40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  OMC elog, Page 4 of 9  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  372   Fri Aug 23 11:11:44 2019 shrutiOpticsCharacterizationFinding the curvature bottom

I attempted to fit the data taken by Koji of the beam spot precession at the CCD in order to find the location of the curvature bottom in terms of its distance (d) and angle (\phi) from the centre of the mirror. This was done using the method described in a previous similar measurement  and Section 2.1.3 of T1500060.

Initially, I attempted doing a circle_fit on python as seen in Attachment 1, and even though more points seem to coincide with the circle, Koji pointed out that the more appropriate way of doing it would be to fit the following function:

f(i, \theta, r, \phi) = \delta_{i,0} [r \cos(\theta+\phi) + x_c] + \delta_{i,1} [r \sin(\theta+\phi) +y_c]

since that would allow us to measure the angle \phi more accurately; \phi is the anti-clockwise measured angle that the curvature bottom makes with the positive x direction.

As seen on the face of the CCD, x is positive up and y is positive right, thus, plotting it as the reflection (ref. Attachment 2) would make sure that \phi is measured anti-clockwise from the positive x direction.

 

The distance from the curvature bottom is calculated as 

d = \frac{rR}{2L}

r: radius of precession on CCD screen (value obtained from fit parameters, uncertainty in this taken from the std dev provided by fit function)

R: radius of curvature of the mirror 

L: Distance between mirror and CCD

 

R = 2.575 \pm 0.005 m (taken from testing procedure doc referenced earlier) and L = 0.644 \pm 0.005 m (value taken from testing doc, uncertainty from Koji)

  d (mm) \phi (deg)
C7 0.554 \pm 0.004 -80.028 \pm 0.005
C10 0.257 \pm 0.002 -135.55 \pm 0.02
C13 0.161 \pm 0.001 -79.31 \pm 0.06

 

Attachment 1: CircleFit.pdf
CircleFit.pdf
Attachment 2: SineFit.pdf
SineFit.pdf
  373   Thu Aug 29 11:51:49 2019 shrutiOpticsCharacterizationWedging of the debonded PZTs - Calculation

Using the measurements of PZTs 12,13 taken by Stephen, I estimated the wedging angle and orientation following Section 2.3.1 of T1500060. The results can be found in Attachment1 and is summarised as follows.

For PZT 12, PZT 13 respectively:

Avg. height = 2.0063 mm, 2.0035 mm

Wedge direction (from the same direction as in the doc: positive right) = 120 deg, 120 deg

Wedge angles = 45.8 arcsec, 30.6 arcsec

 

This was done assuming that the measurements were taken uniformly at intervals of 60deg along the inner rim of the PZT. The diameter (2r) of the inner rim, according to T1500060, is 9mm. The measured heights were fitted with the function

h = h_0 + \tan(\Omega)\text{ }r(1-\cos(\theta - \alpha))

as depicted in Attachment2 to find wedging angle (\Omega) and orientation (\alpha).

Quote:

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: PZT_Wedging_Results.pdf
PZT_Wedging_Results.pdf
Attachment 2: PZT_Wedging_Calc.pdf
PZT_Wedging_Calc.pdf
  395   Thu Oct 8 19:55:22 2020 KojiGeneralCharacterizationPower Measurement of Mephisto 800NE 1166A

The output of Mephisto 800NE (former TNI laser) was measured.
The output power was measured with Thorlabs sensors (S401C and S144C). The reference output record on the chassis says the output was 837mW at 2.1A injection.
They all showed some discrepancy. Thus we say that the max output of this laser is 1.03W at 2.1A injection based on the largest number I saw.

Attachment 1: Mephisto800NE_1166A.pdf
Mephisto800NE_1166A.pdf
  402   Sat Nov 21 13:58:30 2020 KojiElectronicsCharacterizationDark Current Measurement for InGaAs QPDs

Dark current measurement for InGaAs QPDs (OSI FCI-InGaAs-Q3000) has been done using Keithley 2450 and Frank's diode test kit. Frank's setup uses various custom instruments which are no longer exist, therefore the kit was used only for switching between the segments.

The diodes were serialized as 81, 82, 83, 84, continuing the numbering for the OMC QPDs. The numbers are engraved at the side and the back of the diode cans.

Overall, the QPDs nominally indicated the usual dark current level of <10nA.
SEG1 of #82 showed a lower voltage of reverse breakdown but this is not a critical level.
#83 showed variations between the segments compared to the uniform characteristics of #81 and #84.

Attachment 1: Q3000_dark_current.pdf
Q3000_dark_current.pdf
  403   Sun Nov 22 13:49:12 2020 KojiElectronicsCharacterizationImpedance Measurement for InGaAs QPDs

To know any anomaly to the junction capacitance of the QPD segments, the RF impedances were tested with a hand-made impedance measurement.
All segments look almost identical in terms of capacitance.

Measurement setup:
The impedance of a device can be measured, for example, from the complex reflection coefficient (S11). To measure the reflection, a bidirectional coupler was brought from the 40m. Attachments 1 and 2 shows the connection. The quantity A/R shows S11. The network analyzer can convert a raw transfer function to an impedance in Ohm.

Calibration and Measurement limit:
The network analyzer was calibrated with 1) a piece of wire to short the clips 2) 50ohm resistor 3) open clips. Then the setup was tested with these three conditions (again). Attachment 3 shows the result. Because of the impedance variation of the system (mainly from the Pomona clip, I guess), there looks the systematic measurement error of ~1pF or ~25nH. Above 100MHz, the effect of the stray impedance is large such that the measurement is not reliable.

The setup was tested with a 10pF ceramic capacitor and this indicated it is accurate at this level. The setup is sufficient for measuring the diode junction capacitance of 300~500pF.

Impedance of the QPD segments:

Then the impedances of the QPD segments were measured (Attachment 4). The segments showed the identical capacitance of 300~400pF level, except for the variation of the stray inductance at high freq, which we can ignore. Note that there is no bias voltage applied and the nominal capacitance in the datasheet is 225pF at 5V reverse bias. So I can conclude that the QPDs are quite nominal in terms of the junction capacitance.

(Ed: 11/23/2020 The RF components were returned to the 40m)

Attachment 1: impedance_measurement.pdf
impedance_measurement.pdf
Attachment 2: P_20201121_183830.jpg
P_20201121_183830.jpg
Attachment 3: impedance_test.pdf
impedance_test.pdf
Attachment 4: Q3000_impedance_test.pdf
Q3000_impedance_test.pdf
  404   Mon Nov 23 23:17:19 2020 KojiElectronicsCharacterizationThe dark noise of the Q3000 QPDs

The dark noise levels of the four Q3000 QPDs were measured with FEMTO DLPCA200 low noise transimpedance amp.

The measurement has been done in the audio frequency band. The amp gain was 10^7 V/A. The reverse bias was set to be 5V and the DC output of the amplifier was ~40mV which corresponds to the dark current of 4nA. It is consistent with the dark current measurement.

