40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  OMC elog, Page 5 of 9  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  431   Wed Jul 27 23:52:18 2022 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC #002 Cable bracket replacement (1)

Parts check

- D1300052-V3 SN001 is going to be used (Attachment 1)

- This is the PEEK version of the cable bracket (Attachment 2). The side thread holes have no Helicoils inserted. This needs to be done!

Connector arrangement check / cable routing check

Attachment 3: Connector Arrangement from the Northside

Attachment 4: Connector Arrangement from the South side

Attachment 5: Cable routing (Northside down)

At this point, the delamination of the V shape beam dumps was visible. This is the subject of bonding reinforcement.

  415   Mon Jul 18 14:20:09 2022 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC #002 Plan Portal

== Initial Preparation ==

  • [Done] OMC #002 placement
  • [Done] OMC #002 locking
  • Details OMC ELOG 414

== Measurements ==

  • [Done] Transmission / Power budget before FirstContact OMC ELOG 416
  • [Done] Transmission / Power budget after FirstContact OMC ELOG 417
  • [Done] Backscatter measurement with a new deflection optics
    • [Done] Optics bonding done waiting for cure OMC ELOG 420 -> Returned the bond to Madeline OMC ELOG 424
    • [Done] Backscatter measurement
      • Measurement: 0.6 ppm OMC ELOG 422
      • (Transmission is 10~60mW. If the backscatter is the order of 1ppm or less, we expect the light level is ~10nW. Can we really detect it? How? ... OK... last time the measurement has been done with the stick PD type powermeter with baffles and the room light turned off (OMC ELOG 209). So it's not totally crazy.)
  • [Done] High QE PD preparation / install / QE check
    • [Done] High QE PD inventory check
      • A1-23    LLO OMC#001
      • A1-25    LLO OMC#001
      • B1-01    LHO OMC#003
      • B1-16    LHO OMC#003
      • B1-22    @CIT Cage B1 Cleaned/Installed
      • B1-23    @CIT Cage B2 Cleaned/Installed
      • C1-03    @CIT Cage B3 Cleaned
      • C1-05    Dead / CIT contamination test cav
      • C1-07    Dead / CIT contamination test cav
      • C1-08    @CIT Cage C2
      • C1-09    @CIT Cage C3
      • C1-10    @CIT Cage C4
      • C1-11    @CIT Cage D1
      • C1-12    @CIT Cage D2
      • C1-14    @CIT Cage D3
      • C1-15    Dead / CIT Cage D4
      • C1-17    LHO Spare
      • C1-21    LHO Spare
      • D1-08    not @CIT, maybe LLO Spare?
      • D1-10    not @CIT, maybe LLO Spare?
    • [Done] Install & QE check
  • [Done] Fiber input beam characterization OMC ELOG 421

== Repair / Preparation ==

  • Obtain from Stephen: UHV Foil (done) / EP30
  • Crimper tool? LLO bought a new one and modify it.
  • BeCu wire clamps:
    • [Done] Sufficient # of clamps found:OMC ELOG 428
    • To be: C&B of Athe clamps
  • [Done] FirstContact cavity mirror cleaning (see OMC ELOG 414)
  • [Done] FirstContact for protection OMC ELOG 430
  • Beam dump cleaning -> not necessary
  • Replacing the cable bracket
    • [Done] Obtain all parts from Stephen.
    • [Done] Class B Torque wrench present in the lab
    • Replacement work
  • Delamination Repair
  • Check all the fasteners

== Shipping ==

  • Tools to ship to LLO
    • CLASS B special tool kit
    • FC kit
    • Electronic kit (PD connector / trans-impedance amp)
    • Spare PDs
    • Power meters
    • Beamdump
  • OMC Pelican Filling (Stephen)
  • OMC Outerbox/insulation (Stephen/Downs)
  • OMC Shipment


  417   Thu Jul 21 02:55:06 2022 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC #002 Power Budget after mirror cleaning

o Power Budget after FirstContact cleaning (2022/07/20)
NPRO ADJ -50 (min)
Fiber incident --.-mW
Fiber output --.-mW
Matching to the fiber ??%

