[Joe, Phillip, Koji, Stephen]

*draft post, please add anymore info if I missed something*

• made initial alignment of the cavity. To do this we used the periscope mirrors to aim the incoming beam at the centre of the first mirror and second (1st curved mirror) mirror. Using the micrometers (initial positions was 0.20mm), we moved the first curved mirror so that it hit the third mirror. We then used a combination of the periscope and first curved mirror movements to start seeing 2 or 3 round trips. micrometer was set to roughly 0.11mm. We then only used  periscope mirrors to align the beam into the cavity.
• We set up a wincam at the transmission of the cavity. This was a useful was of seeing what mode was being transmitted through the cavity. We walked the beam with the periscope mirrors until we saw flashes of the TM00 mode.
• Once the cavity was transmitting TM00 modes, we started to lock it. Once it was locked we looked at the the spot positions of beam on the mirrors. Phillip looked with an IR viewer and could see that the spots were too high on both the curved mirrors
• We set up a CCD to capture an image of this. Two post holders have been left in place for easy movement of the CCD.

General notes about working with this set up. The lens on the CCD can come off quite easily, as you just change how much its screwed on to change the focus. Care should be taken that you don't know the template with this as well, as the camera is quite close to the template (and near the edge of the bench!). Also be mindful of the PZT wires, as they can pull the mirrors out of position.

Attachment 1 shows the position of the spots on the mirrors A14 and PZT11. The spots are about 3mm ish from the centre of the curved mirror in the vertical and horizontal direction. 

Attachment 2 sketch of mirror positions.

Attachment 3 shows the postion of the spot on PZT13. The spot is less near the edge than on PZT11, but its still 2mm ish from the centre of the curved mirror in both directions.

To move the beam horizontally we can use the alignment matrix in appendix C of T1500060. However since we don't have control over the pitch of the mirrors, moving the spots down could require us to inspect the glass breadboard/prisms for dust. We suspect that PZT could be the culprit, as we could not see newtonian rings between its base and the glass breadboard. One way to test this idea is just to clean the bottom of the PZT with acetone, and see if that improves the spot position. If we don't have to do any work to realign it, then this was not the issue.

Koji pointed out that the spot in attachment 1 is very near the edge of the optic, so shifting the beam horizontally could also fix the vertical issue. 

ach[Joe, Phillip, Koji, Stephen]

Work from 17.04.2019

First contact cleaning of OMC optics
We cleaned the OMC optic with first contact. After a first cleaning run all mirrors except for two looked
fine. One had some first contact residuals on the left at center height and another had some particle sitting
near the center area. As the ionized nitrogen gun didn't help we applied another round of first contact which resolved
the two issues. Unfortutanely the second run of cleaning again left some residuals of first contact at the edges.
We were able to peal these off with tweezers.

Placement of Optics at the breadboard
We cleaned the contact surfaces for the bonds using optic wipes and pure isopropanol. The placement wen't well for 3 of the 5 optics (low number of newtonian rings).
One was recleaned and placed on the breadboard again which seemed fine. For the 5th no newtonian rings could be seen (either verry ood or bad) we planed on trying it in the current set-up. Mirrors used can be seen in attachment 3.

 

[koji,philip, joe, liyuan, steven]

*still need to add photos to post*

PZT 11 was removed and inspected for so dust/dirt on the bottom of the prism. We saw a spot. We tried to remove this with acetone, but it stayed there. (Attachment 2, see the little white spec near the edge of the bottom surface of the prism)

current micrometer positions:

• CM1: one closest to centre 11, close to edge 35 marking
• CM2: both at 20 marking

Swapped PZT for PZT 22, cleaned the bottom and put it into position of CM1. We saw a low number of newton rings, so this is good.

We got a rough initial alignment by walking the beam with the periscope and PZT 22  mirrors. Once we saw a faint amount of transmission, we set up the wincam at the output. The reflected light from the cavity could also be seen to be flashing as the laser frequency was being modulated. 

Once it was roughly aligned, using the persicope we walked the beam until we got good 00 flashes. We checked the positions of the spots on the mirror with the beam card. This looked a lot better in the verticle direction (very near the centre) on both curved mirrors. We locked the cavity and contiued to align it better. This was done with the periscope until the DC error signal was about 0.6V. We switched to the fibre coupler after this. 

Once we were satisfied that he cavity was near where it would be really well aligned, we took some images of the spot positions. Using these we can work out which way to move the curved mirrors. Koji worked this out and drew some diagrams, we should attach them to this post. [Diagram: See Attachment 1 of ELOG OMC 350]

We made the corrections to the cavity mirrors

• CM1: one closest to centre 11, close to edge 35+16 marking
• CM2: I can't remember exactly, Koji created a diagram which would help explain this step [Diagram: See Attachment 2 of ELOG OMC 350]

The scatter from CM1 looked very small, it was hard to see with a viewer or CCD. We had to turn up the laser power by a factor of 3 to begin to see it, indicating that this is a good mirror.

Once this was done, the spot positions looked uch nearer the centre of each mirror. They look pitched 1mm too high, which might be because of the bottom surfaces of the prisms having a piece of dust on them? For now though it was good enough to try take the detuned locking FSR measurement and RFAM measurement. 

To see the higher order mode spacing, we misaligned them incoming beam in pitch and yaw so that the TM10 and TM01 modes were excited. The cavity transmission beam was aligned onto the photodiode such that we could make a transfer function measurement (i.e. shift the beam along the photodiode so that only half of the beam was on it, this maximises the amount of photocurrent).

attachment 1 shows the fitting of the detuned locking method for measuring FSR and cavity length/

I saved this data on my laptop. When I next edit this post (hopefully I will before monday, although I might be too tired from being a tourist in california...) I want to upload plots of the higher order mode spacing.

The spot on CM1 was found displaced by 3.4mm (horiz.) and 3.0mm (vert.) in the upper right direction looking from the face side.
The spot on CM2 was found displaced by 1.2mm (horiz.) and 1.8mm (vert.) in the upper left direction looking from the face side.

The drawing on the left side of the attachment shows the estimated misalignment when we think they all come from the curved mirrors.
As for the yaw misalignment, CM1 and CM2 were 3.9mrad and 5.6mrad rotated (misaligned) in CW, respectively.
As for the pitch misalignment, CM1 and CM2 has 1.7mrad (narrowing) and 3.5mrad (widening), respectively. We have no adjustment for this.
Let's say if this comes from the dusts on the bottom of the prisms, CM1 has ~17um one, and CM2 has ~35um one beneath them. The question is if we can believe this or not? This should be checked with the Newton fringes we can see at the bottom of the prisms.

[Koji,Joe,Philip,stephen]

in units 20um per div on the micrometer [n.b. we reailised that its 10um per div on the micrometer]

CM1 inner screw pos: 11.5

cm1 outer screw pos: 33.5

cm2 inner screw pos: 11

cm2 outer screw pos: 13

the cavity is currently 3mm too long, move each mirror closer by 0.75mm

CM1 inner screw pos: 11.5+37.5 = 49

cm1 outer screw pos: 33.5+37.5= 71

cm2 inner screw pos: 11+37.5 = 48.5

cm2 outer screw pos: 13+37.5 = 50.5

The screws on the micrometers were adjusted to these values.

cleaned cm1 (PZT 11). There was a mark near the edge which we were not able to remove with acetone. On the breadboard there were 3 spots which we could not remove with acetone. Once we wiped the mirror and breadboard we put the mirror back. 

FM2 (A5). The prism looked quite bad when inspected under the green torch, with lots of lines going breadthways. We thought about replacing this with A1, however this has had the most exposure to the environment according to koji. This has a bit of negative pitch, so would bring down the beam slightly. We decided to continue to use A5 as it had worked fairly well before. The breadboard was cleaned, we could see a few spots on it, they were cleaned using acetone.

FM1 (A14). Near the edge of the bottom surface of the prism we could see some shiny marks, which may have been first contact. We attempted to scrape them off we tweezers. The breadboard looked like it had a few marks on it. These were hard to remove with the acetone, it kept leaving residue marks. We used isopropanol to clean this now, which worked much better. The sharp edges of the breadboard can cause the lens tissue to tear a bit, so it took a few rounds of cleaning before it looked good to put a prism on. The mirror was put back onto the breadboard. 

The cavity was aligned, then we realised that 1 turn is 500um, so its still too long (1.75mm long). The FSR was 264.433Mhz, which is 

CM2 still showed quite a bit more scattering than CM1, so we want to move this beam.

CM1:

• inner = 0.405mm
• outer = 0.67mm

CM2

• inner = 0.507mm
• outer = 0.42mm

want to increase by 1.7/4 = 0.425, so

CM1:

• inner = 0.405+ 0.425 mm = 0.83 mm
• outer = 0.67+ 0.425mm = 1.095 mm

CM2

• inner = 0.507 + 0.425mm = 0.932 mm
• outer = 0.42 + 0.425mm = 0.845 mm

we tried to align the cavity, however the periscope screws ran out of range, so we changed the mircometers on CM2. We tried this for quite some time, but had problems with the beam reflected from the cavity clipping the steering mirror on the breadboard (to close to the outer edge of the mirror). This was fixed by changing the angle of the two curved mirrors. (We should include a diagram to explain this).

The cavity was locke, the FSR was measured using the detuned locking method, and we found that the FSR = 264.805 MHz, which corresponds to a cavity length of 1.1321m

we took some photos, the spot is quite far to the edge of the mirrors (3 to 4mm), but its near the centre vertically. photos are 

123-7699 = CM2

123-7697 = CM1

Summary of Zygo setups

Initial Zygo Setup:
Our initial Zygo setup consisted of a flat transmission sphere with the 0.5" curved mirror mounted against a 1" flat mirror.
Mounting procedure:
The bottom part of the gluing fixture was attached to a mounting plate using two screws. The 1" reference flat was placed on the gluing fixture. The reference flat was inspected with a green flashlight to ensure that there was no dust on the mirror surface. Any dust was removed using top gun. If any dust remained after using top gun, it was removed with a swab.
The back surface of the curved mirror was inspected and cleaned using the same method (flashlight inspection, followed by top gun if necessary, followed by swab if necessary).