The measured floor level of the dark current was below the shot noise level for the DC current of 0.1mA (i.e. 6pA/rtHz).
No anomalous behavior was found with the QPDs.

Note that there is a difference in the level of the power line noise between the QPDs. The large part of the line noises was due to the noise coupling from a soldering iron right next to the measurement setup, although the switch of the iron was off. I've noticed this noise during the measurement sets for QPD #83. Then the iron was disconnected from the AC tap.
 

Attachment 1: Q3000_dark_noise_81.pdf
Q3000_dark_noise_81.pdf
Attachment 2: Q3000_dark_noise_82.pdf
Q3000_dark_noise_82.pdf
Attachment 3: Q3000_dark_noise_83.pdf
Q3000_dark_noise_83.pdf
Attachment 4: Q3000_dark_noise_84.pdf
Q3000_dark_noise_84.pdf
  405   Tue Nov 24 10:45:07 2020 gautamElectronicsCharacterizationThe dark noise of the Q3000 QPDs

I see that these measurements are done out to 100 kHz - I guess there is no reason to suspect anything at 55 MHz which is where this QPD will be reading out photocurrent given the low frequency behavior looks fine? The broad feature at ~80 kHz is the usual SR785 feature I guess, IIRC it's got to do with the display scanning rate.

Quote:

The measured floor level of the dark current was below the shot noise level for the DC current of 0.1mA (i.e. 6pA/rtHz).

  406   Tue Nov 24 12:27:18 2020 KojiElectronicsCharacterizationThe dark noise of the Q3000 QPDs

The amplifier BW was 400kHz at the gain of 1e7 V/A. And the max BW is 500kHz even at a lower gain. I have to setup something special to see the RF band dark noise.
With this situation, I stated "the RF dark noise should be characterized by the actual WFS head circuit." in the 40m ELOG.

  4   Wed Jun 20 20:37:45 2012 ZachOpticsConfigurationTopology / parameter selection

EDIT (ZK): All the plots here were generated using my MATLAB cavity modeling tool, ArbCav. The utility description is below. The higher-order mode resonance plots are direct outputs of the function. The overlap plots were made by modifying the function to output a list of all HOM resonant frequencies, and then plotting the closest one as a function of cavity length. This was done for various values of highest mode order to consider, as described in the original entry.

Description:

This function calculates information about an arbitrary optical cavity. It can plot the cavity geometry, calculate the transmission/reflection spectrum, and generate the higher-order mode spectrum for the carrier and up to 2 sets of sidebands.

The code accepts any number of mirrors with any radius of curvature and transmission, and includes any astigmatic effects in its output.

As opposed to the previous version, which converted a limited number of cavity shapes into linear cavities before performing the calculation, this version explicitly propagates the gouy phase of the beam around each leg of the cavity, and is therefore truly able to handle an arbitrary geometry.

----------------Original Post----------------

I expressed concern that arbitrarily choosing some maximum HOM order above which not to consider makes us vulnerable to sitting directly on a slightly-higher-order mode. At first, I figured the best way around this is to apply an appropriate weighting function to the computed HOM frequency spacing. Since this will also have some arbitrariness to it, I have decided to do it in a more straightforward way. Namely, look at the spacing for different values of the maximum mode number, nmax, and then use this extra information to better select the length.

Assumptions:

  • The curved mirror RoC is the design value of 2.50±0.025 m
  • The ±9 MHz sidebands will have ~1% the power of the other fields at the dark port. Accordingly, as in Sam's note, their calculated spacing is artificially increased by 10 linewidths.
  • The opening angle of 4º is FIXED, and the total length is scaled accordingly

Below are the spacing plots for the bowtie (flat-flat-curved-curved) and non-bowtie (flat-curved-flat-curved) configurations. Points on each line should be read out as "there are are no modes of order N or lower within [Y value] linewidths of the carrier TEM00 transmission", where N is the nmax appropriate for that trace. Intuitively, as more orders are included, the maxima go down, because more orders are added to the calculation.

*All calculations are done using my cavity simulation function, ArbCav. The mode spacing is calculated for each particular geometry by explicitly propagating the gouy phase through each leg of the cavity, rather than by finding an equivalent linear cavity*

 ovlp_bowtie.pngovlp_non-bowtie.png

Since achievable HOM rejection is only one of the criteria that should be used to choose between the two topologies, the idea is to pick one length solution for EACH topology. Basically, one maximum should be chosen for each plot, based on how how high an order we care about.

Bowtie

For the bowtie, the nmax = 20 maximum at L = 1.145 m is attractive, because there are no n < 20 modes within 5 linewidths, and no n < 25 modes within ~4.5 linewidths. However, this means that there are also n < 10 modes within 5 linewidths, while they could be pushed (BLUE line) to ~8.5 linewidths at the expense of proximity to n > 15 modes.

Therefore, it's probably best to pick something between the red and green maxima: 1.145 m < L < 1.152 m.

By manually inspecting the HOM spectrum for nmax = 20, it seems that L = 1.150 m is the best choice. In the HOM zoom plot below and the one to follow, the legend is as follows

  • BLUE: Carrier
  • GREEN: +9 MHz
  • RED: -9 MHz
  • CYAN: +45 MHz
  • BLACK: -45 MHz

spect_zoom_bowtie.png

Non-bowtie

Following the same logic as above, the most obvious choice for the non-bowtie is somewhere between the red maximum at 1.241 m and the magenta maximum at 1.248 m. This still allows for reasonable suppression of the n < 10 modes without sacrificing the n < 15 mode suppression completely.

Upon inspection, I suggest L = 1.246 m

spect_zoom_non-bowtie.png

I reiterate that these calculations are taking into account modes of up to n ~ 20. If there is a reason we really only care about a lower order than this, then we can do better. Otherwise, this is a nice compromise between full low-order mode isolation and not sitting directly on slightly higher modes.

 

RoC dependence

One complication that arises is that all of these are highly dependent on the actual RoC of the mirrors. Unfortunately, even the quoted tolerance of ±1% makes a difference. Below is a rendering of the RED traces (nmax = 20) in the first two plots, but for R varying by ±2% (i.e., for R = 2.45 m, 2.50 m, 2.55 m).

ovlp_vs_R_bowtie.pngovlp_vs_R_non-bowtie.png

The case for the non-bowtie only superficially seems better; the important spacing is the large one between the three highest peaks centered around 1.24 m.

Also unfortunately, this strong dependence is also true for the lowest-order modes. Below is the same two plots, but for the BLUE (nmax = 10) lines in the first plots.

 ovlp_vs_R_N10_bowtie.pngovlp_vs_R_N10_non-bowtie.png

Therefore, it is prudent not to pick a specific length until the precise RoC of the mirrors is measured.

 

Conclusion

Assuming the validity of looking at modes between 10 < n < 20, and that the curved mirror RoC is the design value of 2.50 m, the recommended lengths for each case are:

  • Bowtie: LRT = 1.150 m
  • Non-bowtie: LRT = 1.246 m

 HOWEVER, variation within the design tolerance of the mirror RoC will change these numbers appreciably, and so the RoC should be measured before a length is firmly chosen.

