: QPD2.png
119   Fri May 3 21:09:08 2013 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC is back

L1 OMC is back on the table for the action next week.

118   Thu Apr 18 11:59:02 2013 KojiGeneralGeneralDCPD path gluing

[Jeff, Koji]

DCPD path gluing

Usual preparation

- Locked the cavity.

- Aligned the input beam to the cavity

DCPD BS gluing

- Placed the DCPD BS on the breadboard

- Placed the dummy DCPD mount on the reflection side of the BS. Check the height and position of the spot.

- Placed the dummy DCPD mount on the transmission side of the BS. Check the height and position of the spot.

- The spot positions looked fine.

- Added a dub of UV glue on the BS. Placed it along the fixture.

- Checked the reflection spot again with the CCD. Kept monitored the spot position through out the gluing process
of the BS.

- Blasted the UV illumination

Reflection side beam dump gluing

- Replaced the alignment disk of the dummy DCPD with a photodiode with the cap removed.

- Put the dummy DCPD mount and the beam dump in place

- Checked the reflection spot from the diode on the beam dump. It looked fine.

- Applied 2~3 dubs of the glue on the beam dump. Slid in the dump to the fixture.

- Applied UV illumination. As the beam dump shadows the illumination 3 times of 10sec blasts were applied.

Transmission side beam dump gluing

- Put the dummy DCPD mount with the diode in place

- Put the beam dump in place. The template needed to be lifted up a bit to accomplish this action.
This should be fixed by the modification of the template.

- Checked the transmission spot on the diode and the spot reflected from the diode on the beam dump.

- Actually the spot was too much close to the vertex of the "V" on the beam dump. We determined that
this was mainly caused by the misalignment of the diode element, and can be compensated by the tilt of the diode mount.

- Removed the beam dump from the template once. Applied 2~3 dubs of the glue on the beam dump.
Slid in the dump to the fixture by lifting up the template again.

- Applied UV illumination. As the beam dump shadows the illumination 3 times of 10sec blasts were applied.

Mounting bracket gluing

- Glued the mounting brackets for the DCPD mounts based on the positions specified by the template.

Removing the templates

- Removed the connection bars between the two templates.

- Removed the template at the QPD side. The screws at all of the three sides were needed to be released in order to accomplish this action.
Once the screws are released, the template was slid on the breadboard so that the pads did not scratch the optical surface.
Keep one side of the template use as a pivot, lifted up another side until the pads clear the optic. Then lifted up the other side.

- Removed the other template. This time, the screws at the two DCPD sides are released. The template was slid and lifted in a same way.

Last beam dump gluing

- Once the QPD side template was removed, the last beam dump at the transmission side of the first steering mirror was glued.

- This has been done without any gluing fixture, we held the beam dump with clean Allen keys on the breadboard.

- The paths for the main and stray beams were confirmed by an IR sensor card, and blasted the UV.

Closing the transport fixture

- Removed the constraining pins for the breadboard.

- Made sure all of the constraining pins/screws are released for the other side of the transport fixture were released.

- Put the lid on.

- Fastened the constraining pins/screws of the transport fixture.

- Wrapped the fixture with sheets of the Al foil.

- Pack the fixture in anti-static bags.

116   Thu Apr 18 11:43:59 2013 KojiGeneralGeneralMounting Glass Bracket Failure

[Jeff, Koji]

- While we were working on the optics alignment, one of the mounting brackets made of glass god tore apart into two when a holding screw was removed.
The glass component had a crack at the very middle of the part.

- We borrowed a setup for photoelastisity measurement from Garilynn. This is a set of polarizer configured to have cross polarization. If there is no photoerastisity
the image is colored in blue (somehow). When the polarization is rotated, the color is changed in red, yellow, or white.

- The cross polarizer was tested with a polycarbonate face shield for the UV protection. It seems doing its job.

- We took a set of photos to see any residual stress in a block. The entire inside of the channel is frosted glass so the technique didn't yield much.
In one orientation we did see stress near the ends but the orientation didn't allow us to see exactly where.

- We had 30 brackets and one OMC requires ten of them. This means that there was no spare and now we don't have enough.
So we decided to spend more as test pieces.

- We tested three scenarios this afternoon. In all three cases both screws were snugged (estimate 0.5 in*lb) before torquing by a torque wrench with a dial meter.
The divisions on the dial of the wrench are 1 in*lb. We were not so confident in the exact measurement but we felt good about the repeatability of the values.

1. Duplicated the original mounting with the chamfers of the PEEK bar facing into the channel. Cracked as the torque wrench read 1 in*lb.
Crack initiation at the first screw, starting along the longitudinal centerline.

2. Turned the nut bar over so the flat side faced into the channel. Successfully torqued both screws to 1 in*lb and removed them.

3. With a razor blade, made fairly large reliefs (countersinks) around the holes in the PEEK. Successfully torqued both screws first to 1 in*lb then 1.5 in*lb.
The block did crack (again at the screw along the centerline) when the torque was ~1.9 in*lb.

It occurs to us that we need micro-compliance AND structural rigidity to distribute the load. The PEEK bars are small and particularly thin where the #4-40 helicoil holes are.
The load is probably concentrated way too much at the holes because it is too weak. Perhaps a good solution, among others, would be to use an aluminum nut plate
with a thin (.02") kapton or viton layer to give the micro-compliance. Additionally, a kapton layer could be used between the block and the aluminum shim,
though this one is probably to be avoided so as to ensure rigidity of the bolted assembly to the bench. Lastly, the nut bar should be shaped such that the area
around the holes and the end of the channel (pretty much the same area) are less stressed than the center portion.