After ensuring that both surfaces are clean, the back surface of the curved mirror was placed on the front surface of the reference flat. The fiducial of the curved mirror was positioned at 12:00. (12:00 is defined as the top of assembly.) The two mirrors were held in place using a mounting plate with a 0.4" aperture. The mounting plate was fixed to the bottom part of the gluing fixture using two screws and a spring for each screw (see attached picture).

The mounting plate holding this assembly was then attached to a optical mount with tip/tilt adjustments (see attached picture).
This assembly was placed facing the Zygo transmission flat (see attached picture) and the mount was pitched/yawed until the fringes on the 1" reference flat were nulled. After nulling the fringes, the data was then recorded.

The mounting plate was then removed from the tip/tilt mount and dissassembled so that the curved mirror could be rotated so that the fiducial is in the 3:00 position. The procedure is then repeated and the data recorded.
This was repeated again with the fiducial in the 6:00, 9:00 and 12:00 (again) positions.

Review of this data shows that the positions of the curvature minimums was not reproducible with sufficient precision. A teflon mounting plate was added to clamp the 1" reference flat more securely to the gluing fixture (See attached pictures). Data was collected in the same manner (twice with the fiducial at 12:00 and once with fiducial at each of the positions 3:00, 6:00, and 9:00).
Additional data collected still failed to produce reproducible results and the removing/remounting process of the curved mirror was time-consuming, so we attempted a new setup for the Zygo measurments.

Final Zygo Setup:
The new setup used a fold mirror mounted at 45degrees to direct the Zygo beam downwards into the plane of the table. A 3" flat was used as our reference flat. The reference flat was placed on some lens tissue parallel to the plane of the table. The same inspection and cleaning method was used to ensure that there was no dust on the reference flat (flashlight inspection, followed by top gun if necessary, followed by swabbing if necessary).
The back of the curved optic was inspected and cleaned using the same method. The curved mirror was placed on the 3" reference flat with the fiducial at the 12:00 position. (12:00 here is defined as the direction ponting towards the Zygo instrument.) (See attached picture of this setup.)
The fold mirror was pitched/yawed so that the fringes on the 3" reference flat were nulled. (An additional advantage of this setup is that more surface of the reference flat was viewable.) After nulling the fringes, the curved mirror was picked up and replaced a few times to verify that the fringe pattern on the curved mirror appeared reproducible. The data was collected with the fiducial at the 12:00 position. This process was repeated with the fiducial at 3:00, 6:00, 9:00, and again at 12:00.
Results from this setup were reproducible and this setup was used to measure the surface profile of all the curved mirrors.

The op-lev setup was modified slightly (picture attached). The He-Ne laser was replaced with one with a lower divergence angle. The stage that the PZT/mirror stack sits on was replaced with a setup that allows for tip/tilt adjustements. The PZTs were driven from 0 to ~92V at 0.5Hz. The total path length from the PZT stack to the QPD is ~1.6m.
The following PZTs have been measured in the current oplev setup: 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48.

[Camille, Thejas, Stephen]

The DC response of the PZT was measured using the following setup (pictures attached):
The output from a HeNe laser was transmitted through two lenses forming a beam reducer, giving us a beam size of 0.34mm. The PZT was placed on a labjack and a 62g washer was placed on top of the PZT. The HeNe beam grazes the top of the washer and the beam is monitored by a photodiode. The labjack height is adjusted so that the PZT stack clips half of the beam signal. 
In order to avoid scatter as the beam grazes the top surface of the washer, an extra layer of kapton tape was placed on one side of the bottom of the washer, giving it a slight tilt so that the beam is clipped by the washer at the front surface of the washer (surface closest to beam source).
The PZT was driven from 0 to 150V at 0.5Hz using a triangle function. The drive function and the photodiode response was recorded using a spectrum analyzer.
The DC resposne was measured twice for each PZT: before the reliability test and again after the reliability test.

Calibration of the DC response measurement:
The setup was calibrated using a height gauge with a dial indicator to monitor the labjack height. (A PZT was not needed for the calibration; only the labjack and the washer.) The labjack was adjusted so that its height is such that the entire beam just passes over the top and the photodiode response was recorded.
The labjack height was increased in 10um increments, with the photodiode response recorded at each increment. The height values were plotted against the photodiode response values. The slope of this line was used to convert the photodiode response from mV to um.

This is not an OMC related and even not happening in the OMC lab (happening at the 40m), but I needed somewhere to elog...

E1400445 first look

LIGO DCC E1400445

Attachment 1: Record of the original state

Attachment 2: Found one of the SMA cable has no shield soldering

Power Supply Board D0900848 was oscillating. Here is the procedure how the issue was fixed.

PCB schematic: LIGO DCC D0900848

0. Extracting the power board.

The top lid and the front panel were removed. Top two modules were removed from the inter-board connection.
Some of the SMA cables were necessary to be removed to allow me to access to the botttom power board.

1. D1~D4 protection diodes

Daniel asked me to remove D1, D2, D3, D4 as the power supply sequence is controlled by the relays.
This was done.

2. Power supply oscillation
Since the power supply systems are entagnled, the oscillation of the transister boosted amps had to be checked one by one.

2.1 VREFP (U5)

First of all, the buffering stage of the positive voltage reference (U5) was oscillating. Attachment 1 is the observed voltage at "VREFP" at D13.
The oscillation was at 580kHz with 400mVpp. This was solved by replacing C20 with 1.2nF. (0805 SMD Cap)

2.2 VREFN (U6)

Then the buffering stage of the negative voltage reference (U6) was checked. Attachment 2 is the observed voltage at "VREFN" at D16.
The oscillation was at 26MHz with 400mVpp. This seemed to have a different mechanism from the U5 oscillation. This oscillation frequency is
higher than the GBW of OP27. So there must be some spurious path to the transister stage. This amplifier stage is a bit unique.
The input is VREFP, but the positive supply is also VREFP. And the feedback path between R31 and C24 is very long. I was afraid that this oscillation
was caused by some combination of L and stray C by the long feedback path and the output to power VREFP coupling, although I could not reproduce
the oscillation on LTSpice. 

After some struggles, adding a 100pF cap between the output of U6 op27 (PIN6) and VREFP (PIN7) stopped the oscillation.
I think this changes the loop function and fullfills the stability condition. I confirmed by a LTSpice model that additional cap does not
screw up the original function of the stage at audio frequencies when everything is functioning as designed.

2.3 Positive supply systems (U10, U11, U12)

Even after fixing the oscillations of U5 and U6, I kept observing the oscllative component of ~600kHz at U10 (+21V), U11 (+15V), and U12 (+5V) stages.
Among them, U11 had the biggest oscillation of 400mVpp at the opamp out (Attachment 3). The other two had small oscillation like 20mVpp at the opamp outputs.
The solution was the same as 2.1. C50, C51, and C52 were replaced to 1.2nF. After the modification I still had the 600kHz component with 2mVpp.
I wanted to check other channels and come back to this.

2.3 Negative supply systems (U7, U8, U9)

Similarly the outputs of U7, U8, and U9 had the oscillation at 600kHz with 40~80mVpp. Once C35, C36, and C37 were replaced with 1.2nF,
I no longer could see any 600kHz anywhere, including U10~U12.

2.4 -24V system (U13)

Last modification was U13. It had a noise of 50mVpp due to piled-up random pulses (Attachment 4). I just tried to replace C63 with 1.2nF
and remove a soldering jumber of W1. There still looks random glitches there. But it's no longer the round shaped pulses but a sharp gliches
and the amplitude is 20mV each (Attachment 5). In fact, later I noticed that Q9 is not stuffed and W2 is closed. This means that the +24V external supply is
directly connected to +24AMP. Therefore U13 has no effect to the 24V suppy system.

3. Restoring all connections / final check of the voltages

Restore the middle and top PCBs to the intra-PCB connector board. Attach the front panel. Restore the SMA connections.

The missing soldering of the SMA cable (reported in the previous entry) was soldered.

Once all the circuits are connected again, the power supply voltages were checked again. There was no sign of oscillation.

All the above modifications are depicted in Attachment 6.

Serial Number of the unit: S1500117
Tester: Koji Arai
Test Date: Jul 22, 2015

1) Verify the proper current draw with the output switch off:

+24 Volt current: 0.08 A Nom.
-24 Volt current: 0.07 A Nom.
+18 Volt current: 0.29 A Nom.
-18 Volt current: 0.24 A Nom.

2) Verify the proper current draw with the output switch on:
+24 Volt current: 0.53 A Nom.
-24 Volt current: 0.07 A Nom.
+18 Volt current: 0.21 A Nom.
-18  Volt current: 0.26 A Nom.

3) Verify the internal supply voltages:

All look good.

TP13 -5.001V
TP12 -15.00
TP11 -21.05
TP10 -10.00
TP5  -18.19
TP6  -24.22
TP2  +24.15
TP3  +18.22
TP9  + 9.99
TP17 +24.15
TP14 +21.04
TP15 +15.00
TP16 + 4.998

4) Verify supply OK logic:
All look good. This required re-disassembling of the PCBs...