  5   Thu Jun 21 03:07:27 2012 ZachOpticsConfigurationParameter selection / mode definition

EDIT 2 (ZK): As with the previous post, all plots and calculations here are done with my MATLAB cavity modeling utility, ArbCav.

EDIT (ZK): Added input q parameters for OMMT 

found the nice result that the variation in the optimal length vs. variation in the mirror RoC is roughly linear within the ±1% RoC tolerance. So, we can choose two baseline mode definitions (one for each mirror topology) and then adjust as necessary following our RoC measurements.

Bowtie

For R = 2.5 m, the optimal length (see previous post) is LRT = 1.150 m, and the variation in this is dLRT/dR ~ +0.44 m/m.

Here is an illustration of the geometry:

geom_bowtie.png

The input q parameters, defined at the point over the edge of the OMC slab where the beam first crosses---(40mm, 150mm) on the OptoCad drawing---are, in meters:

  • qix = - 0.2276 + 0.6955 i
  • qiy = - 0.2276 + 0.6980 i

 

Non-bowtie

For R = 2.5 m, the optimal length is LRT = 1.246 m, and the variation in this is also dLRT/dR ~ +0.44 m/m.

Geometry:

geom_non-bowtie.png

q parameters, defined as above:

  • qix = - 0.0830 + 0.8245 i
  • qiy = - 0.0830 + 0.8268 i
  36   Thu Nov 8 19:47:55 2012 KojiElectronicsConfigurationSolder for PZTs

Rich saids:

I have ordered a small roll of solder for the OMC piezos. 
The alloy is: Sn96.5 Ag3.0 Cu0.5

  38   Thu Nov 8 20:12:10 2012 KojiOpticsConfigurationHow many glass components we need for a plate

Optical prisms 50pcs (A14+B12+C6+E18)
Curved Mirrors 25pcs (C13+D12)

  Qty

Prisms

Curved No BS OMC Wedge tested
Coating A: IO coupler   14 0  2 prisms 5/5
Coating B: BS 45deg   12 0  2 prisms  0/5
Coating C: HR   6 13 2 curved  
Coating D: Asym. output coupler   0 12 -  
Coating E: HR 45deg   18 0  4 prism (1 trans + 3 refl) 0/3
D1102209 Wire Mount Bracket 25      4  
D1102211 PD Mount Bracket 30      8  

 

  55   Fri Jan 18 13:25:17 2013 KojiOpticsConfigurationAutocollimator calibration

An autocollimator (AC) should show (0,0) if a retroreflector is placed in front of the AC.
However, the AC may have an offset. Also the retroreflector may not reflect the beam back with an exact parallelism.

To calibrate these two errors, the autocollimator is calibrated. The retroreflector was rotated by 0, 90, 180, 270 deg
while the reticle position are monitored. The images of the autocollimator were taken by my digital camera looking at the eyepiece of the AC.

Note that 1 div of the AC image corresponds to 1arcmin.

Basically the rotation of the retroreflector changed the vertical and horizontal positions of the reticle pattern by 0.6mdeg and 0.1mdeg
(2 and 0.4 arcsec). Therefore the parallelism of the retrorefrector is determined to be less than an arcsec. This is negligibly good for our purpose.

The offset changes by ~1div in a slanted direction if the knob of the AC, whose function is unknown, is touched.
So the knob should be locked, and the offset should be recorded before we start the actual work every time.

Attachment 1: autocollimator_calibration.pdf
autocollimator_calibration.pdf autocollimator_calibration.pdf autocollimator_calibration.pdf autocollimator_calibration.pdf
  63   Thu Feb 21 18:44:18 2013 KojiOpticsConfigurationPerpendicularity test

Perpendicularity test of the mounting prisms:

The perpendicularity of the prism pieces were measured with an autocollimator.

Two orthogonally jointed surfaces forms a part of a corner cube.
The deviation of the reflected image from retroreflection is the quantity measured by the device.

When the image is retroreflected, only one horizontal line is observed in the view.
If there is any deviation from the retroreflection, this horizontal line splits into two
as the upper and lower halves have the angled wavefront by 4x\theta. (see attached figure)

The actual reading of the autocollimator is half of the wavefront angle (as it assumes the optical lever).
Therefore the reading of the AC times 30 gives us the deviation from 90deg in the unit of arcsec.

SN / measured / spec

SN10: 12.0 arcsec (29 arcsec)

SN11: 6.6 arcsec (16 arcsec)

SN16: 5.7 arcsec (5 arcsec)

SN20: -17.7 arcsec (5 arcsec)

SN21: - 71.3 arcsec (15 arcsec)

 

Attachment 1: perpendicularity_test.pdf
perpendicularity_test.pdf perpendicularity_test.pdf
Attachment 2: P2203206.JPG
P2203206.JPG
  64   Wed Feb 27 18:18:48 2013 KojiOpticsConfigurationMore perpendicularity test

Mounting Prisms:
(criteria: 30arcsec = 145urad => 0.36mm spot shift)
SN  Meas.(div) ArcSec Spec.
10   0.3989    11.97   29    good
11   0.2202     6.60   16
    good
16   0.1907     5.72    5
    good
20  -0.591    -17.73    5
    good
21  -2.378    -71.34   15

21  -1.7      -51.     15
01  -0.5      -15.     52
02  -2.5      -75.     48
06  -1.0      -30.     15
    good
07   1.7       51.     59
12  -2.2      -66.     40
13  -0.3      - 9.     12
    good
14  -2.8      -84.     27
15  -2.5      -75.     50
17   0.7       21.     48
22   2.9       87.    
63

Mirror A:
A1  -0.5      -15.     NA    good
A3   0.5       15.     NA
    good
A4   0.9       27.     NA
    good
A5   0.4       12.     NA
    good
A6   0.1        3.
    NA    good
A7   0.0        0.
    NA    good
A8   0.0       
0.     NA    good
A9   0.0       
0.     NA    good
A10  1.0      
30.     NA    good
A11  0.3       
9.     NA    good
A12  0.1       
3.     NA    good
A13  0.0       
0.     NA    good
A14  0.6      
18.     NA    good

Mirror B:
B1  -0.9     
-27.     NA    good
B2  -0.6     
-18.     NA    good
B3  -0.9     
-27.     NA    good
B4   0.7      
21.     NA    good
B5  -1.1     
-33.     NA
B6  -0.6     
-18.     NA    good
B7  -1.8     
-54.     NA
B8  -1.1     
-33.     NA
B9   1.8      
54.     NA
B10  1.2       
36.     NA   
B11 -1.7     
-51.     NA
B12  1.1       
33.     NA

  65   Fri Mar 1 23:06:15 2013 KojiOpticsConfigurationMore perpendicularity test final

Perpendicularity of the "E" mirror was measured.