After the discussion with Peter and Dennis, we decided to reinforce the bonded glass piece with invar shims.
Each shim will be threaded such that we don't need to stress the glass piece any more. EP30-2 will be used as the glue.

115   Wed Apr 17 07:30:04 2013 KojiOpticsGeneralQPD path glued

Yesterday, all of the glass components for the QPD path were glued.

- Check the alignment of the beam with the cavity.

- Placed the prisms

- Placed the QPD mount for the gluing test. An alignment disk instead of a diode was placed on the mount.

- Checked the spot positions at the QPDs. A CCD camera with a lens was used to find the spot.
The spots were ~0.5mm lower on the QPD1, and ~1mm lower on the QPD2.

- Glued the first steering mirror while the spot position was continuously monitored.

- Glued the BS in the QPD path while the spot position was monitored.

- FInally a glass bracket was glued.

- The spot on QPD2 was too low to absorb by the QPD shim.

- Once the steering mirror was clamped by a cantilever spring (to prevent slipping), the spot moved up a bit.
(Or, we should say, the cantilever misaligned the optics a bit in pitch in a preferrable direction.)

- The other steering mirror is clamped by a cantilever spring (to prevent slipping), the spot moved up a bit.
Or, we should say, the cantilever misaligned the optics a bit in pitch in a preferrable direction.)

- The last steering mirrors was also glued in a same way. As a result the spot is 0.5mm below the center of the alignment disk.

- Once the PD mounting brackets were glued, we can't place the QPD mount on it as the PEEK bar can't be inserted without moving the gluing template.

- The QPD mount with out the glass bracket was used to check the alignment of the beam dumps.
As the beam dumps have a wide aperture and the yaw alignment of the QPD is big, we could accommodate the beams in the dumps easily.

- The dumps were glued.

114   Tue Apr 16 23:26:51 2013 KojiOpticsCharacterizationFurther More Mirror T measurement

Since the previous measurement showed too high loss, the optical setup was checked.
It seemed that a PBS right before the T&R measurement setup was creating a lot of scattering (halo) visible with a sensor card.

This PBS was placed to confirm the output polarization from the fiber, so it was ok to remove it.

After the removal, the R&T measurement was redone.
This time the loss distributed from 0.2% to 0.8% except for the one with 1.3%. Basically 0.25% is the quantization unit due to the lack of resolution.

At least B7, B10, B12 seems the good candidate for the DCPD BS.

The AR reflection was also measured. There was a strong halo from the main reflection with an iris and sense the power at ~.5mm distance to separate the AR reflection from anything else. Now they are all somewhat realistic. I'll elog the measurement tonight.

33.6 +/- 0.2 uW out of 39.10+/-0.05 mW was observed. The offset was -0.236uW.
This gives us the AR reflectivity of 865+/-5ppm . This meets the spec R<0.1%

Mirror | P_Incident   P_Trans      P_Refl       | T             R             loss          |
| [mW]         [mW]         [mW]         |                                           |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B1     | 39.10+/-0.05 19.65+/-0.05 19.25+/-0.05 | 0.503+/-0.001 0.492+/-0.001 0.005+/-0.002 |
B2     | 39.80+/-0.05 19.90+/-0.05 19.70+/-0.05 | 0.500+/-0.001 0.495+/-0.001 0.005+/-0.002 |
B4     | 39.50+/-0.05 19.70+/-0.05 19.30+/-0.05 | 0.499+/-0.001 0.489+/-0.001 0.013+/-0.002 |
B5     | 39.50+/-0.05 19.70+/-0.05 19.50+/-0.05 | 0.499+/-0.001 0.494+/-0.001 0.008+/-0.002 |
B6     | 39.55+/-0.05 19.50+/-0.05 19.95+/-0.05 | 0.493+/-0.001 0.504+/-0.001 0.003+/-0.002 |
B7     | 40.10+/-0.05 19.80+/-0.05 20.20+/-0.05 | 0.494+/-0.001 0.504+/-0.001 0.002+/-0.002 |
B8     | 40.15+/-0.05 19.80+/-0.05 20.20+/-0.05 | 0.493+/-0.001 0.503+/-0.001 0.004+/-0.002 |
B9     | 40.10+/-0.05 19.90+/-0.05 19.90+/-0.05 | 0.496+/-0.001 0.496+/-0.001 0.008+/-0.002 |
B10    | 40.10+/-0.05 19.70+/-0.05 20.30+/-0.05 | 0.491+/-0.001 0.506+/-0.001 0.002+/-0.002 |
B11    | 40.20+/-0.05 19.80+/-0.05 20.20+/-0.05 | 0.493+/-0.001 0.502+/-0.001 0.005+/-0.002 |
B12    | 40.20+/-0.05 19.90+/-0.05 20.20+/-0.05 | 0.495+/-0.001 0.502+/-0.001 0.002+/-0.002 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


113   Tue Apr 16 09:43:58 2013 KojiOpticsConfigurationMirror list for L1OMC

L1 OMC

Cavity Mirrors

FM1 (input coupler): A8
FM2 (output coupler): A7
CM1 (curved mirror close to FM1): C6
CM2 (curved mirror close to FM2): C5

DCPD path

BS3 (BS for DCPDs): B5 B7

QPD path

BS1 (input steering): E10
SM1 (steering mirror next to BS1): E12
BS2 (BS for QPD path): B3
SM2 (steering mirror next to BS2): E4
SM3 (steering mirror next to SM2): E16

112   Tue Apr 16 08:12:14 2013 KojiOpticsCharacterizationFurther More Mirror T measurement

T&Rs of the B mirrors and some of the E mirrors are measured.