DCPD T =  8.62  +/- 0.01  mW
REFPD  =  3.549  +/- 0.001 V

DCPD R =  9.46  +/- 0.01  V
REFPD  =  3.562 +/- 0.001 V

CM1    =  74.5  +/- 0.1   uW
REFPD  =  3.585 +/- 0.001 V

CM2    =  81.7  +/- 0.1   uW
REFPD  =  3.585 +/- 0.001 V

vOFS    = -6.197 +/- 0.001 mV (beam blocked)
vOFS_REF= +4.58mV

LOCKED =  47.6  +/- 0.2   mV
REFPD  =  3.596 +/- 0.003 V

UNLOCK =  2.700 +/- 0.003 V
REFPD  =  3.590 +/- 0.001 V

P_Inc  =  19.36 +/- 0.001  mW
REFPD  =  3.594 +/- 0.001 V

Analysis Result

- Cavity coupling 0.980 (2.0% junk&sidebands)

- Cavity R&T: R=229ppm, T=0.970 (previous T=0.946, 2.4% UP!)
- OMC Throughput (Cavity T x First BS R): T=0.963
- Cavity loss per mirror 42.8 ppm / Round Trip Loss 238ppm

  416   Tue Jul 19 03:17:56 2022 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC #002 Power Budget before mirror cleaning

o Power Budget (2022/07/18)
NPRO ADJ -50 (min)
Fiber incident 62.8mW
Fiber output 45.1mW
Matching to the fiber 72%

DCPD T =  8.90  +/- 0.01  mW
REFPD  =  3.760  +/- 0.001 V

DCPD R =  8.82  +/- 0.01  V
REFPD  =  3.760 +/- 0.001 V

CM1    =  81.4  +/- 0.1   uW
REFPD  =  3.767 +/- 0.001 V

CM2    =  86.6  +/- 0.1   uW
REFPD  =  3.767 +/- 0.001 V

OFS    = -6.214 +/- 0.001 mV (beam blocked)
OFS_REF= +4.587mV

LOCKED =  57.5  +/- 0.5   mV
REFPD  =  3.970 +/- 0.003 V

UNLOCK =  2.816 +/- 0.003 V
REFPD  =  3.943 +/- 0.001 V

P_Inc  =  20.04 +/- 0.01  mW
REFPD  =  3.946 +/- 0.001 V

Analysis Result

- Cavity coupling 0.989 (1.1% junk&sidebands)

- Cavity R&T: R=756ppm, T=0.946
- OMC Throughput (Cavity T x First BS R): T=0.939
- Cavity loss per mirror 90 ppm / Round Trip Loss 432ppm


  430   Wed Jul 27 10:34:30 2022 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC #002 Protective FirstContact Paint

The optical surfaces were coated with FirstContact to keep them clean / somewhat protected during the transportation.
The PD aperture was sealed with FirstContact "caps" (made by Kate in 2016?).

  281   Fri Jun 23 01:58:11 2017 KojiOpticsGeneralOMC #002 Repair - CM1 gluing

[Alena, Koji]

Jun 21: Alena and Koji worked on gluing of the CM1 mirror on the OMC breadboard #002. This is an irregular procedure. Usually, the PZT mirror subassembly is prepared before the mounting prism is glued on the breadboard. In this occasion, however, a PZT and a mirror are bonded on an existing prism because only the damaged mirror and still functional PZT were debonded from the mouting prism.

For this purpose, the mirror and the PZT were fixed on the mounting prism with the modified fixture set (D1600338). The original PZT was reused, and the new mirror #8 was used. The alignment of the mirror was checked OK using the cavity beam before any glue was applied. The arrow of the CM mirror is facing up.

We mixed 8g EP30-2 (it was almost like 3~4 pushes) and 0.4g glass sphere bond lining. Along with EP30-2 procedure, the bond was mixed in an Al pot and tested with 200degF (~93degC) preheated the oven for 15min. The cured bond showed perfect dryness and crispness. The bond was painted on the PZT and the PZT was placed on the fixture. Then more bond was painted on the other side of the PZT. The mirror was placed in the fixture. The spring-loaded front plate was fixed, and the breadboard was left for a day. (Attachment 1~3)

Jun 22: The fixture was removed without causing any visible delamination or void. The attachment 4~6 show how wet the joint is (before baking). There were some excess of EP30-2, which bonded the fixture and the mounting prism as usual. The fixture was detached by prying the front piece against the rear piece with a thin allen key. Some of the excess bond on the mounting prism was removed by scratching.

The alignment of the cavity was checked with the cavity beam and it is still fine.

More photos can be found here: Link to Google Photos Album "OMC #002 Repair - CM1 gluing"

  422   Fri Jul 22 00:31:17 2022 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC #002 backscatter measurement

Measure the power ratio between the forward-propagating and reverse-propagating beams.