Mounting Prisms:
(criteria: 30arcsec = 145urad => 0.36mm spot shift)
SN  Meas.(div) ArcSec Spec.
10   0.3989    11.97   29    good
11   0.2202     6.60   16
    good
16   0.1907     5.72    5
    good
20  -0.591    -17.73    5
    good
21  -2.378    -71.34   15

21  -1.7      -51.     15
01  -0.5      -15.     52
02  -2.5      -75.     48
06  -1.0      -30.     15
    good
07   1.7       51.     59
12  -2.2      -66.     40
13  -0.3      - 9.     12
    good
14  -2.8      -84.     27
15  -2.5      -75.     50
17   0.7       21.     48
22   2.9       87.    
63

Mirror A:
A1  -0.5      -15.     NA    good
A3   0.5       15.     NA
    good
A4   0.9       27.     NA
    good
A5   0.4       12.     NA
    good
A6   0.1        3.
    NA    good
A7   0.0        0.
    NA    good
A8   0.0       
0.     NA    good
A9   0.0       
0.     NA    good
A10  1.0      
30.     NA    good
A11  0.3       
9.     NA    good
A12  0.1       
3.     NA    good
A13  0.0       
0.     NA    good
A14  0.6      
18.     NA    good

Mirror B:
B1  -0.9     
-27.     NA    good
B2  -0.6     
-18.     NA    good
B3  -0.9     
-27.     NA    good
B4   0.7      
21.     NA    good
B5  -1.1     
-33.     NA
B6  -0.6     
-18.     NA    good
B7  -1.8     
-54.     NA
B8  -1.1     
-33.     NA
B9   1.8      
54.     NA
B10  1.2       
36.     NA   
B11 -1.7     
-51.     NA
B12  1.1       
33.     NA

Mirror E:
E1  -0.8      -24.     NA    good
E2  -0.8      -24.    
NA    good
E3  -0.25     - 7.5   
NA    good
E4  -0.5      -15.     NA
    good
E5   0.8       24.     NA    good
E6  -1.0      -30.     NA
    good
E7  -0.2      - 6.     NA
    good
E8  -0.8      -24.     NA
    good
E9  -1.0      -30.     NA
    good
E10  0.0        0.     NA
    good
E11 -1.0      -30.     NA
    good
E12 -0.3      - 9.     NA
    good
E13 -0.8      -24.     NA
    good
E14 -1.0      -30.     NA    good
E15 -1.2      -36.     NA

E16 -0.7      -21.     NA
    good
E17 -0.8      -24.     NA
    good
E18 -1.0      -30.     NA
    good

  86   Thu Mar 28 03:37:07 2013 ZachOpticsConfigurationTest setup input optics progress

[Lisa, Zach]

Last night (Tuesday), I finished setting up and aligning most of the input optics for the OMC characterization setup. See the diagram below, but the setup consists of:

  • Faraday isolator/polarization definition
  • HWP+PBS for power splitting into two paths:
    • EOM path
      • Resonant EOM for PDH sideband generation
      • Broadband EOM for frequency scanning
    • AOM path
      • Double-passed ~200-MHz Isomet AOM for subcarrier generation. NOTE: in this case, I have chosen the m = -1 diffraction order due to the space constraints on the table.
  • Recombination of paths on a 50/50 beam splitter---half of the power is lost through the unused port into a black glass dump
  • Coupler for launching dual-field beam into a fiber (to OMC)

OMC_test_setup_IO.jpg 2013-03-27_05.48.20.jpg

Today, we placed some lenses into the setup, in two places:

  1. In the roundabout section of the AOM path that leads to the recombination, to re-match the AOM-path beam to that of the EOM path
  2. After the recombination beam splitter, to match the combined beam mode into the fiber

We (Koji, Lisa, and myself) had significant trouble getting more than ~0.1% coupling through the fiber, and after a while we decided to go to the 40m to get the red-light fiber illuminator to help with the alignment.

Using the illuminator, we realigned the input to the coupler and eventually got much better---but still bad---coupling of ~1.2% (0.12 mW out / 10 mW in). Due to the multi-mode nature of the illuminator beam, the output cannot be used to judge the collimation of the IR beam; it can only be used to verify the alignment of the beam.

With 0.12 mW emerging from the other end of the fiber, we could see the output quite clearly on a card (see photo below). This can tell us about the required input mode. From the looks of it, our beam is actually focused too strongly. We should probably replace the 75mm lens again with a slightly longer one.

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.

2013-03-28_02.29.36.jpg

I think there are several people around here who have worked pretty extensively with fibers. So, I propose that we ask them to take a look at what we have done and see if we're doing something totally wrong. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel.

  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%

  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.

2013-04-03_23.43.00.jpg

  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???

  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.

Isomet_1250C_zin_4_5_13.png

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.

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

Mode matching:

 

Attachment 1: beam_profile.pdf
beam_profile.pdf
Attachment 2: mode_matching.pdf
mode_matching.pdf
  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.

fauxMC_labeled.jpg

  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

OMC_breadboard_mirror_config.png

  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

  151   Fri Aug 16 15:31:17 2013 KojiOpticsConfigurationMirror list for OMC(002)

OMC(002)

Cavity Mirrors

FM1 (input coupler): A9
FM2 (output coupler): A13
CM1 (curved mirror close to FM1): C9 (PZT ASSY #6 /  M6 /PZT21/C9)
CM2 (curved mirror close to FM2): C4 (PZT ASSY #4 / M11/PZT25/C4)

DCPD path

BS3 (BS for DCPDs): B10

QPD path

BS1 (input steering): E3
SM1 (steering mirror next to BS1): E5
BS2 (BS for QPD path): B9
SM2 (steering mirror next to BS2): E1
SM3 (steering mirror next to SM2): E2

OMC_breadboard_mirror_config.png

 

 

  156   Thu Aug 22 15:40:15 2013 KojiElectronicsConfigurationPZT endurance test

[Koji, Jeff]

Background

In response to the failure of one of the PZTs on L1OMC (LLO:8366), we have been taking place an endurance test of
the four PZT sub-assemblies in prior to their being glued on the glass breadboard.

According to the technical note by Noliac, the common mode of PZT failure is degradation of the impedance
due to cyclic actuation (like 10^7 times) with over voltage. Therefore our procedure of the test to actuate the PZTs
at least 10^7 times with half voltage of the nominal operating voltage (i.e. nominal 200V) and check the degradation
of the impedance.

Driving signal

For the driving of the PZT, a thorlabs HV amp is used. A source signal of 3.5Vpp with an offset of 1.7V is produced
by DS345 function generator. This signal turns to a sinusoidal signal between 0 and 100V in conjunction with the gain
of 15 at the HV amp.

The maximum driving frequency is determined by the current supply limit of the HV amp (60mA). The capacitance
of each PZT is 0.47uF. If we decide to cycle the signal for 4 PZTs in parallel, the maximum frequency achievable
without inducing voltage drop is 100Hz. This yields the test period of 28hours in order to achive 10^7 cycles.

P8214340.jpg

Initial impedance diagnosis

To check the initial state of the PZTs, a DC voltage of 100V was applied via 1kOhm output resistance.
(Note that this output resistance is used only for the impedance test.)
For each PZTs, both side of the resister showed 99.1V for all measurement by a digital multimeter.
Assuming the minimum resolution (0.1V) of the multimeter, the resistance of each PZT was more than 1MOhm before
the cycling test.