I found that these BSs have high loss (1%~3%) . As this loss will impact the performance of the squeezer
we should pick the best ones for the DCPD path. B5, B6, and B12 seems the best ones.

Mirror | P_Incident   P_Trans     P_Refl      | T             R             loss          |
| [mW]         [mW]        [mW]        |                                           |
-------+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
B1     | 13.80+/-0.05 7.10+/-0.05 6.30+/-0.05 | 0.514+/-0.004 0.457+/-0.004 0.029+/-0.005 |
B2     | 14.10+/-0.05 6.50+/-0.05 7.15+/-0.05 | 0.461+/-0.004 0.507+/-0.004 0.032+/-0.005 |
B3     | 13.87+/-0.05 7.05+/-0.05 6.55+/-0.05 | 0.508+/-0.004 0.472+/-0.004 0.019+/-0.005 |
B4     | 13.85+/-0.05 6.78+/-0.05 6.70+/-0.05 | 0.490+/-0.004 0.484+/-0.004 0.027+/-0.005 |
B5     | 13.65+/-0.05 6.93+/-0.05 6.67+/-0.05 | 0.508+/-0.004 0.489+/-0.004 0.004+/-0.005 |
B6     | 13.75+/-0.05 6.70+/-0.05 6.92+/-0.05 | 0.487+/-0.004 0.503+/-0.004 0.009+/-0.005 |
B7     | 13.83+/-0.05 7.00+/-0.05 6.60+/-0.05 | 0.506+/-0.004 0.477+/-0.004 0.017+/-0.005 |
B8     | 13.90+/-0.05 6.95+/-0.05 6.68+/-0.05 | 0.500+/-0.004 0.481+/-0.004 0.019+/-0.005 |
B9     | 13.84+/-0.05 6.95+/-0.05 6.70+/-0.05 | 0.502+/-0.004 0.484+/-0.004 0.014+/-0.005 |
B10    | 13.97+/-0.05 6.98+/-0.05 6.72+/-0.05 | 0.500+/-0.004 0.481+/-0.004 0.019+/-0.005 |
B11    | 13.90+/-0.05 7.05+/-0.05 6.70+/-0.05 | 0.507+/-0.004 0.482+/-0.004 0.011+/-0.005 |
B12    | 13.90+/-0.05 6.98+/-0.05 6.78+/-0.05 | 0.502+/-0.004 0.488+/-0.004 0.010+/-0.005 |
-------+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

Mirror | P_Incident   P_Trans         P_Refl       | T            R             loss          |
| [mW]         [uW]            [mW]         | [ppm]                                    |
-------+-------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------+
E4     | 13.65+/-0.05 0.0915+/-0.0005 13.50+/-0.05 | 6703+/-44ppm 0.989+/-0.005 0.004+/-0.005 |
E12    | 13.75+/-0.05 0.0978+/-0.0005 13.65+/-0.05 | 7113+/-45    0.993+/-0.005 0.000+/-0.005 |
E16    | 13.90+/-0.05 0.0975+/-0.0005 13.30+/-0.05 | 7014+/-44    0.957+/-0.005 0.036+/-0.005 |
-------+-------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------+

111   Tue Apr 16 00:40:45 2013 KojiOpticsGeneralPD/QPD path gluing ~ preparation

[Jeff Koji]

- Placed the optics on the PD/QPD path

- Checked the alignment of the beam on the dummy PD/QPD mounts

- There is a bit of (~0.5mm) shift of the spot position from the center. Mainly downward. This is well within a ball park of the PD mounts.

- The PD/QPD path gluing will take place tomorrow.

- Went to the 40m and received the DCPDs from Bob's lab.

- Took six ISC QPDs for the sake of the OMCs.

- They are now in the OMC lab.

- Measured the B mirror / E mirror R&Ts.

- Found anomalously high loss (3%) for the B mirrors (BSs)

- Went through the all mirrors. Some mirrors (3 or 4) seemed less lossy (<~1%). They will be used for the DCPD BS.

110   Sat Apr 13 21:06:02 2013 KojiOpticsGeneralOMC Bottom-side: cavity glued

[Jeff, Zach, Lisa, Koji]

Gluing of the cavity mirrors went very well!!!

Preparation

- Checked if the cavity is still resonating. => Yes.

- Checked the FSR: 264.251MHz => 1.1345m
2.5mm too long => Move each micrometer by 0.625mm backward

- FSR&TMS (I)
Aligned the cavity again and checked the FSR: 264.8485MHz => 1.13194m
TMS(V): 58.0875MHz => gamma_V = 0.219324
TMS(H): 58.1413MHz => gamma_H = 0.219526
the 9th modes of the carrier is 9.7-10.4 line width (LW) away from the carrier resonance
the 13th modes of the lower f2 sideband are 9.2-10.2 LW away
the 19th modes of the upper f2 sideband are 0.3-1.8 LW away
We found that this coincidence of the resonance can be corrected by shortening the cavity round-trip by 0.5mm

- Spot positions (I)

The spots on the curved mirrors were ~1mm too much inside (FM side). In order to translate the cavity axis,
MM2 and MM4 were pushed by θ
θ/2.575 = 1mm ==> θ = 2.6 mrad
The separation of the micrometers are ~20mm
d/20mm = 2.6mrad ==> d = 52um

1div of the micrometer corresponds to 10um => 5div = 50um

- Move the micrometers and adjusted the input steering to recover the alignment.