  1. Place a small deflecting mirror at the transmission.
  2. Place a flat mirror at the deflected transmission. When the alignment of this mirror is adjusted to retroreflect this beam, the DC of the cavity reflection PD increases, and also the CCD shows spurious fringes.
  3. This condition allows us to locate the power meter at the reverse-propagating spot of the transmission (Attachment 1)
  4. Place a black glass beam dump for the main (bright) transmission (Attachment 2)
  5. Now the power meter is receiving the counter-propagating beam. Turn off the room light and place an anodized Al baffle as shown in Attachment 2. Move the baffle to block only the counter-propagating. Move the baffle out. => Record the power meter reading with/without the baffle in the counter-propagating path. The difference is the power of the reverse-propagating beam.
  6. Now measure the power of the reflected main transmission. This tells us the power ratio between the foward- and back-propagating beams.
  7. Remove the small deflecting mirror and measure the power of the main transmission.
  8. Now the back-propagating power can be estimated from 6 and 7. The same amount is going back to the IFO path.
  9. The reflectivity can be calculated from the 7 and the transmission

- To increase the incident laser power, NPRO Current ADJ was set to be 0 (increased from -50)

- 1st:  Without the baffle 0.373 +/- 0.001 uW / With the baffle 0.318 +/- 0.001 uW
- 2nd: Without the baffle 0.370 +/- 0.001 uW / With the baffle 0.318 +/- 0.001 uW
- 3rd: Without the baffle 0.370 +/- 0.001 uW / With the baffle 0.317 +/- 0.001 uW

==> 53.3 +/- 0.6 nW

- The main transmission was 84.0mW
==> Backpropagation ratio was 0.634+/-0.007 ppm

- Direct measurement of the OMC was  after BS 96.6mW
==> Backpropagation power from the cavity: 61.3 +/- 0.7 nW

- Cavity transmission for the matched beam is Tcav RinputBS = 0.963
==> Incident resonant TEM00 power 100.3mW

- Reflection 61.3+/-0.7 nW x RinputBS = 60.8+/-0.7 nW
-> The effective reflectivity for the mode-matched resonant TEM00 beam incident on the OMC (1st steering mirror) is 0.606+/-0.007 ppm

  426   Tue Jul 26 00:01:59 2022 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC #002 delamination check 2

More epoxy delamination check:

DCPD R (Attachment 1): Found half delaminated

DCPD T (Attachment 2): Found half delaminated

QPD1/QPD2 (Attachment 3): Looks fine


In total we need to fix bonding of three invar bases (including the one for the cable bracket)

  319   Tue Mar 19 17:30:25 2019 KojiGeneralCharacterizationOMC (002) Test items

OMC #002 Optical tests

  • FSR measurement (done, 2019/1/8-9, 2019/4/1)
  • TMS measurement (done, 2019/1/9)
  • TMS measurement (with DC voltage on PZTs) (done, 2019/1/10)
  • Cleaning (done, 2019/3/19)
  • Power Budget (done, 2019/3/19, 2019/4/1)
  • PZT DC response (done, 2019/3/27)
  • PZT AC response (done, 2019/3/27)
  • QPD alignment (done, 2019/4/5)
  • DCPD alignment (done, 2019/4/4)
  • Beam quality check (done, 2019/4/4)

(Backscattering test)

(Cabling / Wiring)

  • (Attaching cable/mass platforms)
  • (PZT cabling)
  • (DCPD cabling)
  • (QPD cabling)

(First Contact)
(Packing / Shipping)

  325   Fri Apr 5 23:30:20 2019 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC (002) repair completed

OMC(002) repair completed

When the cable harness of OMC(004) is going to be assembled, the cable harness of OMC(002) will be replaced with the PEEK one. Otherwise, the work has been done.

Note that there are no DCPDs installed to the unit. (Each site has two in the OMC and two more as the spares)

More photos: https://photos.app.goo.gl/XdU1NPcmaXhATMXw6

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

The OMC is in the air bake oven now.


  387   Fri Dec 13 14:59:18 2019 StephenGeneralGeneralOMC Beam Dump Production Cure Bake

[Koji, Jordan, Stephen]

The beam dumps, bonded on Fri 06 Dec 2019, were placed in the newly tuned and configured small dirty ABO at the Bake Lab on Fri 13 Dec 2019.

Images are shared and references are linked below

Bonding log entry - https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/OMC_Lab/386

Bake ticket - https://services.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/clean_and_bake/request/992/

OMC Beam Dump - https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-D1201285

  388   Wed Dec 18 21:54:53 2019 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC Beam Dump Production Cure Bake

The beamdumps were taken out from the oven and packed in bags.