Failure detection

In order to detect any impedance drop of the PZTs, the driving signal is monitored on the oscilloscope via a 1:10 probe.
If there is any significant impedance drop, the driver can't provide the driving current correctly. This can be found
by the deviation of the driving voltage from the reference trace on the oscilloscope (below).

P8214337.jpg

Temperature rise

Because of the loss angle of the PZT capacitance, heating of the PZTs is expected. In order to check the temperature rise,
an IR Viewer (FLIR) was used. We did not take care of careful calibration for the PZT emissibity as what we want was a
rough estimation of the temperature.

Before the driving (LEFT) and at the equilibrium (RIGHT)
IR_0457.jpg
IR_0461.jpg

The temperature change of the PZT was tracked for an hour (below). Fitting of the points indicated that the temperature rise is 2.3degC and the
time constant of 446 sec. This level of temperature rise is totally OK. (Note that the fitting function was T = 27.55 - 2.31 Exp[-t/446.])

 

Results

DAY1:

Start driving
20:27 25.2 degC, status OK
20:33 26.7 degC, status OK
20:41 26.9 degC, status OK
20:48 27.6 degC, status OK
20:54 27.4 degC, status OK
21:10 27.4 degC, status OK
21:37 status OK
Stop driving

70 minutes of driving (i.e. 4.2x10^5 cycles) => no sign of degradation

DAY2:

Start driving
14:15, 24.5 degC, status OK
14:17, 26.0 degC, status OK
14:24, 27.0 degC, status OK
14:40, 26.8 degC, status OK
14:50, 26.8 degC, status OK
15:30, 26.8 degC, status OK
15:55 status OK
17:40 status OK
21:00 status OK (2.43Mcycles + 0.42Mcycles = 2.85Mcycles)
1d+12:00 status OK (7.83Mcycles + 0.42Mcycles = 8.25Mcycles)
1d+15:00 status OK (8.91Mcycles + 0.42Mcycles = 9.33Mcycles)
1d+18:40 status OK (10.23Mcycles + 0.42Mcycles = 10.65Mcycles)
Stop Driving

After 10.65Mcycles no sign of degradationwas found.

  157   Fri Aug 23 19:24:32 2013 KojiElectronicsConfigurationPZT endurance test (II)

The PZT tests were finished with the conclusion that the PZT won't be damaged with our expected usage.


This is another test of the PZTs to make sure small (~10V) reverse voltage does not break the PZTs.

Background

At the site, we decided to use one of the PZT, which is still alive, for the HV and LV actuation.
The HV actuation is limited to 0 to 100V while the LV actuation is 10Vdc with 1Vpp fast dithering.
This means that a reverse voltage upto 10.5V will be applied to the PZT at the worst case.

From the technical note this level of reverse voltage does not induce polarization of the PZT.
The test is to ensure the PZT is not damaged or degraded by this small reverse voltage.

Method

HV drive: Thorlabs HV amp (G=15) driven with DS345 function generator (3.5Vpp+1.7Vdc, 0.1Hz)
=> 0-100V @0.1Hz
=> The hot side of the potential is connected to the positive side of the PZT

LV drive: Phillips function generator (1Vpp+9.5Vdc@1kHz)
The driving frequency is limited by the current output of the function generator.
=> The hot side of the potential is connected to the negative side of the PZT

These drives shares the common ground.

Tests

Testing with spare PZTs 

Started @19:23 (Aug 23)
Stopped @20:15+2d (Aug 25, duration 48h52m)
17600cycles for the 0.1Hz drive.
176Mcycles for the 1kHz drive.

Checked the impedances of PZT1 and PZT2.

Apply 100Vdc via a 1kOhm resister, 0V detected across the 1kOhm resister
This is equivalent to the resistance of 1MOhm.

 

Testing with the PZT subassemblies

Started shaking of the four PZT assemblies @20:20 (Aug 25)
No impedance change observed @11:10+1d
No impedance change observed @15:30+1d
Stopped shaking of the four PZT assemblies @XXXX (Aug 26)

 

Wiring for the test

PZT_shaking.png

 

 

  261   Fri Jun 10 17:12:57 2016 KojiGeneralConfigurationL1 OMC DCPD replacement

New DCPD(T) = A1-23
DCPD(T) = DCPDB: extracted and accomodated in CAGE-G SLOT1

New DCPD(R) = A1-25
DCPD(R) = DCPDA: extracted and accomodated in CAGE-G SLOT2

  263   Fri Aug 12 14:58:17 2016 KojiGeneralConfigurationH1 OMC DCPD replacement

Preparation of 3rd OMC for the use in H1

New DCPD(T) = B1-01
DCPD(T) = DCPDA: extracted and accomodated in CAGE-A SLOT1

New DCPD(R) = B1-16
DCPD(R) = DCPDB: extracted and accomodated in CAGE-A SLOT2

  277   Tue May 16 19:05:18 2017 KojiOpticsConfigurationOMC SN002 fix - temporary optics

Working on the SN002 OMC fix. Checked the inventory. I think I am using C8 mirror as the new temporary CM1 and PZT24 as the new temporary CM2.

  278   Fri May 26 21:53:20 2017 KojiGeneralConfigurationTrans RF PD setup

Recent work

- DC output of the trans RF PD was connected to the BNC patch panel. => Now CH4 of the scope is monitoring this signal

- The RF sweep signal from the network analyzer is connected to the power combiner for the EOM drive via the SMA patch panel.

- The trans RF PD was aligned first to the leakage beam. It turned out that this signal is too weak. Then the PD was aligned to one of the main OMC transmission. For this purpose, the OMC DCPD (T) was removed from the OMC breadboard.

- It seems that there is a significant amount of RF AM from the EOM. I suspect it is associated with the residual S-pol and birefringence of the steering mirrors (45deg HR). But the HWP at the output of the Faraday is fixed on the Faraday body with a screw and cumbersome for fine adjustment. A PBS and an HWP are added right before the EOM. This made the fiber coupler slightly misaligned. I suppose this new setup still has S&P on the fiber too. Thus, readjustment of the fiber rotations at the input is necessary.

Next step

- Input power to the fiber should be determined before the EOM. Otherwise, touching the HWP before the EOM causes too much power change at the optics of the OMC side.

- Precise adjustment of the RFAM is still necessary.

- The OMC curved mirror should be held by the new fixture.

- Check the beam spots

- Measure cavity parameters. (transmission/FSR/HOM/etc)

==> Then the curved mirror and the PZT will be glued on the prism

  279   Tue Jun 6 00:49:48 2017 KojiGeneralConfigurationTrans RF PD setup

Last week, I further worked on the RF system to install 20dB coupler on the agilent unit and setup the R channel. This allowed me to make the FSR/TMS measurement of the OMC.

And today several optical improvement has been done.

- The input/output fiber couplers were adjusted to have the maximum transmission through the PBS right before the OMC.
- The HWP on the output side of the faraday was adjusted to have ~40mW input to the OMC.