- In any case we were confident to adjust the FSR/TMS/spot positions only with the micrometers

BS1/FM1/FM2 gluing

- Aligned the cavity

- Glued BS1/FM1/FM2 one by one while the cavity resonance was maintained.
FM2 was slipping as the table is not leveled well and the fixture was not supporting the optic.

- FSR&TMS (II)
FSR: 264.964875MHz => 1.13144m (Exactly 0.5mm shorter!)
TMS(V): 58.0225MHz => gamma_V = 0.218982
TMS(H): 58.1225MHz => gamma_H = 0.219359
the 9th modes of the carrier is 10.3~11.7 LW away
the 13th modes of the lower f2 sideband are 7.4~9.3 LW away
the 19th modes of the upper f2 sideband are 1.5~4.4 LW away

- Spot positions (II)
Looked OK.

CM2 gluing

- Glued CM2. The mirror was supported from the back with allen keys.

- FSR&TMS (III)

FSR: 264.9665625MHz => 1.13144m
TMS(V): 58.1275MHz => gamma_V = 0.219377
TMS(H): 58.0813MHz => gamma_H = 0.219202
the 9th modes of the carrier is 10.2~10.9 LW away
the 13th modes of the lower f2 sideband are 8.5~9.4 LW away
the 19th modes of the upper f2 sideband are 1.4~2.7 LW away

- Spot positions (III)
Looked slightly off at CM2. Pushed MM2 by 4um.

CM1 gluing

- Glued CM1.

- FSR&TMS (IV)

FSR: 264.964875MHz => 1.13144m
TMS(V): 58.06625MHz => gamma_V = 0.219145
TMS(H): 58.08625MHz => gamma_H = 0.219220
the 9th modes of the carrier is 10.8~11.1 LW away
the 13th modes of the lower f2 sideband are 8.2~8.6 LW away
the 19th modes of the upper f2 sideband are 2.6~3.2 LW away

- Spot positions (final confirmation)
Looked OK.

Final measurement

- After everything was finished, more detailed measurement has been done.

- FSR&TMS (final)

FSR: 264.963MHz => 1.13145m
TMS(V): 58.0177MHz => gamma_V = 0.218966
TMS(H): 58.0857MHz => gamma_H = 0.219221
the 9th modes of the carrier is 10.8~11.7 LW away
the 13th modes of the lower f2 sideband are 7.3~8.6 LW away
the 19th modes of the upper f2 sideband are 2.6~4.5 LW away

Final values for the micrometers

• MM1: The one closest to the input mirror (CM1) 0.78mm
• MM2: The other one on CM1 0.89
• MM3: The one closest to the output mirror (CM2) 0.90
• MM4: The other one on CM2 0.90
/------------\

0.90         0.78
\------------/
0.90         0.89



Attachment 1: Cav_scan_response_130412_Pitch.pdf
Attachment 2: Cav_scan_response_130412_Yaw.pdf
109   Fri Apr 12 09:25:31 2013 KojiOpticsCharacterizationAlignment of the OMC (without glue)

[Zach Koji]

The first attempt not to touch the curved mirrors did not work. (Not surprising)

We decided to touch the micrometers and immediately found the resonance.
Then the cavity alignment was optimized by the input steering mirrors.

We got the cavity length L and f_TMS/f_FSR (say gamma, = gouy phase / (2 pi) ) as
L=1.1347 m        (1.132m nominal)
gamma_V = 0.219176    (0.21879 nominal)
gamma_H = 0.219418    (0.21939 nominal)

- the 9th modes of the carrier is away from the resonance 10-11 times
of the line width (LW)
- the 13th modes of the lower f2 sideband are 9-10 LW away
But
- the 19th modes of the upper f2 sideband are 1-3 LW away
This seems to be the most dangerous ones.
and
- The beam spots on the curved mirrors are too marginal

So we decided to shorten the cavity round-trip 2.7mm (= 0.675mm for each micrometer)
and also use the curved mirrors to move the eigenmode toward the center of the curved mirrors.

After the movement the new cavity length was 1.13209 m.
The spot positions on the curved mirrors are ~1mm too close to the outside of the cavity.
So we shortened the outer micrometers by 8um (0.8 div).
This made the spot positions perfect. We took the photos of the spots with a IR sensor card.

The measured cavity geometry is (no data electrically recorded)
L=1.13207 m        (1.132m nominal, FSR 264.8175MHz)
gamma_V = 0.218547    (0.21879 nominal, 57.8750MHz)
gamma_H = 0.219066    (0.21939 nominal, 58.0125MHz)

- the 9th modes of the carrier is 11-13 LW away
- the 13th modes of the lower f2 sideband are 5-8 LW away
- the 19th modes of the upper f2 sideband are 4-8 LW away

The raw transmission is 94.4%. If we subtract the sidebands and
the junk light contribution, the estimated transmission is 97.6%.

Note:
Even if a mirror is touched (i.e. misaligned), we can recover the good alignment by pushing the mirror
onto the fixture. The fixture works pretty well!

108   Thu Apr 11 15:10:22 2013 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC Progress

[Zach, Jeff, Koji]

- Jeff configured the bottom side template to have a nominal value
obtained from the solid works model. Note that the thickness of the
curved mirrors are 6mm in the model. He added 0.3mmx2 to the dimensions.

- Jeff located the template on the breadboard such that each side has
the same amount of hanging out.