The bottom of the V are completely "wet" for 17 BDs among 20 (Attachment 1/2).

3 BDs showed insufficient glue or delamination although there is no sign of lack of rigidity. They were separated from the others in the pack.

  393   Mon Sep 28 16:03:13 2020 ranaGeneralGeneralOMC Beam Dump Production Cure Bake
are there any measurements of the BRDF of these things? I'm curious how much light is backscattered into the incoming beam and how much goes out into the world.

Maybe we can take some camera images of the cleaned ones or send 1-2 samples to Josh. No urgency, just curiosity.

I saw that ANU and also some labs in India use this kind of blue/green glass for beam dumps. I don't know much about it, but I am curious about its micro-roughness and how it compares to our usual black glass. For the BRDF, I think the roughnesss matters more for the blackness than the absorption.

  394   Mon Sep 28 16:13:08 2020 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC Beam Dump Production Cure Bake

According to the past backscatter test of the OMC (and the black glass beamdump: not V type but triangular type on a hexagonal-mount), the upper limit of the back reflection was 0.13ppm. https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/OMC_Lab/209

I don't have a BRDF measurement. We can send a few black glass pieces to Josh.

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

[Jeff, Zach, Lisa, Koji]

Gluing of the cavity mirrors went very well!!!


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BS1/FM1/FM2 gluing

- Aligned the cavity

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

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

- Spot positions (II)
  Looked OK.

CM2 gluing

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

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

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

CM1 gluing

- Glued CM1.

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

- Spot positions (final confirmation)
  Looked OK. 

Final measurement

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

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

Final values for the micrometers

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

0.90         0.78
0.90         0.89


  155   Thu Aug 22 15:34:03 2013 KojiOpticsGeneralOMC Cavity side gluing

[Koji Jeff]

o BS1, FM1, FM2 prisms were glued
=> This fixed the unstability of the OMC locking

o Checked the spot position on the curved mirrors.

The height of the template was measured to be 6.16mm.
Using a sensor card, the heights of the spots on the curved mirrors were measured to be 7.4mm (CM1) and 7.9mm (CM2).
This means that the beam is ~1.5mm too low.

When the post clamps were applied to the PZT assemblies, the spot positions moved up a little bit (7.9mm - CM1, 8.2mm - CM2).
This is still ~1mm too low.

We can accommodate this level of shift by the curved mirror and the prisms.
We'll try other PZT assemblies to see if we can raise the beam height.

  235   Thu Aug 20 01:35:01 2015 KojiElectronicsGeneralOMC DCPD in-vacuum electronics chain test

We wanted to know the  transimpedance of the OMC DCPD at high frequency (1M~10M).
For this purpose, the OMC DCPD chain was built at the 40m. The measurement setup is shown in Attachment 1.

- As the preamp box has the differential output (pin1 and pin6 of the last DB9), pomona clips were used to measure the transfer functions for the pos and neg outputs individually.

- In order to calibrate the measurements into transimpedances, New Focus 1611 is used. The output of this PD is AC coupled below 30kHz.
This cutoff was calibrated using another broadband PD (Thorlabs PDA255 ~50MHz).

Result: Attachment 2
- Up to 1MHz, the transimpedance matched well with the expected AF transfer function. At 1MHz the transimpedance is 400.

- Above 1MHz, sharp cut off at 3MHz was found. This is consistent with the openloop TF of LT1128.


  236   Wed Aug 26 11:31:33 2015 KojiElectronicsGeneralOMC DCPD in-vacuum electronics chain test

The noise levels of the output pins (pin1/pin6) are measured. Note that the measurement is done with SE. i.e. There was no common mode noise rejection.

  414   Fri Jul 15 22:14:14 2022 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC Lab recovery for the OMC #002 test

- The lab is chilly (18degC)

- Cleaned the lab and the optical table a bit so that the delicate work can be done. The diode test rig (borrowed from Downs - see OMC ELOG 408 and OMC ELOG 409) was removed from the table and brought to the office (to return on Monday)

- The rack electronics were energized.

- The OMC mirrors in use were returned to the cases and stored in the plastic box.

- The optical table was also cleaned. Removed the old Al foils. The table was wiped with IPA

- The OMC #4 was moved to the other part of the table, and then OMC #2 was placed in the nominal place (Attachment 1). Note that the "legs" were migrated from #4 to #2. There are three poles that defines the location of the OMC Transportation

- The lid was removed and the OMC was inspected (Attachment 2). Immediately found some more delamination of the epoxy beneath the cable bracket (Attachment 3). This needs to be taken care of before shipment.