Then, the OMC curved mirror is now held by the new in-situ gluing fixture instead of the conventional fixture attached upside down.
The OMC was ocked again and the input alignment was adjutsed. The fixture is blocking the QPD path, so it's not possible to confirm the proper alignment of the cavity (w.r.t. the QPD paths).

The precise positions of the spots could not be confirmed as the battery of the IR viewer was empty. Quick check of the spots by the card tells that the spot on the CM2 (PD side) is slightly too close to FM2 (output coupler). I wonder if this could be solved by rotating the curved mirror.

Otherwise everything look good. Let's try to glue the curved mirror tomorrow.

Note: Spot on CM2 is too close to the edge of the hole on the mounting prism. The meausrementof CM1 is telling that the curverture center is located 2.7mm upper side of the center of the mirror if the HR side arrow is up (and it is the case). If we move the arrow to the QPD path side (90deg CW viewed from the face side), this corresponds to ~1.1mrad CCW tilt in Yaw (viewed from the top of the prism). According to the matrix calculation (T1500060) this will induce ~1.5mm shift of the beam. This should be tried before gluing.

  280   Tue Jun 6 22:00:36 2017 KojiGeneralConfigurationTrans RF PD setup

- Replaced the PZT with the one used from the beginning. This must be PZT #21. After the replacement, the spot positions look very good. I even went up. So I decided this is the configuration to proceed to the gluing. The CM1 mirror has the HR arrow at the top.

- The input beam was realigned w.r.t. the OMC.

- Tried to use the IR viewer with the new rechargable battery brought from the 40m. But the view still didn't work. The possibility is a) the viewer is broken b) the battery is empty.

- Tried to use the stainless clean regulartor for the UHP N2. The outlet has a short tube with a different diameter. The O.D. of the old tube is 6.3mm, while the new one is 9.5mm. If I insert the thinner tube in the new tube, it approximately fits. But I don't believe this is the way...

  328   Thu Apr 11 12:15:31 2019 KojiMechanicsConfigurationPZT sub assy mirror orientations
Attachment 1: PZT_subassy.png
PZT_subassy.png
Attachment 2: PZT_subassy.pdf
PZT_subassy.pdf PZT_subassy.pdf PZT_subassy.pdf PZT_subassy.pdf
  338   Tue Apr 16 16:35:09 2019 KojiOpticsConfigurationOMC(004): Glass breadboard selection

D1200105 SN006 was selected as the breadboard for OMC(004).
The reason is the best parallelism among the 
unused ones.

The attached is the excerpt from T1500060 with the #006 highlighted.

Attachment 1: BB_selection.pdf
BB_selection.pdf
  339   Tue Apr 16 16:40:26 2019 KojiGeneralConfigurationOMC(004): A Mirror selection

We are going to use A5 and A14 for FM1 and FM2. (The role of these two can be swapped)

The reason for the selection is the better perpendicularity among the available prisms.

A11 has the best perpendicularity among them. However, the T didn't match with the others. The pair of A5 and A14 has a good matching with small compromise of the perpend.

The attachment is the excerpt from T1500060.

Attachment 1: A_Mirror_selection.pdf
A_Mirror_selection.pdf
  340   Tue Apr 16 16:52:36 2019 KojiOpticsConfigurationOMC(004): B Mirror selection

We are going to use B6 for the DCPD BS (BS2), and B1 for the QPD BS (BS3). Their role can not be swapped.

B6 has the best loss among the available ones, while the perpendicularity is not so critical due to the short arm.

B1 has the OK perpendicularity, while the loss is also moderately good.

The attachment is the excerpt from T1500060 with some highlighting.

Attachment 1: B_Mirror_selection.pdf
B_Mirror_selection.pdf
  341   Tue Apr 16 17:24:56 2019 KojiOpticsConfigurationOMC(004): E Mirror selection

We are going to use E6, E9, E11, and E14 for BS1, SM1, SM2, and SM3. They (and E18) are all very similar.

The attachment is the excerpt from T1500060 with some highlighting

Attachment 1: E_Mirror_selection.pdf
E_Mirror_selection.pdf
  353   Tue Apr 23 10:21:12 2019 JoeOpticsConfigurationMoving the spots to the centre of the curved mirrors

[Koji,Philip, Liyuan, Joe]

CM1:

We moved the curved mirrors to these positions:

inner = 0.807mm

outer = 0.983 mm

CM2:

inner = 0.92 mm

outer = 0.85 mm

To do this so that realignment was easier, we moved the screws in steps of 5um. We alternated which mirror we adjusted so that we could monitor with a wincam how well aligned the beam into the cavity was. We only moved the cavity mirrors a small amount so we could still see higher order mode flashes transmitted through the cavity (e.g.TM03 modes). We would then improve the input alignment, and then move the cavity mirrors some more. Once the mirrors were adjusted according to http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/190422_195450/misalignment4.pdf the spot positions looked near the middle of the curved mirrors (using a beam card). We began beam walking but we ran  out of range of the bottom periscope screws in the yaw dof. We tried using the third screw to move the mirrror in both yaw and pitch, hopefully this will let move the mirror such that we can use the just the yaw screw. This screw also ran out of range, so we decided that the cavity needed a small adjustment.

The curved mirrors were moved slightly (>5um) and then we tried to get alignment. By using the fibre coupler translation stage, we move the beam side ways slightly, and then tried to get the periscope mirrors back to a position where the screws could move the mirrors. Once we had an ok alignment, we checked the beam. It looked like it was pretty close to the centre of the curved mirrors, which is where we wanted it to be.

We then tried locking the cavity, although the error signal was quite small. The adjusted the input offset and gain of the servo (there is apparently some problem to do with the input and output offsets). Once the cavity was locked we could make the final adjustments to aligning. We still ran out of range on the periscope. We decided to move the breadboard with the fibre coupler and mode matching lenses on it. Because we knew that the cavity was aligned such that the beam hits the centres of the curved mirrors, we could regain flashes quite quickly. We saw the error signal go down, but eventually this decrease was just to do with the beam clipping on the periscope mirrors. We moved the spot back to where we ok aligned, and slid the periscope so we were not clipping the mirror. This worked very well, and then optimised the alignment.

We then tried to improve the mode matching. 

We took photos of the spot positions (quite near the center) and made the detuned locking measurement. The fitting of the data (attachment 1) wsa 1.1318m (what error should we put here?).

I think the order we did things in was:

  • turning anti clockwise on the fibre coupler and misalign the diode, we measured the modespacing.
  • returned the alignment for the photodiode, and realign fibre couple.
  • miss align the photodiode horizontally, and then used fibre coupler to maximise the peak higher order mode peak height. We then used the PD again to make the peak height bigger.
  •  
Attachment 1: FSR_detuned_locking.pdf
FSR_detuned_locking.pdf
Attachment 2: CM1_IMG_7702.JPG
CM1_IMG_7702.JPG
Attachment 3: CM2_IMG_7704.JPG
CM2_IMG_7704.JPG
  363   Mon May 20 19:53:17 2019 KojiOpticsConfigurationDCPD high power test

We want to perform a damage test of OMC DCPDs with high power beam. The OMC DCPD is the 3mm InGaAs photodiodes with high quantum efficiency, delivered by Laser Components.
The sites want to know the allowed input power during the OMC scan for beam mode analysis. The nominal bias voltage of the PDs is +12V. Therefore, 30mA of photocurrent with the transimpedance of 400 Ohm is already enough to saturate the circuit. This means that the test is intended to check the damage of the photodiode mainly by the optical power.