- Micrometer values

• The one closest to the input mirror (CM1) 0.07
• The other one on CM1 0.24
• The one closest to the output mirror (CM2) 0.17
• The other one on CM2 0.30
/------------\

0.17         0.07
\------------/
0.30         0.24



- Now the template is ready to accept the OMC optics.

- Zach and Koji finished a series of measurements for the test OMC.

Modulation depth:

- We scanned the laser PZT and recorded the data.
CH1: Reflection DC
CH2: PDH Error
CH3: Transmission (Magnified)
CH4: Transmission

- We should be able to obtain the estimation of the modulation depth and the finesse from this measurement.

- Rough calculation of the modulation depth is 0.19

Transmission:

- Incident 16.3mW
- Transmission 15.1mW
- This gave us the raw transmission of 92.6%ish.
- The modulation depth of 0.19 corresponds to 1.8% of the incident power
- The carrier reflection is almost dominated by the mode mismatch. (Note: We did not have a good resolution for the refl beam)  =>3.2%

- In total:The incident useful carrier power was 15.4mW ==> Throughput 98%
- There is slight headroom to increase the transmission by cleaning the mirrors.

FSR/Finesse:

- As our AOM is not functioning now, phase modulation sidebands are injected with the BBEOM.
- In principle, we can't expect any signal at the transmission at around the FSR frequency.
- If we apply small locking offset, the split peaks appear at the FSR frequency. The frequency of the dip corresponds to the FSR.
- We probably can extract the finesse of the cavity from this measurement. Lisa is working on this.

HOM/Finesse:

- The same PM injection gives us the frequency of the HOMs.
- We found that our EOM can work until ~500MHz.
- We could characterize the cavity resonance structure more than a single FSR.

107   Wed Apr 10 00:40:30 2013 ZachOpticsConfigurationfauxMC locked

[Koji, Zach]

Tonight, we locked the "fauxMC". We obtained a visibility of >99%.

Koji had aligned it roughly last night, but we wanted to have a couple steering mirrors in the path for this practice cavity (the periscope mirrors will serve this function in the real setup), so we marked the alignment with irises and installed two extra mirrors.

After obtaining flashes with the WinCam placed at the output coupler, we removed the WinCam and put a CCD camera at one of the curved mirror transmissions and used this to get a strong TEM00 flash. Then, we installed the REFL PD/CCD, swept the laser PZT and optimized the alignment by minimizing the REFL dips. Finally, we connected the RF electronics and locked the cavity with the LB box. We used whatever cables we had around to trim the RF phase, and then Koji made some nice SMA cables at the 40m.

One thing we noticed was that we don't have enough actuation range to keep the cavity locked for very long---even with the HV amp (100V). We are going to offload to the NPRO temperature using an SR560 or pomona box circuit. We may also make an enclosure for the cavity to protect it from the HEPA blasting.

Tomorrow, after we do the above things, we will practice measuring the transmission, length (FSR) and mode spectrum of the cavity before moving on to the real McCoy.

106   Tue Apr 9 13:56:09 2013 KojiOpticsGeneralPZT assembly post gluing / pre baking pictures

105   Mon Apr 8 23:42:33 2013 KojiOpticsConfigurationFake OMC roughly aligned

Mode matching:

Attachment 1: beam_profile.pdf
Attachment 2: mode_matching.pdf
104   Mon Apr 8 21:11:14 2013 KojiOpticsGeneralPZT assembly gluing

[Jeff, Zach, Koji]

PZT assembly gluing

Glue gun -> to be returned to MIT
Fixtures x2
Al bases, spacers
spare screws
mirrors / prisms / PZTs
IPA bottle
clean tools x2
first contact kit
gloves (7.5)

103   Mon Apr 8 20:56:52 2013 KojiOpticsConfigurationPZT & Curverd Mirror arrangement

Assembly #1:

Mounting Prism #16
PZT #26
Mirror C6

Assembly #2:

Mounting Prism #20
PZT #23
Mirror C5

Attachment 1: PZT_assembly.pdf
102   Mon Apr 8 11:49:18 2013 KojiMechanicsCharacterizationPZT actuator tested at LLO

Test result of the PZTs by Valera and Ryan

PZT  Length Angle
11  14.5   17.6
12  13.8   17.8
13  11.2   25.0
14  14.5    6.6
15  12.5   10.6

21  14.5    9.7
22  13.8   28.8
23  14.5    6.8  ==> Assembly #2
24  18.5   51.7  ==> Used for prototyping
25  17.1   13.8
26  14.5    6.6  ==> Assembly #1

101   Mon Apr 8 11:29:08 2013 KojiOpticsCharacterizationMirror/PZT Characterization links
100   Mon Apr 8 11:11:37 2013 KojiOpticsCharacterizationMore Mirror T measurement

More Ts of the mirrors were measured.