Check then pin 5 on U1 (connected to R11) and U4 (connected to R23):

U1 3.68V (=Logic high)
U4 3.68V (=Logic high)

5) Verify the relays for the power supply sequencing: OK

Turn off +/-24 V. Confirm Pin 5 of K1 and K2 are not energized to +/-18V. => OK
Turn on +/-24 V again. Confirm Pin 5 of K1 and K2 are now energized to +/-18V. => OK

6) Verify noise levels of the internal power supply voltages:

TP13 (- 5V) 13nV/rtHz@140Hz
TP12 (-15V) 22nV/rtHz@140Hz
TP11 (-21V) 32nV/rtHz@140Hz
TP10 (-10V) 16nV/rtHz@140Hz
TP9  (+10V)  9nV/rtHz@140Hz
TP14 (+21V) 21nV/rtHz@140Hz
TP15 (+15V) 13nV/rtHz@140Hz
TP16 (+ 5V) 11nV/rtHz@140Hz

Note that the input noise of SR785 is 9~10nV/rtHz@140Hz with -50dBbpk input (AC)

7) Make sure the on/off RF button works,
=> OK

8) Make sure the power output doesn't oscillate,

Connect the RF output to an oscilloscope (50Ohm)
=> RF output: there is no obvious oscillation

Connect the TP1 connector to an oscilloscope
=> check the oscillation with an oscilloscope and SR785 => OK

Connect the CTRL connector to an oscilloscope
=> check the oscillation with an oscilloscope and SR785 => OK

9) EXC check
Connect a function generator to the exc port.
Set the FG output to 1kHz 2Vpk. Check the signal TP1
Turn off the exc switch -> no output
Turn on the exc switch -> nominally 200mVpk

=> OK

10) Openloop transfer function

Connect SR785 FG->EXC TP2->CHA TP1->CHB
EXC 300mV 100Hz-100kHz 200 line

Network Analyzer (AG4395A)
EXC 0dBm TP1->CHA TP2->CHB, measure A/B
801 line
CHA: 0dBatt CHB: 0dBatt
1kHz~2MHz
UGF 133kHz, phase -133.19deg = PM 47deg

11) Calibrate the output with the trimmer on the front panel

13dB setting -> 12.89dBm (maximum setting)

12) Check MON, BIAS and CTRL outputs,
CTRL:    2.95V
MON(L):    6.5mV
BIAS(L):    1.81V
MON(R):    10.7mV
BIAS(R):    1.85V

13) Output check
4+0dB    3.99dBm
6    5.89
8    7.87
10    9.87
12    11.88
14    13.89
16    15.89
18    17.92
20    19.94
22    21.95
24    24.00
26    26.06

4dB+
0.0    3.99
0.2    4.17
0.4    4.36
0.6    4.56
0.8    4.75
1.0    4.94
1.2    5.13
1.4    5.32
1.6    5.53
1.8    5.73
2.0    5.92
2.2    6.10

16dB+
0.0    15.82
0.2    16.11
0.4    16.31
0.6    16.51
0.8    16.72
1.0    16.92
1.2    17.12
1.4    17.32
1.6    17.53
1.8    17.72
2.0    17.92
2.2    18.13

26dB+
0.0    26.06
0.2    26.27
0.4    26.46
0.6    26.58
0.8    26.68
1.0    26.69
1.2    26.70
1.4    3.98
1.6    3.99
1.8    3.99
2.0    3.99
2.2    3.99

(Calibration for Attachment 5 corrected Aug 27, 2015)

Now the test procedure fo the unit is written in the document https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1500404

And the test result of the first unit (S1500117) has also been uploaded to DCC https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-S1500117

Here are some supplimental information with plots

Attachment 1: OLTF of the AM amplitude stabilization servo.

Attachment 2: CLTF/OLTF of the 2nd AM detector self bias adj servo

The secondary RF AM detector provides us the out-of-loop measurement. The secondary loop has an internal control loop to adjust the DC bias.
This loop supresses the RF AM error signal below the control bandwidth. This has been tested by injecting the random noise to the exc and taking
the transfer function between the primary RF AM detector error (MON1) and the secondary one (MON2).

Then the closed loop TF was converted to open loop TF to see where the UGF is. The UGF is 1Hz and the phase margin is 60deg.

Above 10Hz, the residual control gain is <3%. Therefore we practically don't need any compensation of MON2 output above 10Hz.

Attachment 3: Comparison between the power setting and the output power

Attachment 4: Raw power spectra of the monitor channels

Attachment 5: Calibrated in-loop and out-of-loop AM noise spectra

Attachment 6: TFs between BNC monitor ports and DAQ differential signals

BIAS2 and CTRL look just fine. BIAS2 has a gain of two due to the differential output. The TF for CTRL has a HPF shape, but in fact the DC gain is two.
This frequency response comesfro that the actual CTRLis taken after the final stage that has LPF feature while the CTRL DAQ was taken before this final stage.

MON1 and MON2 have some riddle. I could not justify why they have the gain of 10 instead of 20. I looked into the issue (next entry)

Attachment 7: TF between the signals for the CTRL monitor (main unit) and the CTRL monitor on the remote control test rig

The CTRL monitor for the test rig is taken from the CTRL SLOW signal. There fore there is a LPF feature together with the HPF feature described above.
This TF can be used as a reference.

Final Test Result of S1500117: https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-S1500117

After some staring the schematic and checking some TFs, I found that the DAQ channels for MON2 have a mistake in the circuit.
Differential driver U14 and U15 of D0900848 are intended to have the gain of +10 and -10 for the pos and neg outputs.
However, the positive output has the gain of +1.

Daniel suggested to shift R66 and R68 by one pad, replace with them by ~5.5K and add a small wire from the now "in air" pad to
the GND near pad 4.

The actual modification can be seen on Attachment 1. The resulting gain was +10.1 as the resisters of 5.49k were used.

The resulting transfer function is found in the Attachment 2. ow the nominal magnitude is ~x20.

You may wonder why the transfer function for MON1 is noisy and lower at low freq (f<1kHz). This is because the input noise of the FFT analizer
contributed to the BNC MON1 signal. High frequency part dominated the RMS of the signal and the FFT analyzer could not have proper range
for the floor noise. The actual voltage noise comparison between the BNC and DAQ signals for MON1 and MON2 can be found in Attachment 3.
 

This is an entry for the work on Aug 3rd.

LIGO DCC E1500151

Power supply check

- Removed the RF AM detector board and exposed the D0900848 power board. The board revision is Rev. A.

- The power supply voltage of +30.2V and -30.5V were connected as +/-31V supplies. These were the maximum I could produce with the bench power supply I had. +17.2V and -17.1V were supplied as +/-17V supplies.

- Voltage reference: The reference voltages were not +/-10V but +/-17V. The cause was tracked down to the voltage reference chip LT1021-10. It was found that the chip was mechanically destroyed (Attachment 1, the legs were cut by me) and unluckily producing +17V. The chip was removed from the board. Since I didn't have any spare LT1021-10, a 8pin DIP socket and an AD587 was used instead. Indeed AD587 has similar performance or even better in some aspects. This fixed the reference voltage.

- -5V supply: After the fix of the reference voltage, I still did not have correct the output voltage of -5V at TP12. It was found that the backpanel had some mechanical stress and caused a leg of the current boost transister cut and a peeling of the PCB pattern on the component lalyer (Attachment 2). I could find some spare of the transister at the 40m. The transister was replaced, and the pattern was fixed by a wire. This fixed the DC values of the power supply voltages. In fact, +/-24V pins had +/-23.7V. But this was as expected. (1+2.74k/2k)*10V = 23.7V .

- VREFP Oscillation: Similarly to the EOM/AOM driver power supply board (http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/225), the buffer stage for the +10V has an oscillation at 762kHz with 400mVpp at VREFP. This was fixed by replacing C20 (100pF) with 1.2nF. The cap of 680pF was tried at first, but this was not enough to completely elliminate the oscilation.

- VREFN Oscillation: Then, similarly to the EOM/AOM driver power supply board (http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/225), the amplifier and buffer stage for the -10V has an oscillation at 18MHz with 60mVpp at VREFN. This was fixed by soldering 100pF between pin6 and pin7 of U6.

- Voltage "OK" signal: Checked the voltage of pin5 of U1 and U4 (they are connected). Nominally the OK voltage had +2.78V. The OK voltage turned to "Low (~0V)" when:
The +31V were lowered below +27.5V.
The +31V were lowered below -25.2V.
The +17V were lowered below +15.2V.
The +17V were lowered below -15.4V.

- Current draw: The voltage and current supply on the bench top supplies are listed below

+30.2V 0.09A, -30.5V 0.08A, +17.2V 0.21A, -17.1V 0.10A

- Testpoint voltages:

TP12(-5V) -5.00V
TP11(-15) -14.99V
TP10(-24V) -23.69V
TP9(-10V) -9.99V
TP5(-17V) -17.15V
TP6(-31V) -30.69

TP2(+31V) +30.37V
TP3(+17V) +17.24V
TP8(+10V) +10.00V
TP16(+28V) +28.00V
TP13(+24V) +23.70V
TP14(+15V) +15.00V
TP15(+5V) +5.00V

Entry for Aug 6th, 2015

I faced with difficulties to operate the RF AM detectors.

I tried to operate the RF AM detector. In short I could not as I could not remove the saturation of the MON outputs, no matter how jiggle the power select rotary switches. The input power was 10~15dBm.

D0900761 Rev.A
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-D0900761-v1

I've measured the bias voltage at TP1. Is the bias such high? And does it show this inversion of the slope at high dBm settings?

Setting Vbias
 [dBm]   [V]
   0    21.4
   2    21.0
   4    20.5
   6    19.8
   8    18.8
  10    17.7
  12    16.3
  14    14.2
  16    11.9
  18    10.6
  20    11.8
  22    15.0

The SURF report (https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1000574) shows monotonic dependence of Vbias from 0.6V to 10V (That is supposed to be the half of the voltage at TP1). 
I wonder I need to reprogram FPGA?

But if this is the issue, the second detector should still work as it has the internal loop to adjust the bias by itself.
TP3 (Page 1 of D0900761 Rev.A) was railed. But still MON2 was saturated.
I didn't see TP2 was also railed. It was ~1V (not sure any more about the polarity). But TP2 should also railed.

Needs further investigation

Spending some days to figure out how to program CPLD (Xilinx CoolRunner II XC2C384).

I learned that the JTAG cable which Daniel sent to me (Altium JTAG USB adapter) was not compatible with Xilinx ISE's iMPACT.

I need to use Altium to program the CPLD. However I'm stuck there. Altium recognizes the JTAG cable but does not see CPLD. (Attachment 1)

Upon the trials, I followed the instruction on awiki as Daniel suggested.
http://here https://awiki.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLIGO/TimingFpgaCode

Altium version is 15.1. Xilinx ISE Version is 14.7

Still suffering from a power supply issue!

I have been tracking the issues I'm having with the RF AM detector board.

I found that the -5V test point did not show -5V but ~+5V! It seemed that this pin was not connected to -5V but was passive.