The test procedure is as follows:

1. Illuminate the diode with certain optical power.
2. Measure the dark current and dark noise of the PD with no light on it.
3. Check the condition of the PD surface with a digital camera.
4. Repeat 1~3 with larger optical power.

The beam from an NPRO laser is delivered to the photodiode. The maximum power available is 300~400mW. The beam shape was regulated to have the beam radius of ~500um.

- When the PD is exposed to the high power beam, the circuit setup A) is used. This setup is intended to mimic the bias and transimpedance configuration used in the DCPD amp at the site.

- When the dark noise is measured, the circuit setup B) is used. This setup is low noise enough to measure the dark noise (and current) of the PD.

- The test procedure is going to be tested with an Excelitas 3mm InGaAs PD (C30665), and then tested with the high QE PD.

Attachment 1: BIAS.pdf
BIAS.pdf
Attachment 2: P_20190520_204822.jpg
P_20190520_204822.jpg
  364   Wed May 22 07:31:37 2019 KojiOpticsConfigurationCamera test (DCPD high power test)

C30665 (3mm) camera test. The camera was Canon PowerShot G7X MkII. Exposure 1/15s, F 5.6, ISO 125, MF (~the closest), no zoom.
This image was taken before the beam illumination. Will tune the green lighting to have some gradient on the surface so that we can see any deformation of the surface.

 

Attachment 1: 20190521201838_IMG_7939_2.jpg
20190521201838_IMG_7939_2.jpg
  374   Thu Sep 5 15:40:42 2019 shrutiOpticsConfigurationPZT Sub-Assembly

Aim: To find the combinations of mounting prism+PZT+curved mirror to build two PZT sub-assemblies that best minimises the total vertical beam deviation.

(In short, attachment 1 shows the two chosen sets of components and the configuration according which they must be bonded to minimize the total vertical angular deviation.)

The specfic components and configuration were chosen as follows, closely following Section 2.3.3 of T1500060:

Available components:

Mounting prisms: 1,2,12,14,15 (Even though there is mention of M17 in the attachments, it can not be used because it was chipped earlier.)

PZTs: 12,13

Curved mirrors: 10,13

 

Method:

For a given choice of prism, PZT and mirror, the PZT can be placed either at 0deg or 180deg, and the mirror can rotated. This allows us to choose an optimal mirror rotation and PZT orientation which minimises the vertical deviation.

Total vertical angle = $\theta_{v, prism} +\theta_{v,wedge} +\theta_{v,mirror}$

\theta_{v, prism} was measured by Koji as described in elog 369.

\theta_{v, wedge} [\text{arcsec}] = \theta_{PZT} \sin{\frac{\pi \phi_{PZT}}{180}},             \theta_{PZT}, \phi_{PZT} are the wedge angle and orientation respectively and were measured earlier and shown in elog 373 . 

\theta_{v, mirror} [\text{arcsec}] = \frac{180 \times 3600 \times d}{\pi R_{RoC}} \times \sin{\frac{\pi (\phi-\phi_{ROT})}{180}},               The measurement of the location of the curvature bottom (d, \phi) of the mirrors is shown in elog 372 . The optimal \phi_{ROT} is to be found.

 

These steps were followed:

  1. For every combination of prism, PZT, and mirror, the total vertical deviation was minimized with respect to the angle of rotation of the curved mirror computationally (SciPy.optimize.minimize). The results of this computation can be found in Attachment 2: where Tables 1.1 and 2.1 show the minimum achievable deviations for mirrors C10 and C13 respectively, and Tables 1.2 and 2.2 show the corresponding angle of rotation of the mirrors \phi_{ROT} .
  2. From the combinations that show low total deviations (highlighted in red in Attachment 2), the tolerances for 5 arcsec and 10 arcsec deviations with mirror rotation were calculated, and is shown in Tables 1.3, 1.4, 2.3, 2.4 of Attachment 2.
  3. While calculating the tolerances, the dependence of the vertical deviations with rotation were also plotted (refer Attachment 3).
  4. Two sets from available components with low total deviation and high tolerance were chosen. 

 

Result:

These are the ones that were chosen:

  1. M14 + PZT13 at 0deg + C13 rotated by 169deg anticlockwise (tot vertical dev ~ -3 arcsec)
  2. M12 + PZT12 at 0deg + C10 rotated by 88deg clockwise (tot vertical dev ~0 arcsec)

The method of attaching them is depicted in Attachment 1.

 

Attachment 1: Diagrams_SubAssembly.pdf
Diagrams_SubAssembly.pdf Diagrams_SubAssembly.pdf
Attachment 2: C10_C13_Combinations.pdf
C10_C13_Combinations.pdf C10_C13_Combinations.pdf
Attachment 3: Plots_Config_Tolerance.pdf
Plots_Config_Tolerance.pdf
  1   Fri Jun 15 15:45:49 2012 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC Plan

LIGO Document G1200683-v1:
aLIGO OMC fabrication and testing plan

aLIGO OMC wiki

  2   Sat Jun 16 08:53:09 2012 KojiGeneralGeneralTo Do List

Facility

Mechanics

  • Work 
    •  
  • Design
    • How do we hold the PDs, QPDs, and black glass - we put 2 PDs and 2 QPDs on the PD mounting blacket.
    •  
  •  
  • Test
     
  • Things to be tested
    • New suspension scheme (cup & cone design)
    • Balancing the plates
    • Dummy metal payload?
  • => Suspending test with a suspension cage for a Faraday isolator@CIT
    • Supporting block for the suspension cage (to mimic the OMC suspension)
  • Things to be designed
    • Wire end (cone)
    • Diode holding structures
      PD/QPD/PZT holding structure
  • PZT alignment
  • Prototyping with metal parts?
  • UV glue? (heat) / gluing test
  • Balance / ballast
     
  • Solid works

Optics

  • Mirrors to be delivered ~Aug
  • Design down select
    • Between "Single output & BS" vs "Two outputs & no BS"
  • Mode design
  • Finalization of scattering paths / PD angles etc
     
  • Things to be decided / confirmed:
    • How to handle optics / assemblies (Talk to the prev people)
    • First contact? (Margot: applicable to a short Rc of ~2.5m)
    • Gluing templates to be designed (how to handle it?)
  • Things to be tested:
    • R&T of each mirror
    • Cavity ref/trans/finesse
    • PD QE / incident angle
       
  • What PD do we use?
     
  • CCD beam analyzer (Zach: It is fixed.)
     