A mirror specification:
Request: 8300+/-800 ppm
Data sheet: 7931ppm

C mirror specification:
Request: 50+/-10 ppm
Data sheet: 51.48ppm or 46.40ppm

Mirror | P_Incident P_Trans  P_Offset | T_trans
| [mW]       [uW]     [uW]     | [ppm]
-------+------------------------------+---------
A1     | 10.28    82.9       -0.205   | 8.08e3
A2     | -----     -----     ------   | ------
A3     | 10.00    83.2       -0.205   | 8.34e3
A4     | 10.05    80.7       -0.205   | 8.05e3
A5     |  9.94    81.3       -0.205   | 8.20e3
A6     | 10.35    78.1       -0.205   | 7.57e3
A7     | 10.35    77.8       -0.205   | 7.54e3
A8     | 10.30    78.0       -0.205   | 7.60e3
A9     | 10.41    84.1       -0.205   | 8.10e3
A10    | 10.35    77.3       -0.205   | 7.49e3
A11    | 10.33    77.9       -0.205   | 7.56e3
A12    | 10.34    78.7       -0.205   | 7.63e3
A13    | 10.41    85.4       -0.205   | 8.22e3
A14    | 10.34    84.4       -0.205   | 8.18e3
-------+------------------------------+---------
C1     | 10.30     0.279     -0.225   | 48.9
C2     | -----     -----     ------   | ------
C3     | 10.37     0.240     -0.191   | 41.6
C4     | 10.35     0.278     -0.235   | 49.6
C5     | 10.40     0.138     -0.235   | 35.9 => PZT assembly #2
C6     | 10.34     0.137     -0.235   | 36.0 => PZT assembly #1
C7     | 10.37     0.143     -0.229   | 35.9
C8     | 10.41     0.224     -0.237   | 44.3
C9     | 10.36     0.338     -0.230   | 54.8
C10    | 10.39     0.368     -0.228   | 57.4
C11    | 10.38     0.379     -0.209   | 56.6
C12    | 10.28     0.228     -0.238   | 45.3
C13    | 10.36     0.178     -0.234   | 39.8
-------+------------------------------+---------



99   Fri Apr 5 18:18:36 2013 ZachOpticsConfigurationAOM probably broken

 Quote: Then, I started to check the AOM path. I noticed that the 1st (or -1st) order beam is very weak. The deflection efficiency is ~0.1%. Something is wrong. I checked the driver. The driver's coupler output (1:10) show the amplitude ~1V. (good) I check the main output by reducing the offset. When the coupler output is 100mV, the main output was 1V. (good) So is the AOM itself broken???

As Koji noticed that the AOM efficiency was very low, I figured I would try looking at it with a fresh set of eyes. The end result is that I have to agree that the AOM appears to be broken.

First, I measured the input impedance of the AOM using the AG4395A with the impedance test kit (after calibrating). The plot is below. The spec sheet says the center frequency is 200 MHz, at which Zin should be ~50 ohms. It crosses 50 ohms somewhere near 235 MHz, which may be reasonable given that the LC circuit can be tuned by hand. However, it does surprise me that the impedance varies so much over the specified RF range of ±50 MHz. Maybe this is an indication that something is bad.

I removed the cover of the modulator (which I think Koji did, as well) and all the connections looked as I imagine they should---i.e., there was nothing obviously broken, physically.

I then tried my hand at realigning the AOM from scratch by removing and replacing it. I was not able to get better than 0.15%, which is roughly what Koji got.

So, perhaps our best course of action is to decide what we expect the Zin spectrum to look like, and whether that agrees with the above measurement.

98   Fri Apr 5 14:39:26 2013 KojiMechanicsCharacterizationCalibration of the test PZTs after the heat cure

We attached fused silica windows on the test PZTs. http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/93

The glued assemblies were brought to Bob's bake lab for the heat cure. There they are exposed to 94degC heat for two hours (excluding ramp up/down time).

After the heat cure, we made the visual inspection.
The photos are available here.

Pre-bake
Test PZT #1: 17.4nm/V
Test PZT #2: 17.2nm/V
Test PZT #3: 30.6nm/V

Post-bake
Test PZT #1: 27.2 nm/V
Test PZT #2: 26.9 nm/V
Test PZT #3: 21.4 nm/V

Measurement precision is ~+/-20%
Spec is 14nm/V

Attachment 2: PZTresponse.pdf
97   Thu Apr 4 23:44:52 2013 KojiOpticsConfigurationBeam launched into fiber

We had to move our flipper mirror to share the beam between Peter's setup and ours as our flipper is at the place where the ISS PD array base is supposed to be!
There was no place to insert the flipper in the setup. We (Peter and Koji) decided to move the laser back for ~2".

This entirely changed the alignment of the setup. The fiber coupler was my reference of the alignment.
Once the beam is aligned, I check the coupling to the fiber. It was 50%.

I tweaked the lens and eventually the coupling is improved to 83%. (24.7mW incident, 20.4mW obtained.)

Then, I started to check the AOM path. I noticed that the 1st (or -1st) order beam is very weak.
The deflection efficiency is ~0.1%. Something is wrong.
I checked the driver. The driver's coupler output (1:10) show the amplitude ~1V. (good)
I check the main output by reducing the offset. When the coupler output is 100mV, the main output was 1V. (good)
So is the AOM itself broken???

96   Thu Apr 4 01:43:06 2013 KojiOpticsCharacterizationMirror T measurement

[Zach, Koji]

The measurement setup for the transmission measurement has been made at the output of the fiber.

- First, we looked at the fiber output with a PBS. It wasn't P-pol so we rotated the ourput coupler.
What we found was that it wasn't actually linearly polarized.
So the input coupler was rotated to correct it. This terribly misaligned the input coupling.
After some iteration of rotating and aligning the input/output couplers, we obtained reasonable
extiction ratio like 10mW vs 100uW (100:1) with 11mW incidence. (Where is the rest 0.9mW!?)

- The P-pol (transmission) out of PBS goes into the mirror. Here we tested mirror A1.
The mirror is mounted on the prism mount supported by a rotational stage for precise angle adjustment
We limited the input power down to 5mW so that we can remove the attenuator on the power meter.
The reading of the power meter was fluctuating, indeed depending on MY position.
So we decided to turn off the lighting of the room. This made the reading very stable.