I removed the RF AM detector board and exposed the power board again. Pin 11 of P3 interboard connector indeed was not connected to TP12 (-5V). What the hell?

As seen in the attached photo, the PCB pattern for the Pin 11 is missing at the label "!?" and not driven. I soldered a piece of wire there and now Pin11 is at -5V.

This fix actually changed several things. Now the bias setting by the rotary switches works.

Setting BIAS1
 [dBm]   [V]
   0    0.585
   2    0.720
   4    0.897
   6    1.12
   8    1.42
  10    1.79
  12    2.25
  14    2.84
  16    3.60
  18    4.56
  20    5.75
  22    7.37

This allows me to elliminate the saturation of MON1 of the first RF AM detector. I can go ahead to the next step for the first channel.

Now the bias feedback of the second detector is also behaving better. Now TP2 is railing.

Still MON2 is saturated. So, the behavior of the peak detectors needs to be reviewed.

Worked on the calibration of the RF AM Measurement Unit.

The calibration concept is as follows:

• Generate AM modulated RF output
• Measure sideband amplitude using a network anayzer (HP4395A). This gives us the SSB carrier-sideband ratio in dBc.
• Measure the output of the RF AM measurement unit with the same RF signal
• Determine the relationship between dBc(SSB) and the output Vrms.

The AM modulated signal is produced using DS345 function generator. This FG allows us to modulate
the output by giving an external modulation signal from the rear panel. In the calibration, a 1kHz signal with
the DC offset of 3V was given as the external modulation source. The output frequency and output power of
DS345 was set to be 30.2MHz (maximum of the unit) and 14.6dBm. This actually imposed the output
power of 10.346dBm. Here is the result with the modulation amplitude varied

                 RF Power measured             Monitor output
Modulation       with HP4395A (dBm)           Measure with SR785 (mVrms)
1kHz (mVpk)   Carrier    USB      LSB          MON1       MON2
   0.5        9.841    -72.621  -73.325          8.832      8.800
   1          9.99     -65.89   -65.975         17.59      17.52
   2          9.948    -60.056  -59.747         35.26      35.07
   3          9.90     -56.278  -56.33          53.04      52.9
   5          9.906    -51.798  -51.797         88.83      88.57
  10          9.892    -45.823  -45.831        177.6      177.1
  20          9.870    -39.814  -39.823        355.3      354.4
  30          9.8574   -36.294  -36.307        532.1      531.1
  50          9.8698   -31.86   -31.867        886.8      885.2
 100          9.8735   -25.843  -25.847       1772       1769
 150          9.8734   -22.316  -22.32        2656       2652
 200          9.8665   -19.819  -19.826       3542       3539
 300          9.8744   -16.295  -16.301       5313       5308

The SSB carrier sideband ratio is derived by SSB[dBc] = (USB[dBm]+LSB[dBm])/2 - Carrier[dBm]

This measurement suggests that 10^(dBc/20) and Vrms has a linear relationship. (Attachment 1)
The data points were fitted by the function y= a x.

=> 10^dBc(SSB)/20 = 108*Vrms (@10.346dBm input)

Now we want to confirm this calibration.

DS345 @30.2MHz was modulated with the DC offset + random noise. The resulting AM modulated RF was checked with the network analyzer and the RFAM detector
in order to compare the calibrated dBc/Hz curves.

A) SR785 was set to produce random noise
B) Brought 2nd DS345 just to produce the DC offset of -2.52V (Offset display -1.26V)
Those two are added (A-B) by an SR560 (DC coupling, G=+1, 50 Ohm out).
The output was fed to Ext AM in DS345(#1)

DS345(#1) was set to 30.2MHz 16dBm => The measured output power was 10.3dBm.

On the network analyzer the carrier power at 30.2MHz was 9.89dBm

Measurement 1) SR785     1.6kHz span 30mV random noise (observed flat AM noise)
Measurement 2) SR785   12.8kHz span 100mV random noise (observed flat AM noise)
Measurement 3) SR785 102.4kHz span 300mV random noise (observed cut off of the AM modulation due to the BW of DS345)

The comparison plot is attached as Attachment 2. Note that those three measurements are independent and are not supposed to match each other.
The network analyzer result and RFAM measurement unit output should agree if the calibration is correct. In fact they do agree well.

In order to check the noise level of the RFAM detector, the power and cross spectra for the same signal source
were simultaneously measured with the two RFAM detectors.

As a signal source, 37MHz OCXO using a wenzel oscillator was used. The output from the signal source
was equaly splitted by a power splitter and fed to the RFAM detector CHB(Mon1) and CHA(Mon2).

The error signal for CHB (Mon1) were monitored by an oscilloscope to find an appropriate bias value.
The bias for CHA are adjusted automatically by the slow bias servo.

The spectra were measured with two different power settings:

Low Power setting: The signal source with 6+5dB attenuation was used. This yielded 10.3dBm at the each unit input.
The calibration of the low power setting is dBc = 20*log10(Vrms/108). (See previous elog entry)

High Power setting: The signal source was used without any attenuation. This yielded 22.4dBm at the each unit input.
The calibration for the high power setting was measured upon the measurement.
SR785 was set to have 1kHz sinusoidal output with the amplitude of 10mVpk and the offset of 4.1V.
This modulation signal was fed to DS345 at 30.2MHz with 24.00dBm
The network analyzer measured the carrier and sideband power levels
30.2MHz 21.865dBm
USB    -37.047dBm
LSB    -37.080dBm  ==> -58.9285 dBc (= 0.0011313)

The RF signal was fed to the input and the signal amplitude at Mon1 and Mon2 were measured
MON1 => 505   mVrms => 446.392 Vrms/ratio
MON2 => 505.7 mVrms => 447.011 Vrms/ratio
dBc = 20*log10(Vrms/446.5).

Using the cross specrum (or coherence)of the two signals, we can infer the noise level of the detector.

Suppose there are two time-series x(t) and y(t) that contain the same signal s(t) and independent but same size of noise n(t) and m(t)

x(t) = n(t) + s(t)
y(t) = m(t) + s(t)

Since n, m, s are not correlated, PSDs of x and y are

Pxx = Pnn + Pss
Pyy = Pmm+Pss = Pnn+Pss

The coherence between x(t) and y(t) is defined by

Cxy = |Pxy|^2/Pxx/Pyy = |Pxy|^2/Pxx^2

In fact |Pxy| = Pss. Therefore

sqrt(Cxy) = Pss/Pxx

What we want to know is Pnn

Pnn = Pxx - Pss = Pxx[1 - sqrt(Cxy)]
=> Snn = sqrt(Pnn) = Sxx * sqrt[1 - sqrt(Cxy)]

This is slightly different from the case where you don't have the noise in one of the time series (e.g. feedforward cancellation or bruco)

Measurement results

Power spectra:
Mon1 and Mon2 for both input power levels exhibited the same PSD between 10Hz to 1kHz. This basically supports that the calibration for the 22dBm input (at least relative to the calibration for 10dBm input) was corrected. Abobe 1kHz and below 10Hz, some reduction of the noise by the increase of the input power was observed. From the coherence analysis, the floor level for the 10dBm input was -178, -175, -155dBc/Hz at 1kHz, 100Hz, and 10Hz, respectively. For the 22dBm input, they are improved down to -188, -182, and -167dBc/Hz at 1kHz, 100Hz, and 10Hz, respectively.

Test sheet: https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-E1400445

Test Result (S1500114): https://dcc.ligo.org/S1500114

New piezo actuated micrometers from thorlabs arrived last week. 

4 x MPIA10

1 x KPS201

1 x KIM101 

One of the micrometers' fucntioning was checked (SN..229). The micrometer was checked in jogging mode and velocity control mode using the software. 

Here is the proposed RoC measurement setup. Koji tells me that this is referred to as "Anderson's method".

We would like to use a linear cavity to measure the RoC of the curved mirrors independently (before forming the ring cavity), since the degeneracy of HOMs will make the fitting easier.

• An NPRO is PDH locked to a linear cavity formed of a high-quality flat mirror on one end, and the OMC curved optic on the other.
• A second, broadband EOM is placed after the first one, and its frequency is swept with a VCO to generate symmetric sidebands about the carrier
• A TRANS RFPD's signal is demodulated at the secondary EOM frequency, to give a DC signal proportional to HOM transmission
• This HOM scan is fit to a model, with RoC the free parameter. Since there are two sidebands, the HOM spectrum of the model must be folded about the carrier frequency.
• To get a good signal, we should slightly misalign the input beam, allowing for higher overlap with HOMs.

If we decided that the symmetric sidebands are too unwieldy, or that we have issues from sidebands on sidebands, we can accomplish the same style measurement using an AOM-shifted pickoff of the pre-PDH EOM beam. The advantage of the former method is that we don't have to use any polarization tricks.

Nic Smith sent me a bunch of elog lists where the results of the mode scan can be found.

From Nic:

There have been many mode scan analyses done at LLO:
http://ilog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/ilog/pub/ilog.cgi?group=detector&date_to_view=06/07/2008&anchor_to_scroll_to=2008:06:07:20:55:41-jrsmith
http://ilog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/ilog/pub/ilog.cgi?group=detector&date_to_view=06/16/2008&anchor_to_scroll_to=2008:06:16:17:47:11-waldman
http://ilog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/ilog/pub/ilog.cgi?group=detector&date_to_view=08/06/2009&anchor_to_scroll_to=2009:08:06:12:23:16-kissel
http://ilog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/ilog/pub/ilog.cgi?group=detector&date_to_view=09/25/2009&anchor_to_scroll_to=2009:09:25:20:57:47-kate

We didn't do as much of this at LHO. At some point we were trying to figure out how the arm cavity mode was different from the carrier mode:
http://ilog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/ilog/pub/ilog.cgi?group=detector&date_to_view=04/17/2009&anchor_to_scroll_to=2009:04:17:23:15:05-kawabe
http://ilog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/ilog/pub/ilog.cgi?group=detector&date_to_view=03/27/2009&anchor_to_scroll_to=2009:03:27:21:38:14-kawabe
http://ilog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/ilog/pub/ilog.cgi?group=detector&date_to_view=02/18/2009&anchor_to_scroll_to=2009:02:18:20:15:00-kawabe

Here's a long mode scan that was done, and the data is attached to the elog, but none of the amplitudes are analyzed.
http://ilog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/ilog/pub/ilog.cgi?group=detector&date_to_view=07/08/2009&anchor_to_scroll_to=2009:07:08:17:02:19-nicolas

Here is a more detailed version of the setup, so that we can gather the parts we will need.