  • PD angle measurement
  • Obtain EG&G 3mm PDs

Electronics

  • Electronics / CDS electronics / software
     
  • Things to be tested
    • QPD/PD pre-selections (QE/noise)
    • Functionality test of QPD/PD/PZT

Shipping, storage etc


Jun/July
    - Lab renovtion
    - Mechanics design
    - Glue training
Aug
    - Mirror delivery
    - Basic optics test
Sept
    - Cavity test
    - Suspending test
NOV~DEC
    - Shipping to LLO

Open questions
    Two optical designs
    Procedure
    Modeling
    Clamp design / stencil design
    gluing-installation procedure

  3   Wed Jun 20 00:10:53 2012 KojiFacilityGeneralHole on the wall was patched

P6191706.jpg

  7   Sat Jul 14 02:16:07 2012 KojiGeneralGeneralPlan Update: July

Facility/Supplies

  • Work in progress
    • Floor cleaning
    • Plug slits on the roof of the HEPA booth - blanking panels have been ordered (Peter)
    • Install laser safety barrier (Peter is working on this)
    • Place a sticky mat
       
  • Work to be done
    • Replacing a file cabinet next to the south wall by a lockable cabinet
    • Replacing a lab desk at the west side of the room. (Vladimir's)
    • Replacing Vladimir's rack with nicer one.
    • Laser sign
    • Safety glass holder
    • Prepare clean supplies (Shoes/Coverall/Hats/Gloves) => go to VWR stock room
      • glove 8.5,9,9.5
         
    • Label maker (P-Touch) & Tape
        
  • Design
    • Optical layout - Laser SOP
    • Additional HEPA stage
       
  • Test
    • Confirm particle level
       
  • Note: Optical Table W96" x D48" x H27"

Beaurocracy

  • Laser SOP
  • HV use?
  • UV?

Mechanics

  • Ongoing Work 
    • Cone-shaped wire clamp design (at the OMC end) - Jeff
       
  • Design
    • Wire preparation fixture - Jeff
    • How do we hold the PDs, QPDs, and black glass - we put 2 PDs and 2 QPDs on the PD mounting blacket. - Jeff
    • Integrated solidwork model - Sam
      • Q: How the wires are clamped at the top side?
      • Q: How much the length of the wire should be?
      • Q: Locations of the wire mounts on the plate
    • Cabling investigation:
      • Where do the cables from the feed-thrus anchored? - Sam
      • List of the current internal cables and their lengths - Sam
      • List of the required internal cables and their lengths
      • Can we route the intermediate stage of the suspension? Do we need new cables?
    • Dummy intermediate stage structure
       
    • Metal templates
      • First, decide an optical design
      • takes at least a month
         
    • Weights how heavy / how many
       
  • Test
    • Cone-shaped wire clamp test - Jeff/Koji 
    • Balancing the plates
      • The Faraday isolator cage isn't clean
    • Dummy metal payload test at the sites???
       
  • Procedures to be decided
    • PZT alignment
    • Prototyping with metal parts?
    • UV glue? (heat) / gluing test
    • Balance

Optics

  • Ongoing Work 
    • Mirrors to be delivered ~Aug
       
    • Design down select - Between "Single output & BS" vs "Two outputs & no BS"
    • Down selecting procedure:
      1. Assume ELIGO beam component
      2. Assume amount of 9MHz / 45MHz sidebands at the OMC input
      3. Calculate transmitted power
      4. Require HOM to be smaller than the TEM00 offset 
         
    • UV cured epoxy (Quate obtained)
  • Design
    • Mode design for HAM6 layout
    • Finalization of scattering paths
       
  • Tests
    • Measurement of PD angles
    • R&T of each mirror
    • Curvature of the curved mirrors
    • Cavity ref/trans/finesse
    • PD Q.E. & Reflectivity measurement vs incident angle
       
  • Things to be decided / confirmed
    • How to handle optics / assemblies (Talk to the prev people)
    • First contact? (Margot: applicable to a short Rc of ~2.5m)
    • Gluing templates to be designed (how to handle it?)
       
  • PDs
  • Misc
    • CCD beam analyzer (Zach: It is fixed.)
    • Are two PZTs used?
      • YES, for redundancy, range, upconversion tests.
         
  • Things to buy
  • Need to buy a fiber for mode cleaning?
  • Mode content of the ELIGO dark beam?
  • Jitter noise?
  • How to determine the design?
  • Why Fused Silica? (How much is the temp fluctuation in the chamber?)
  • How to align the cavity mirrors, input mirrors, QPDs, PDs, beam dumps.
     

Electronics

  • Thorough scrutinization of cabling / wiring / electronics
  • Electronics / CDS electronics / software
  • Things to be tested
    • QPD/PD pre-selections (QE/noise)
    • Functionality test of QPD/PD/PZT

Shipping, storage etc


Jun/July
    - Lab renovtion
    - Mechanics design
    - Glue training
Aug
    - Mirror delivery
    - Basic optics test
Sept
    - Cavity test
    - Suspending test
NOV~DEC
    - Shipping to LLO

Open questions
    Two optical designs
    Procedure
    Modeling
    Clamp design / stencil design
    gluing-installation procedure

 


July:Facility/Supplies

Attachment 1: P7071878.jpg
P7071878.jpg
  10   Mon Jul 23 17:15:14 2012 KojiCleanGeneralTalking with Margot

I consulted with Margot about the cleaning of the optics

  • Optics are considered as a clean object. Large dusts can be removed by ionized N2 flow etc.
  • Barrel of optics can be wiped with Acetone.
  • Optical surfaces are best to be cleaned by First Contact.
  • A peek mesh should be embedded in the first contact so that the First Contact sheet can be easily removed.
  • When peeling a F.C. sheet from a mirror surface, ionized N2 should be brown for discharging.
  • If there are residuals visible on the mirror surface, it should be removed by Acetone. Don't use alchols.
  • Use paper lens tissue for wiping as the lint free wipe can be eaten by Acetone.
  • In fact, All of the procedure is described in a certain document.
  • For a small amount, Margot can provide us a bottle of F.C. and some PEEK meshes.

Details of the Ionized N2 system

  • This N2 should have higher purity than 4N (UHP - Ultra High Purity). This means we should use 4N - UHP or 5N - Research Grade.
  • The ionized gun used in the clean room at Downs: made by Terra Universal.com
  • Flow path: N2 cylinder - Filter - Gun
  11   Tue Jul 24 11:41:29 2012 KojiGeneralGeneralUseful references

Nicolas Smith,
LIGO Document T0900383-v1
3mm Photodiode Characterization for Enhanced LIGO
https://dcc.ligo.org/cgi-bin/private/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=4498

Tobin Fricke,
LIGO Document P1000010-v1
Homodyne detection for laser-interferometric gravitational wave detectors
https://dcc.ligo.org/cgi-bin/private/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=8443

Nicolas Smith,
LIGO Document P1200052-v1
Techniques for Improving the Readout Sensitivity of Gravitational Wave Antennae
https://dcc.ligo.org/cgi-bin/private/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=90498

ELOG V3.1.3-