The offset of the power meter was -0.58uW

The transmitted power for the normal incidence was 39.7uW with the incident 4.84mW.
[39.7-(-0.58)] / [4.84*1000-(-0.58)] *10^6 = 8320 ppm

The transmitted power for the 4deg incidence was 38.0uW with the incident 4.87mW.
[38.0-(-0.58)] / [4.87*1000-(-0.58)] *10^6 = 7980 ppm

cf. The specification is 7931ppm

95   Thu Apr 4 01:35:04 2013 KojiOpticsCharacterizationMode matching to the OMC cavity

The fiber output was matched with the lenses on a small bread board.
The detailed configuration is found in the following elog link.

http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/105

94   Thu Apr 4 00:35:42 2013 ZachOpticsConfigurationMMT installed on breadboard, periscope built

[Koji, Zach]

We installed the MMT that matches the fiber output to the OMC on a 6"x12" breadboard. We did this so that we can switch from the "fauxMC" (OMC mirrors arranged with standard mounts for practice locking) to the real OMC without having to rebuild the MMT.

The solution that Koji found was:

z = 0: front face of the fiber output coupler mount

z = 4.8 cm: f = 35mm lens

z = 21.6 cm: f = 125mm lens

This should place the waist at z ~ 0.8 m. Koji has the exact solution, so I will let him post that.

The lenses are on ±0.5" single-axis OptoSigma stages borrowed from the TCS lab. Unfortunately, the spacing between the two lenses is very close to a half-integer number of inches, so I had to fix one of them using dog clamps instead of the screw holes to preserve the full range.

Koji also built the periscope (which raises the beam height by +1.5") using a vertical breadboard and some secret Japanese mounts. Part of it can be seen in the upper left corner of the photo below---sorry for not getting a shot of it by itself.

93   Wed Apr 3 18:42:45 2013 KojiOpticsGeneralEP30-2 gluing test

EP30-2 gluing test

92   Wed Apr 3 17:39:38 2013 KojiMechanicsCharacterizationCalibration of the test PZTs before the glue test

We want to make sure the responses of the PZT actuator does not change after the EP30-2 gluing.

A shadow sensor set up was quickly set-up at the fiber output. It turned out the ring PZTs are something really not-so-straightforward.
If the PZT was free or just was loosely attached on a plane by double-sided tape, the actuation response was quite low (30% of the spec).
After some struggle, I reached the conclusion that the PZT deformation is not pure longitudinal but some 3-dimensional, and you need to
use a "sandwitch" with two flat surfaces with some pressue.

I turned the setup for horizontal scans to the vertical one, and put the PZT between quarter-inch spacers.
Then two more spacers are placed on the stack so that the weight applies the vertical pressure on the PZT.
This is also use ful to adjust the height of the shadow.

The calibration plot is attached. It gives us ~21k V/m.
Voltage swing of 150V results the output voltage change of ~50mV.  This is pretty close to what is expected from the spec (16nm/V).
The PZT#3 (which had the mirror glued on) showed significantly large response.

Test PZT #1: 17.4nm/V
Test PZT #2: 17.2nm/V
Test PZT #3: 30.6nm/V
UHV PZT #24: 17.6nm/V

These numbers will be checked after the heat cure of EP30-2

91   Mon Apr 1 18:17:01 2013 KojiOpticsGeneralMirror curvature center test

Locations of the curvature minimum on the OMC curved mirrors have been measured.

Motivation:

When a curved mirror is misaligned, the location of the curvature center is moved.
Particularly, our OMC mirror is going to be attached on the PZT and the mounting prism with the back surface of the mirror.
This means that a curved mirror has inherent misalignment if the curvature minimum of the curved mirror is shifted from the center of the mirror.
Since we have no ability to control mirror pitch angle once it is glued on the prism, the location of the curvature minima
should be characterized so that we can oush all of the misalignment in the horizontal direction.

Measurement technique:

When a curved mirror is completely axisymmetric (in terms of the mirror shape), any rotation of the mirror does not induce change on the axis of the refected beam.
If the curvature minimum is deviated from the center of the mirror, the reflected beam suffer precession. As we want to precisely rotate the mirror, we use the gluing
fixture for the PZT assembly. In this method, the back surface of the curved mirror is pushed on the mounting prism, and the lateral position of the mirror is precisely
defined by the fixture. As you rotate the mirror in clockwise viewing from the front, the spot moves in counter clockwise on the CCD.

Setup and procedure:

The mounting prism (#21) is placed on the gluing fixture. A curved mirror under the test is loaded in the fixture with no PZT.
i.e. the back surface is aligned by the mounting prism. The fixing pressure is applied to the curved mirror by the front plate
with spring loads. The mirror needs be pushed from the top at least once to keep its defined position in the fixture.
The incident beam is slightly slated for the detection of the reflected spot. The beam is aligned and hits the center of the mirror as much as possible.

The position of the spot on the CCD (WinCamD) is recorded, while the mirror is rotated 90deg at once. The rotation of the mirror is defined as shown in the figure below.
The angle origin is defined by the arrow mark of the mirror and rotated in clockwise being viewed from the front face. The mirror is rotated 540deg (8points) to check
the reproducibility.

Measurement result:

8 point for each mirror is fitted by a circle. The fitting result provides the origin and radius of the circle, and the angle correspond to mirror angle of 0deg.