Parts list:

• Optics, etc.:
  • 1 NPRO
  • 2 QWP
  • 3 HWP
  • 2 PBS
  • 2 EOM (at least one broadband)
  • 2 RFPD (at least one very-high-bandwidth for TRANS, e.g., 1611)
  • 1 CCD camera
  • OMC curved mirrors to be tested
  • 1 low-loss flat reference mirror with appropriate transmission (e.g., G&H, ATF, etc.)
  • ~3 long-ish lenses for MMT, EOM focusing
  • ~2 short lenses for PD focusing
  • 1 R ~ 80% power splitter for TRANS (can be more or less)
  • ~7 steering mirrors
  • ~3 beam dumps
  • Mounts, bases, clamps, hardware
• Electronics:
  • 1 fixed RF oscillator (e.g., DS345, etc.)
  • 1 VCO (e.g., Marconi, Tektronix, etc.)
  • 2 Minicircuits RF mixers
  • 2 Minicircuits RF splitters
  • 2 SMA inline LPFs
  • Locking servo (SR560? uPDH? PDH2?)
  • Some digital acquisition/FG system
  • Power supplies, wiring and cabling.

Significant improvement has been achieved in the RoC measurement.

• The trans PD has much more power as the BS at the cavity trans was replaced by a 50% BS. This covers the disadvantage of using the a Si PD.
• The BB EOM has a 50Ohm terminator to ensure the 50Ohm termination at Low freq.
• The length of the cavity was changed from 1.2m to 1.8m in order to see the effect on the RoC measurement.

By these changes, dramatic increase of the signal to noise ratio was seen.

Now both of the peaks corresponds to the 1st-order higher-order modes are clearly seen.
The peak at around 26MHz are produced by the beat between the carrier TEM00 and the upper-sideband TEM01 (or 10).
The other peak at around 57MHz are produced by the lower-sideband TEM01 (or 10).

Peak fitting

From the peak fitting we can extract the following numbers:

• Cavity FSR (hence the cavity length)
• Cavity g-factor
• Approximate measure of the cavity bandwidth

Note that the cavity itself has not been touched during the measurement.
Only the laser frequency and the incident beam alignment were adjusted.

The results are calculated by the combination of MATLAB and Mathemaica. The fit results are listed in the PDF files.
In deed the fitting quality was not satisfactory if the single Lorentzian peak was assumed.
There for two peaks closely lining up with different height. This explained slight asymmetry of the side tails
This suggests that there is slight astigmatism on the mirrors (why not.)

The key points of the results:

- FSR and the cavity length: 83.28~83.31MHz / L=1.799~1.800 [m] (surprisingly good orecision of my optics placement!)

- Cavity g-factor: Considering the flatness of the flat mirror from the phase map, the measured g-factors were converted to the curvature of the curved mirror.
RoC = 2.583~4 [m] and 2.564~7 [m]. (Note: This fluctuation can not be explained by the statistical error.)
The mode split is an order of 10kHz. This number also agrees with the measurement taken yesterday.

If the curved mirror had the nominal curvature of 2.5m, the flat mirror should have the curvature of ~20m. This is very unlikely.

- Approximate cavity line width: FWHM = 70~80kHz. This corresponds to the finesse of ~500. The design value is ~780.
This means that the locking offset is not enough to explain the RoC discrepancy between the design and the measurement.

Wedge angle test

Result: Wedge angle of Prism A1: 0.497 deg +/- 0.004 deg

Principle:

o Attach a rail on the optical table. This is the reference of the beam.

o A CCD camera (Wincam D) is used for reading out spot positions along the rail.

o Align a beam path along the rail using the CCD.

o Measure the residual slope of the beam path. (Measurement A)

o Insert an optic under the test. Direct the first surface retroreflectively. (This means the first surface should be the HR side.)

o Measure the slope of the transmitted beam. (Measurement B)

o Deflection angle is derived from the difference between these two measurements.

Setup:

o An Al plate of 10" width was clamped on the table. Four other clamps are located along the rail to make the CCD positions reproducible.

o A prism (Coating A, SN: A1) is mounted on a prism mount. The first surface is aligned so that the reflected beam matches with the incident beam
with precision of +/-1mm at 1660mm away from the prism surface. ==> precision of +/- 0.6mrad

o In fact, the deflection angle of the transmission is not very sensitive to the alignment of the prism.
The effect of the misalignment on the measurement is negligible.

o Refractive index of Corning 7980 at 1064nm is 1.4496

Result:

Without Prism
Z (inch / mm), X (horiz [um] +/-4.7um), Y (vert [um] +/-4.7um)
0” / 0, -481.3, -165.1
1.375" / 34.925, -474.3, -162.8
3" / 76.2, -451.0, -186.0
4.375" / 111.125, -432.5, -181.4
6" / 152.4, -432.5, -181.4
7.375" / 187.325, -330.2, -204.6
9" / 228.6, -376.7, -209.3

With Prism / SN of the optic: A1
Z (inch / mm), X (horiz [um] +/-4.7um), Y (vert [um] +/-4.7um)
0” / 0, -658.3, -156.8
1.375" / 34.925, -744.0, -158.1
3" / 76.2, -930.0, -187.4
4.375" / 111.125, -962.6, -181.4
6" / 152.4, -1190.4, -218.6
7.375" / 187.325, -1250.9, -232.5
9" / 228.6, -1418.3, -232.5

Analysis:

Wedge angle of Prism A1: 0.497 deg +/- 0.004 deg

[Click for a sharper image]

A1
Horiz Wedge    0.497    +/-    0.004 deg
Vert Wedge      0.024    +/-    0.004 deg

A2
Horiz Wedge    0.549    +/-    0.004 deg
Vert Wedge      0.051    +/-    0.004 deg

A3
Horiz Wedge    0.463    +/-    0.004 deg
Vert Wedge      0.009    +/-    0.004 deg

A4
Horiz Wedge    0.471    +/-    0.004 deg
Vert Wedge      0.019    +/-    0.004 deg

A5
Horiz Wedge    0.458    +/-    0.004 deg
Vert Wedge      0.006    +/-    0.004 deg

Now it's enough for the first OMC (or even second one too).
Today's measurements all distributed in theta>0.5deg. Is this some systematic effect???
I should check some of the compeled mirrors again to see the reproducibility...

A1    Horiz Wedge    0.497039    +/-    0.00420005    deg / Vert Wedge     0.02405210    +/-    0.00420061    deg

A2    Horiz Wedge    0.548849    +/-    0.00419993    deg / Vert Wedge     0.05087730    +/-    0.00420061    deg
A3    Horiz Wedge    0.463261    +/-    0.00420013    deg / Vert Wedge     0.00874441    +/-    0.00420061    deg
A4    Horiz Wedge    0.471536    +/-    0.00420011    deg / Vert Wedge     0.01900840    +/-    0.00420061    deg
A5    Horiz Wedge    0.458305    +/-    0.00420014    deg / Vert Wedge     0.00628961    +/-    0.00420062    deg

B1    Horiz Wedge    0.568260    +/-    0.00419988    deg / Vert Wedge    -0.00442885    +/-    0.00420062    deg
B2    Horiz Wedge    0.556195    +/-    0.00419991    deg / Vert Wedge    -0.00136749    +/-    0.00420062    deg
B3    Horiz Wedge    0.571045    +/-    0.00419987    deg / Vert Wedge     0.00897185    +/-    0.00420061    deg
B4    Horiz Wedge    0.563724    +/-    0.00419989    deg / Vert Wedge    -0.01139000    +/-    0.00420061    deg
B5    Horiz Wedge    0.574745    +/-    0.00419986    deg / Vert Wedge     0.01718030    +/-    0.00420061    deg
E1    Horiz Wedge    0.600147    +/-    0.00419980    deg / Vert Wedge     0.00317778    +/-    0.00420062    deg
E2    Horiz Wedge    0.582597    +/-    0.00419984    deg / Vert Wedge    -0.00537131    +/-    0.00420062    deg
E3    Horiz Wedge    0.592933    +/-    0.00419982    deg / Vert Wedge    -0.01082830    +/-    0.00420061    deg

-------

To check the systematic effect, A1 and B1 were tested with different alignment setup.

A1    Horiz Wedge    0.547056    +/-    0.00419994    deg / Vert Wedge    0.0517442    +/-    0.00420061    deg
A1    Horiz Wedge    0.546993    +/-    0.00419994    deg / Vert Wedge    0.0469938    +/-    0.00420061    deg
A1    Horiz Wedge    0.509079    +/-    0.00420003    deg / Vert Wedge    0.0240255    +/-    0.00420061    deg

B1    Horiz Wedge    0.547139    +/-    0.00419994    deg / Vert Wedge    0.0191204    +/-    0.00420061    deg



 

Mirror T test

The mirror was misaligned to have ~2deg incident (mistakenly...) angle.

C1: Ptrans = 7.58uW, Pinc = 135.0mW => 56.1ppm

C1 (take2): Ptrans = 7.30uW, Pinc = 134.4mW => 54.3ppm

C2: Ptrans = 6.91uW, Pinc = 137.3mW => 50.3ppm

C3: Ptrans = 6.27uW, Pinc = 139.7mW => 44.9ppm

C4: Ptrans = 7.62uW, Pinc = 139.3mW => 54.7ppm

C5: Ptrans = 6.20uW, Pinc = 137.5mW => 45.1ppm

A1: Ptrans = 1.094mW, Pinc = 133.6mW => 8189ppm

In order to resume testing the curvatures of the mirrors, the same mirror as the previous one was tested.
The result looks consistent with the previous measurement.

It seems that there has been some locking offset. Actually, the split peaks in the TF@83MHz indicates
the existence of the offset. Next time, it should be adjusted at the beginning.