Analysis:

d: distance of the curvature minimum and the mirror center (quantity to be delived)

D: distance of the prove beam spot from the center of the mirror

R: Radius of curvature of the mirror

theta_R: angle of incidence/reflection

The interesting consequence is that precession diameter (X-X') on the CCD does not depend on the spot position on the mirror.
This ensures the precision of the measurement. In the measurement, the radius of the precession (r = (X-X')/2) is obtained.

Therefore,

d = r R / (2 L)

Mirror name, distance[mm]
C1: 0.95
C3: 1.07
C4: 1.13
C5: 0.97
C6: 0.73
C7: 1.67
C8: 2.72
C9: 1.05
C10: 0.41
C11: 0.64
C12: 0.92
C13: 0.14

Resolution:
The angle to be rotated is depicted in the following plot for each mirror.

Attachment 5: curved_mirror_precession.pdf
90   Mon Apr 1 10:28:03 2013 KojiMechanicsGeneralAdditional UV blast for the top surface

[Koji, Lisa, Jeff, Zach]

Jeffs concern after talking with the glue company (EMI) was that the UV blast for the top side was not enough.

First we wanted to confirm if too much blasting is any harmful for the glue joint.

We took a test joint of FS-FS with the UV epoxy. We blasted the UV for 1min with ~15mm distance from the joint.
After the observation of the joint, we continued to blast more.
In total, we gave additional 5min exposure. No obvious change was found on the joint.

Then proceed to blast the OMC top again. We gave 1 min additional blast on each glue joint.

89   Mon Apr 1 03:23:48 2013 KojiOpticsGeneralUV power calibration

[Koji Lisa Jeff Zach]

Eric G bought a UV power meter from American Ultraviolet.

Our UV illuminator was calibrated by this power meter.

The first blast (i.e. cold start): 3.9W/cm^2

After many blasting: 8.3W/cm^2

The spec is 20W/cm^2

88   Mon Apr 1 03:13:41 2013 KojiOpticsGeneralFailure of PZT-glass joints

[Koji, Jeff, Zach, Lisa]

We glued a test PZT-mirror assembly last week in order to make sure the heat cure of the epoxy does not make any problem
on the glass-PZT joints. The assembly was sent to Bob for the heat treatment. We received the assembly back from Bob on Wednesday.

We noticed that the assembly after the heat cure at 100degC had some voids in the epoxy layer
(looking like the fused silica surface was only 70% "wetted" by the epoxy).
The comparison of the assembly before and after the heat treatment is found in the slideshow at the bottom of the entry.

Initially our main concern was the impact to the control and noise performance.
An unexpected series resonance on the PZT transfer function and unwanted noise creation by the imperfect bonding may terribly ruin the IFO sensitivity.
In reality, after repeated poking by fingers, the PZT-prism joint was detached. This isn't good at all.
Note that there is no sign of degradation on the glass-glass joint.

We investigated the cause of this like:
- Difference of thermal expansion (3ppm/C PZT vs 0.55ppm/C fused silica)
- Insufficient curing of epoxy by UV (but this is the motivation of the heat cure)

Our resolution up to this point is to switch the glue to EP30-2. This means we will go through the heat cure test again.
Unfortunately there is no EP30-2 in stock at Caltech. We asked MIT to send us some packets of EP30-2.

Hardness of the epoxies is another concern. Through the epoxy investigation, we learned from Noliac that the glue for the PZT
should not be too hard (stiff) so as not to constrain the deformation of the PZT. EP30-2 has Shore D Hardness of 75 or more,
while Optocast UV epoxy has 88, and EPOTEK Epoxies, which Noliac suggested for gluing, has ~65. This should also be
confirmed by some measurement.  We will also ask Master Bond if they have information regarding the effect of curing
temperature on the hardness of the epoxy.  EP30-2 can be cured anywhere between RT and 200F (it's service range is up to 300F).
However, the entire breadboard, with the curved mirror sub-assemblies, will need to be baked at 110C to cure the UV Bond epoxy.
We hope that exposure to relatively higher temps doesn't harden the EP30-2. The EP30-2 data sheet recommends an epoxy
thickness of 80-120 microns which is much thicker than we would like.

We also don't have a way tocontrol the thickness; though we could add glass spheres to the epoxy to control the thickness.
The thickness of the EP30-2 used to bond the metal wire guide prism on the core optics is much thinner at 15-25 microns.

87   Fri Mar 29 08:55:00 2013 ZachOpticsConfigurationBeam launched into fiber

 Quote: Lisa and I concurred that it felt like we had converged to the optimum alignment and polarization, which would mean that the lack of coupling is all from mode mismatch. Since the input mode is well collimated, it seems unlikely that we could be off enough to only get ~1% coupling. One possibility is that the collimator is not well attached to the fiber itself. Since the Rayleigh range within it is very small, any looseness here can be critical.

My hypothesis about the input-side collimator turned out to be correct.

I removed the fiber from the collimator and mount at the input side, and then injected the illuminator beam from this side. Since we already saw a nice (but dim) IR beam emerging from the output side the other night, it followed that that collimator was correctly attached. With the illuminator injected from the input side, I also saw a nice, collimated red beam emerging from the output. So, the input collimator was not properly attached during our previous attempts, leading to the abysmal coupling.

The problem is that the mount does not allow you to remove and reattach the fiber while the collimator is already attached, and the dimensions make it hard to fit your fingers in to tighten the fiber to the collimator once the collimator is in the mount. I disassembled the mount and found a way to attach/reattach the fiber that preserves the tight collimator contact. I will upload a how-to shortly.

With this fix, I was able to align the input beam and get decent coupling:

EOM path: ~70%

AOM path: ~50%

ELOG V3.1.3-