Curved mirror SN: C1
RoC: 2.5785 +/- 0.000042 [m]

Previous measurements
=> 2.5830, 2.5638 => sqrt(RoC1*RoC2) = 2.5734 m
=> 2.5844, 2.5666 => sqrt(RoC1*RoC2) = 2.5755 m

C1: RoC: 2.57845 +/− 4.2e−05m

C2: RoC: 2.54363 +/− 4.9e−05m

C3: RoC: 2.57130 +/− 6.3e−05m   

C4: RoC: 2.58176 +/− 6.8e−05m

C5: RoC 2.57369 +/− 9.1e−05m

==> 2.576 +/- 0.005 [m] (C2 excluded)

The thicknesses of the prism mirrors (A1-A5) were measured with micrometer thickness gauge.
Since the thickness of the thinner side (side1) depends on the depth used for the measurement,
it is not accurate. Unit in mm.

A1: Side1: 9.916, Side2: 10.066 => derived wedge angle: 0.43deg
A2: Side1: 9.883, Side2: 10.065 => 0.52
A3: Side1: 9.932, Side2: 10.062 => 0.38
A4: Side1: 9.919, Side2: 10.060 => 0.40
A5: Side1: 9.917, Side2: 10.058 => 0.40

Total (excluding C2, C7, C8): 2.575 +/- 0.005 [m]

New results

C6: RoC: 2.57321 +/− 4.2e-05m

C7: RoC: 2.56244 +/− 4.0e−05m ==> Polaris mount

C8: RoC: 2.56291 +/− 4.7e-05m ==> Ultima mount

C9: RoC: 2.57051 +/− 6.7e-05m

Previous results

C1: RoC: 2.57845 +/− 4.2e−05m

C2: RoC: 2.54363 +/− 4.9e−05m ==> Josh Smith @Fullerton for scattering measurement

C3: RoC: 2.57130 +/− 6.3e−05m   

C4: RoC: 2.58176 +/− 6.8e−05m

C5: RoC 2.57369 +/− 9.1e−05m

Measured the thickness of a curved mirror:

Took three points separated by 120 degree.

S/N: C2, (0.2478, 0.2477, 0.2477) in inch => (6.294, 6.292, 6.292) in mm

Conclusion: Good. First contact did not damage the coating surface, and reduced the loss

- Construct a cavity with A1 and C2

- Measure the transmission and FWHM (of TEM10 mode)

- Apply First Contact on both mirrors

- Measure the values again

Transmission:

2.66 +/- 0.01 V -> 2.83  +/- 0.01 V

==> 6.3% +/- 0.5 % increase

FWHM of TEM10:

Before: (66.1067, 65.4257, 66.1746) +/- (0.40178, 0.38366, 0.47213) [kHz]
After: (60.846, 63.4461, 63.7906) +/- (0.43905, 0.56538, 0.51756) [kHz]

==> 5.1% +/- 2.7% decrease

Question: What is the best way to measure the finesse of the cavity?

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?

The items:

- Autocollimator (AC) borrowed from Mike Smith (Nippon Kogaku model 305, phi=2.76", 67.8mm)

- Retroreflector (corner cube)

- Two V grooves borrowed from the 40m

Procedure:

- Autocollimator calibration

o Install the AC on a optical table

o Locate the corner cube in front of the AC.

o Adjust the focus of the AC so that the reflected reticle pattern can be seen.

o If the retroreflection and the AC are perfect, the reference reticle pattern will match with the reflected reticle pattern.

o Measure the deviation of the reflected reticle from the center.

o Rotate the retroreflector by 90 deg. Measure the deviation again.

o Repeat the process until total four coordinates are obtained.

o Analysis of the data separates two types of the error:
   The average of these four coordinates gives the systematic error of the AC itself.
   The vector from the center of the circle corresponds to the error of the retroreflector.

- Wedge angle measurement

To be continued

The wedge angle of the prism "A1" was measured with the autocollimator (AC).

The range of the AC is 40 arcmin. This means that the mirror tilt of 40arcmin can be measured with this AC.
This is just barely enough to detect the front side reflection and the back side reflection.

The measured wedge angle of the A1 prism was 0.478 deg.

Ideally a null measurement should be done with a rotation stage.

Method:

• Mount the tombstone prism on the prism mount. The mount is fixed on the rotation stage.
• Locate the prism in front of the autocollimator.
• Find the retroreflected reticle in the view. Adjust the focus if necessary.
• Confirm that the rotation of the stage does not change the height of the reticle in the view. 

  If it does, rotate the AC around its axis to realize it.
  This is to match the horizontal reticle to the rotation plane.
• Use the rotation stage and the alignment knobs to find the reticle at the center of the AC.
Make sure the reticle corresponds to the front surface.
• Record the micrometer reading.
• Rotate the micrometer of the rotation stage until the retroreflected reticle for the back surface.
• There maybe the vertical shift of the reticle due to the vertical wedging. Record the vertical shi
• Record the micrometer reading. Take a difference from the previous value.
   

Measurement:

• A1: α = 0.68 deg, β = 0 arcmin (0 div)
• A2: α = 0.80 deg, β = -6 arcmin (3 div down)
• A3: α = 0.635 deg, β = -1.6 arcmin (0.8 div down)
• A4: α = 0.650 deg, β = 0 arcmin (0div)
• A5: α = 0.655 deg, β = +2.4 arcmin (1.2 div up)

Analysis:

• \theta_H = ArcSin[Sin(α) / n]
• \theta_V = ArcSin[Sin(β) / n]/2
   
• A1: \theta_H = 0.465 deg, \theta_V = 0.000 deg
• A2: \theta_H = 0.547 deg, \theta_V = -0.034 deg
• A3: \theta_H = 0.434 deg, \theta_V = -0.009 deg
• A4: \theta_H = 0.445 deg, \theta_V = 0.000 deg
• A5: \theta_H = 0.448 deg, \theta_V = 0.014 deg

Measurement:

• A6:   α = 0.665 deg, β = +3.0 arcmin (1.5 div up)
• A7:   α = 0.635 deg, β =   0.0 arcmin (0.0 div up)
• A8:   α = 0.623 deg, β = - 0.4 arcmin (-0.2 div up)
• A9:   α = 0.670 deg, β = +2.4 arcmin (1.2 div up)
• A10: α = 0.605 deg, β = +0.4 arcmin (0.2 div up)
• A11: α = 0.640 deg, β = +0.8 arcmin (0.4 div up)
• A12: α = 0.625 deg, β = - 0.6 arcmin (-0.3 div up)
• A13: α = 0.630 deg, β = +2.2 arcmin (1.1 div up)
• A14: α = 0.678 deg, β =   0.0 arcmin (0.0 div up)
• B1:   α = 0.665 deg, β = +0.6 arcmin (0.3 div up)
• B2:   α = 0.615 deg, β = +0.2 arcmin (0.1 div up)
• B3:   α = 0.620 deg, β = +0.9 arcmin (0.45 div up)
• B4:   α = 0.595 deg, β = +2.4 arcmin (1.2 div up)
• B5:   α = 0.635 deg, β = - 1.8 arcmin (-0.9 div up)
• B6:   α = 0.640 deg, β = +1.6 arcmin (0.8 div up)
• B7:   α = 0.655 deg, β = +2.5 arcmin (1.25 div up)
• B8:   α = 0.630 deg, β = +2.8 arcmin (1.4 div up)
• B9:   α = 0.620 deg, β = - 4.0 arcmin (-2.0 div up)
• B10: α = 0.620 deg, β = +1.2 arcmin (0.6 div up)
• B11: α = 0.675 deg, β = +3.5 arcmin (1.75 div up)
• B12: α = 0.640 deg, β = +0.2 arcmin (0.1 div up)

Analysis:

• \theta_H = ArcSin[Sin(α) * n]
• \theta_V = ArcSin[Sin(β) / n]/2
   
• A6:   \theta_H = 0.490 deg, \theta_V =  0.017 deg
• A7:   \theta_H = 0.534 deg, \theta_V =  0.000 deg
• A8:   \theta_H = 0.551 deg, \theta_V = -0.0023 deg
• A9:   \theta_H = 0.482 deg, \theta_V =  0.014 deg
• A10: \theta_H = 0.577 deg, \theta_V =  0.0023 deg
• A11: \theta_H = 0.526 deg, \theta_V =  0.0046 deg
• A12: \theta_H = 0.548 deg, \theta_V = -0.0034 deg
• A13: \theta_H = 0.541 deg, \theta_V =  0.013 deg
• A14: \theta_H = 0.471 deg, \theta_V =  0.000 deg
• B1:   \theta_H = 0.490 deg, \theta_V =  0.0034 deg
• B2:   \theta_H = 0.563 deg, \theta_V =  0.0011 deg
• B3:   \theta_H = 0.556 deg, \theta_V =  0.0051 deg
• B4:   \theta_H = 0.592 deg, \theta_V =  0.014 deg
• B5:   \theta_H = 0.534 deg, \theta_V = -0.010 deg
• B6:   \theta_H = 0.526 deg, \theta_V =  0.0091 deg
• B7:   \theta_H = 0.504 deg, \theta_V =  0.014 deg
• B8:   \theta_H = 0.541 deg, \theta_V =  0.016 deg
• B9:   \theta_H = 0.556 deg, \theta_V = -0.023 deg
• B10: \theta_H = 0.556 deg, \theta_V =  0.0068 deg
• B11: \theta_H = 0.475 deg, \theta_V =  0.020 deg
• B12: \theta_H = 0.526 deg, \theta_V =  0.0011 deg

 [Jeff, Yuta, Koji]

Gluing test with UV-cure epoxy Optocast 3553-LV-UTF-HM

- This glue was bought in the end of October (~3.5 months ago).

- The glue was taken out from the freezer at 1:20pm.
- Al sheet was laid on the optical table. We made a boat with Al foil and pour the glue in it (@1:57pm)
- We brought two kinds of Cu wires from the 40m. The thicker one has the diameter of 1.62mm.
The thinner one has the diameter of 0.62mm. We decided to use thinner one being cut into 50mm in length.

- The OMC glass prisms have the footprint of 10mmx20mm = 200mm^2. We tested several combinations
of the substrates. Pairs of mirrors with 1/2" mm in dia. (127mm) and a pair of mirrors with 20mm in dia. (314mm).

- Firstly, a pair of 1/2" mirrors made of SF2 glass was used. A small dub on a thinner Cu wire was deposited on a mirror.
  We illuminated the glue for ~10sec. When the surfaces of the pair was matched, the glue did not spread on the entire
  surface. The glue was entirely spread once the pressure is applied by a finger. Glue was cured at 2:15pm. 12.873mm
  thickness after the gluing.

Some remark:
1. We should be careful not to shine the glue pot by the UV illuminator.
2. The gluing surface should be drag wiped to remove dusts on the surface.

- Secondly, we moved onto 20mm mirror pair taken from the remnant of the previous gluing test by the eLIGO people.
This time about 1.5 times more glue was applied.

- The third trial is to insert small piece of alminum foil to form a wedge. The thickness of the foil is 0.041mm.
The glue was applied to the pair of SF2 mirror (1/2" in dia.). A small dub (~1mm in dia) of the glue was applied.
The glue filled the wedge without any bubble although the glue tried to slide out the foil piece from the wedge.
So the handling was a bit difficult. After the gluing we measured the thickness of the wedge by a micrometer gauge.
The skinny side was 12.837mm, and the thicker side was 12.885mm. This is to be compared with the total thickness
12.823mm before the gluing. The wedge angle is 3.8mrad (0.22deg). The glue dub was applied at 2:43, and the UV
illumination was applied at 2:46.

- At the end we glued a pair of fused silica mirrors. The total thickness before the gluing was 12.658 mm.
The glue was applied at 2:59pm. The thickness after the gluing is 12.663 mm.
This indicates the glue thickess is 5um.

Measurement:

• E1:   α = 0.672 deg, β = +0.0 arcmin (0 div up)
• E2:   α = 0.631 deg, β = - 0.3 arcmin (-0.15 div down)
• E3:   α = 0.642 deg, β = +0.0 arcmin (0 div up)
• E4:   α = 0.659 deg, β = +1.4 arcmin (0.7 div up)
• E5:   α = 0.695 deg, β = +0.5 arcmin (0.5 div up)
• E6:   α = 0.665 deg, β = - 0.4 arcmin (-0.2 div down)
• E7:   α = 0.652 deg, β = +1.0 arcmin (0.5 div up)
• E8:   α = 0.675 deg, β = +2.0 arcmin (1.0 div up)
• E9:   α = 0.645 deg, β = - 2.4 arcmin (-1.2 div down)
• E10: α = 0.640 deg, β = +2.2 arcmin (1.1 div up)
• E11: α = 0.638 deg, β = +1.6 arcmin (0.8 div up)
• E12: α = 0.660 deg, β = +1.6 arcmin (0.8 div up)
• E13: α = 0.638 deg, β = +0.8 arcmin (0.4 div up)
• E14: α = 0.655 deg, β = +0.4 arcmin (0.2 div up)
• E15: α = 0.640 deg, β = +1.4 arcmin (0.7 div up)
• E16: α = 0.655 deg, β = +0.6 arcmin (0.3 div up)
• E17: α = 0.650 deg, β = +0.8 arcmin (0.4 div up)
• E18: α = 0.640 deg, β = +2.4 arcmin (1.2 div up)

Analysis:

• \theta_H = ArcSin[Sin(α) / n]
• \theta_V = ArcSin[Sin(β) / n]/2
   
• E1:   \theta_H = 0.460 deg, \theta_V =   0.000 deg
• E2:   \theta_H = 0.432 deg, \theta_V =  -0.0034 deg
• E3:   \theta_H = 0.439 deg, \theta_V =   0.000 deg
• E4:   \theta_H = 0.451 deg, \theta_V =  0.016 deg
• E5:   \theta_H = 0.475 deg, \theta_V =  0.011 deg
• E6:   \theta_H = 0.455 deg, \theta_V =  -0.0046 deg
• E7:   \theta_H = 0.446 deg, \theta_V =  0.011 deg
• E8:   \theta_H = 0.462 deg, \theta_V =  0.023 deg
• E9:   \theta_H = 0.441 deg, \theta_V =  -0.027 deg
• E10:   \theta_H = 0.438 deg, \theta_V = 0.025 deg
• E11:   \theta_H = 0.436 deg, \theta_V = 0.018 deg
• E12:   \theta_H = 0.451 deg, \theta_V = 0.018 deg
• E13:   \theta_H = 0.436 deg, \theta_V = 0.0091 deg
• E14:   \theta_H = 0.448 deg, \theta_V = 0.0046 deg
• E15:   \theta_H = 0.438 deg, \theta_V = 0.016 deg
• E16:   \theta_H = 0.448 deg, \theta_V = 0.0068 deg
• E17:   \theta_H = 0.444 deg, \theta_V = 0.0091 deg
• E18:   \theta_H = 0.438 deg, \theta_V = 0.027 deg

EDIT (ZK): Koji points out that (1 - Ti) should really be the non-resonant reflectivity of the aligned cavity, which is much closer to 1. However, it should *actually* be the non-resonant reflectivity of the entire OMC assembly, including the steering mirror (see bottom of post). The steering mirror has T ~ 0.3%, so the true results are somewhere between my numbers and those with (1 - Ti) -> 1. In practice, though, these effects are swamped by the other errors.

More information about the power-dependent visibility measurement:

As a blanket statement, this measurement was done by exact analogy to those made by Sam and Sheon during S6 (c.f. LHO iLog 11/7/2011 and technical note T1100562), since it was supposed to be a verification that this effect still remains. There are absolutely better ways to do (i.e., ways that should give lower measurement error), and these should be investigated for our characterization. Obviously, I volunteer.

All measurements were made by reading the output voltages produced by photodetectors at the REFL and TRANS ports. The REFL PD is a BBPD (DC output), and the TRANS is a PDA255. Both these PDs were calibrated using a Thorlabs power meter (Controller: PM100D; Head: S12XC series photodiode-based---not sure if X = 0,2... Si or Ge) at the lowest and highest power settings, and these results agreed to the few-percent level. This can be a major source of error.

The power was adjusted using the HWP/PBS combination towards the beginning of the experiment. For reference, an early layout of the test setup can be seen in LLO:5978 (though, as mentioned above, the REFL and TRANS PDs have been replaced since then---see LLO:5994). This may or may not be a "clean" way to change the power, but the analysis should take the effect of junk light into account.

Below is an explanation of the three traces in the plot. First:

• TRANS: TRANS signal calibrated to W
• REFL_UL: REFL signal while cavity is unlocked, calibrated to W
• REFL_L: REFL signal while cavity is locked, calibrated to W
• Psb: Sideband power (relative to carrier)
• Ti: Input mirror transmission (in power)

Now, the traces

1. Raw transmission: This measurement is simple. It is just the raw throughput of the cavity, corrected for the power in the sidebands which should not get through. I had the "AM_REF" PD, which could serve as an input power monitor, but I thought it was better to just use REFL_UL as the input power monitor and not introduce the error of another PD. This means I must also correct for the reduction in the apparent input power as measured at the REFL PD due to the finite transmission of the input coupler. This was not reported by Sam and Sheon, but can be directly inferred from their data.
   • trans_raw = TRANS ./ ( REFL_UL * (1 - Psb) * (1 - Ti) )
   • Equivalently, trans_raw = (transmitted power) ./ (input power in carrier mode)
2. Coupling: This is how much of the power incident on the cavity gets coupled into the cavity (whether it ends up in transmission or at a loss port). Sheon plots something like (1 - coupling) in his reply to the above-linked iLog post on 11/8/2011.
   • coupling = ( REFL_UL * (1 - Ti) - REFL_L ) ./ ( REFL_UL * (1 - Psb) * (1 - Ti) )
   • Equivalently, coupling = [ (total input power) - (total reflected power on resonance) ] ./ (input power in carrier mode)
3. Visibility: How much of the light that is coupled into the cavity is emerging from the transmitted port? This is what Sam and Sheon call "throughput" or "transmission" and is what is reported in the majority of their plots.
   • visibility = TRANS ./ ( REFL_UL * (1 - Ti) - REFL_L )
   • Equivalently, visibility = (transmitted power) ./ [ (total input power) - (total reflected power on resonance) ]
   • Also equivalently, visibility = trans_raw ./ coupling

The error bars in the measurement were dominated, roughly equally, by 1) systematic error from calibration of the PDs with the power meter, and 2) error from noise in the REFL_L measurement (since the absolute AC noise level in TRANS and REFL_L is the same, and TRANS >> REFL_L, the SNR of the latter is worse).

(1) can be helped by making ALL measurements with a single device. I recommend using something precise and portable like the power meter to make measurements at all the necessary ports. For REFL_L/UL, we can place a beam splitter before the REFL PD, and---after calibrating for the T of this splitter very well using the same power meter---both states can be measured at this port.

(2) can probably be helped by taking longer averaging, though at some point we run into the stability of the power setting itself. Something like 30-60s should be enough to remove the effects of the REFL_L noise, which is concentrated in the few-Hz region in the LLO setup.

One more thing I forgot was the finite transmission of the steering mirror at the OMC input (the transmission of this mirror goes to the QPDs). This will add a fixed error of 0.3%, and I will take it into account in the future.

I found that, in fact, I had lowered the modulation depth since when I measured it to be 0.45 rads --> Psb = 0.1.

Here is the sweep measurement:

This is Psb = 0.06 --> gamma = 0.35 rads.

This changes the "raw transmission" and "coupling", but not the inferred visibility:

I also measured the cavity AMTF at three powers today: 0.5 mW, 10 mW, and 45 mW input.

They look about the same. If anything, the cavity pole seems slightly lower with the higher power, which is counterintuitive. The expected shift is very small (~10%), since the decay rate is still totally dominated by the mirror transmissions even for the supposed high-loss state (Sam and Sheon estimated the roundtrip loss at high power to be ~1400 ppm, while the combined coupling mirrors' T is 1.6%). I have not been able to fit the cavity poles consistently to within this kind of error.

Diode testing

o Purpose of the measurement

- Test Si QPDs (C30845EH) for ISC QPDs Qty 30 (i.e. 120 elements)

- Test InGaAs PDs (C30665GH) for OMC Qty 10 (i.e. 10 elements)

o Measurement Kit

- Inherited from Frank.

- Has relays in it.

- D0 and D1 switches the measurement instrument connected to an element

- D2 and D3 switches the element of the QPDs

- Digital switch summary

d0 d1 0 0 - ln preamp
d0 d1 1 0 - dark c
d0 d1 0 1 - omc preamp
d0 d1 1 1 - impedance

d2 d3 0 0 - A x x x
d2 d3 1 0 - C x o x
d2 d3 0 1 - B o x o
d2 d3 1 1 - D o o o

- The universal board in the box is currently configured for C30845.
  Pin1 - Elem A. Pin3 - B, Pin7 - C, Pin9 - D, Pin 12 - Case&Bias

o Labview interface

- Controls NI-USB-6009 USB DAQ interface and Agilent 82357B USB-GPIB interface

o Dark current measurement

- Borrowed Peter's source meter KEITHLEY 2635A

- For C30845GH the maxmum reverse bias is set to -20V. This drops the voltage of the each element to the bias voltage.

o Spectrum measurement

- The elements are connected to FEMTO LN current amp DLPCA-200.

- Bias voltage is set to +10V. This lifts up the outside of the amplifier input to +10V.

o Impedance measurement

- Agilent 4395A at PSL lab with impedance measurement kit

- For C30845GH the maxmum reverse bias is set to -15V. This drops the voltage of the each element to the bias voltage.

- Calibration: open - unplug the diode from the socket, short - use a piece of resister lead, 50Ohm - a thin metal resister 51Ohm

- Freq range: 30-50MHz where the response of the cables in the setup is mostly flat.

- Labview VI is configured to read the equivalent circuit parameters in the configuration "D" (series LCR).

- Labview fails to read the series resistance. This was solved by first read the equiv circuit param and then read it with Sim F-CHRST.
  F-CHRST does nothing on the parameters so the second request successfully acquires the first ones.

- For the dark noise measurement, the lid of the die-cast case should also contact to the box for better shielding. This made the 60Hz lines almost completely removed, although unknown 1kHz harmonics remains.

- The precise impedance of the setup can not be obtained from the measurement box; the cable in between is too long. The diode impedance should be measured with the impedance measurement kit.

- With the impedance measurement kit, the bias voltage of +5V should be used, in stead of -5V.

- diode characteristics measured at 10-100MHz

- Typical impedance characteristics of the diodes

Excelitas (Perkin-Elmer) C30665GH Rs=9Ohm, Cd=220pF, L=0~1nH (Vr=5V)

Excelitas (Perkin-Elmer) C30642G Rs=12Ohm, Cd=100pF, L=~5nH (Vr=5V) longer thin wire in a can?

Excelitas (Perkin-Elmer) C30641GH Rs=8Ohm, Cd=26pF, L=12nH (Vr=5V) leg inductance? (leg ~30mm)

- PD serial

C30665GH, Ls ~ 1nH

  1 - 0782 from PK, Rs=8.3Ohm, Cd=219.9pF
  2 - 1139 from PK, Rs=9.9Ohm, Cd=214.3pF
  3 - 0793 from PK, Rs=8.5Ohm, Cd=212.8pF
  4 - 0732 from PK, Rs=7.4Ohm, Cd=214.1pF
  5 - 0791 from PK, Rs=8.4Ohm, Cd=209.9pF
  6 - 0792 from PK, Rs=8.0Ohm, Cd=219.0pF
  7 - 0787 from PK, Rs=9.0Ohm, Cd=197.1pF
  8 - 0790 from PK, Rs=8.4Ohm, Cd=213.1pF
  9 - 0781 from PK, Rs=8.2Ohm, Cd=216.9pF
10 - 0784 from PK, Rs=8.2Ohm, Cd=220.0pF
11 - 1213 from the 40m, Rs=10.0Ohm, Cd=212.9pF
12 - 1208 from the 40m, Rs=9.9Ohm, Cd=216.8pF
13 - 1209 from the 40m, Rs=10.0Ohm, Cd=217.5pF

C30642G, Ls ~ 12nH

20 - 2484 from the 40m EG&G, Rs=12.0Ohm, Cd=99.1pF
21 - 2487 from the 40m EG&G, Rs=14.2Ohm, Cd=109.1pF
22 - 2475 from the 40m EG&G glass crack, Rs=13.5Ohm, Cd=91.6pF
23 - 6367 from the 40m ?, Rs=9.99Ohm, Cd=134.7pF
24 - 1559 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer GH, Rs=8.37Ohm, Cd=94.5pF
25 - 1564 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer GH, Rs=7.73Ohm, Cd=94.5pF
26 - 1565 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer GH, Rs=8.22Ohm, Cd=95.6pF
27 - 1566 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer GH, Rs=8.25Ohm, Cd=94.9pF
28 - 1568 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer GH, Rs=7.83Ohm, Cd=94.9pF
29 - 1575 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer GH, Rs=8.32Ohm, Cd=100.5pF

C30641GH, Perkin Elmer, Ls ~ 12nH

30 - 8983 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.19Ohm, Cd=25.8pF
31 - 8984 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.39Ohm, Cd=25.7pF
32 - 8985 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.60Ohm, Cd=25.2pF
33 - 8996 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.02Ohm, Cd=25.7pF
34 - 8997 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.35Ohm, Cd=25.8pF
35 - 8998 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer, Rs=7.89Ohm, Cd=25.5pF
36 - 9000 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.17Ohm, Cd=25.7pF

Note:
  1mm Au wire with dia. 10um -> 1nH, 0.3 Ohm
20mm BeCu wire with dia. 460um -> 18nH, 0.01 Ohm

 For various reasons, I had to switch NPROs (from the LightWave 126 to the Innolight Prometheus).

I installed the laser, realigned the polarization and modulation optics, and then began launching the beam into the fiber, though I have not coupled any light yet.

A diagram is below. Since I do not yet have the AOM, I have shown that future path with a dotted line. Since we will not need to make AMTFs and have a subcarrier at the same time, I have chosen to overload the function of the PBS using the HWP after the AEOM. We will operate in one of two modes:

1. AMTF mode: The AOM path is used as a beam dump for the amplitude modulation setup. A razor dump should physically be placed somewhere in the AOM path.
2. Subcarrier mode: The AEOM is turned off and the HWP after it is used to adjust the carrier/subcarrier power ratio. I chose a 70T / 30R beamsplitter for the recombining, since we want to be able to provide ~100 mW with the carrier for transmission testing, and we don't need a particularly strong subcarrier beam for probing.

One thing that concerns me slightly: the Prometheus is a dual-output (1064nm/532nm) laser, with separate ports for each. I have blocked and locked out the green path physically, but there is some residual green light visible in the IR output. Since we are planning to do the OMC transmission testing with a Si-based Thorlabs power meter---which is more sensitive to green than IR---I am somewhat worried about the ensuing systematics. I *think* we can minimize the effect by detuning the doubling crystal temperature, but this remains to be verified.

 EDIT (ZK): Valera says there should be a dichroic beam splitter in the lab that I can borrow. This should be enough to selectively suppress the green.

Quantum efficiencies of the C30665GH diodes were measured. 

- The diode was biased by the FEMTO preamplifier.

- Diode Pin 1 Signal, Pin 2 +5V, Pin 3 open

- Preamp gain 10^3 V/A

- Beam power was measured by the thorlabs power meter.

PD #1
Incident: 12.82 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.161 +/- 0.0005 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.404 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.168 mW

PD #2
Incident: 12.73 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.457 +/- 0.0005 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.364 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 0.937 mW

PD #3
Incident: 12.67 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.1139 +/- 0.01 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.383 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.272 mW

PD #4
Incident: 12.71 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.3065 +/- 0.0005 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.393 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.033 mW

PD #5
Incident: 12.69 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.1071 +/- 0.005 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.401 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.183 mW

PD #6
Incident: 12.65 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.0310 +/- 0.01 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.395 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.306 mW

PD #7
Incident: 12.67 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.0590 +/- 0.0005 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.411 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.376 mW

PD #8
Incident: 12.63 +/- 0.01 mW
Vout: 9.0790 +/- 0.0005 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.420 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.295 mW

PD #9
Incident: 12.67 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.2075 +/- 0.0005 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.384 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.091 mW

PD #10
Incident: 12.70 +/- 0.01 mW
Vout: 9.0880 +/- 0.001 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.414 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.304 mW

PD #11
Incident: 12.64 +/- 0.01 mW
Vout: 9.2861 +/- 0.0005 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.416 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.152 mW

PD #12
Incident: 12.68 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.3650 +/- 0.001 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.419 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.057 mW

PD #13
Incident: 12.89 +/- 0.01 mW
Vout: 9.3861 +/- 0.001 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.410 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.047 mW

PD serial number
 1 - 0782
 2 - 1139
 3 - 0793
 4 - 0732
 5 - 0791
 6 - 0792
 7 - 0787
 8 - 0790
 9 - 0781
10 - 0784
11 - 1213
12 - 1208
13 - 1209

{
  {1, 12.82, 9.161, 0.404, 1.168},
  {2, 12.73 , 9.457, 0.364 , 0.937} ,
  {3, 12.67 , 9.1139, 0.383 , 1.272 },
  {4, 12.71 , 9.3065, 0.393 , 1.033 },
  {5, 12.69, 9.1071, 0.401 , 1.183 },
  {6, 12.65, 9.0310, 0.395 , 1.306} ,
  {7, 12.67, 9.0590, 0.411 , 1.376} ,
  {8, 12.63 , 9.0790, 0.420 , 1.295} ,
  {9, 12.67 , 9.2075, 0.384 , 1.091} ,
  {10, 12.70, 9.0880, 0.414 , 1.304 },
  {11, 12.64 , 9.2861, 0.416 , 1.152} ,
  {12, 12.68 , 9.3650, 0.419 , 1.057} ,
  {13, 12.89 , 9.3861, 0.410 , 1.047}
};