- The cavity was already flashing as usual, and a bit of alignment made the TEM00 flashing.

- The locking was a little tricky because the LB unit seemed to have a gain-dependent offset. After some adjustment, robust locks were achieved. The cavity was then finely adjusted. Attachment 4 shows the CCD image of the reflection. The core of the spot is more or less axisymmetric as usual. There is also a large helo around the spot. I was not aware of this before. I may need to wipe some of the mirrors of the input path.

- As the satisfactory lock was achieved, I called a day by taking a picture of the table (Attachment 5).

  43   Thu Nov 29 21:18:23 2012 KojiOpticsGeneralOMC Mounting Prisms have come



  382   Tue Oct 22 10:25:01 2019 StephenGeneralGeneralOMC PZT Assy #9 and #10 Production Cure Bake

OMC PZT Assy Production Cure Bake (ref. OMC elog 381) for PZT Assy #9 and #10 started 27 September 2019 and completed 28 September 2019. Captured in the below figure (purple trace). Raw data has been posted as an attachment as well.

We have monitored the temperature in two ways:

1) Datalogger thermocouple data (purple trace).
2) Checking in on temperature of datalogger thermocouple (lavender circles) and drive thermocouple (lavender diamonds), only during initial ramp up.

Comments on bake:

  • No changes were made to the tuning or instrumentation of the oven between the successful qualifying bake obtained on 26 September (ref. OMC elog 380). However, the profile seems to have been more similar to prior qualifying bake attempts that were less successful (ref. OMC elog 379), particularly as the oven seems to have ramped to an overtemperature state. I am a bit mystified, and I would like to see the oven tuning characterized to a greater extent than I have had time and bandwith to complete within this effort.
  • The maximum datalogger temperature was 104 °C, and the duration of the soak (94 °C or higher) was 68 minutes. This was in contrast to a programmed soak of 2.5 hours and a programmed setpoint of 84 °C.
  • The drive thermocouple did appear to be under-reporting temperature relative to the datalogger thermocouple, but this was not confirmed during the soak period. Neither thermocouple was calibrated as part of this effort.


  1   Fri Jun 15 15:45:49 2012 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC Plan

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

aLIGO OMC wiki

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

[Zach, Jeff, Koji]

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

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

- Micrometer values

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

0.17         0.07
0.30         0.24

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


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

Modulation depth:

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

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

- Rough calculation of the modulation depth is 0.19


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

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


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


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

  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.

  70   Thu Mar 14 17:06:21 2013 KojiMechanicsGeneralOMC SUS work @LLO

EDIT (ZK): All photos on Picasa. Also, I discovered that since Picasa was migrated to Google+ only,
you no longer have the option to embed a slideshow like you used to. Lame, Google.

Photos sent from Zach



  25   Tue Oct 9 05:03:15 2012 KojiElectronicsGeneralOMC Test Electronics Setup


  24   Tue Oct 9 04:59:24 2012 KojiOpticsGeneralOMC Test Optical Setup



  81   Mon Mar 25 19:31:16 2013 KojiOpticsGeneralOMC Top-side gluing

[Koji Jeff Zach]









  69   Thu Mar 7 15:53:47 2013 KojiMechanicsGeneralOMC Transportation fixture, OMC PD/QPD mounts






  407   Fri Feb 5 07:40:37 2021 StephenSupplyGeneralOMC Unit 4 Build Machined Parts

OMC Unit 4 Build Machined Parts are currently located in Stephen's office. See image of large blue box from office, below.

Loaned item D1100855-V1-00-OMC08Q004 to Don Griffith for work in semi-clean HDS assy.

This includes mass mounting brackets, cable brackets, balance masses, etc. For full inventory, refer to ICS load Bake-9527 (mixed polymers) and Bake-9495 (mixed metals).

Inventory includes all items except cables. Plasma sprayed components with slight chipping were deemed acceptable for Unit 4 use. Cable components (including flex circuit) are ready to advance to fabrication, with a bit more planning and ID of appropriate wiring.

  411   Wed Jul 7 14:21:50 2021 StephenSupplyGeneralOMC Unit 4 Build Machined Parts

More explicit insights into the inventory for the Unit 4 build. Image of inventory included below.

Machined Parts:

Cable Components:

  • Hughes Circuits made us Kapton flex circuits. These have not been processed in any way.
  • Rich had supplied a spool of Gore 4-conductor in-vacuum wire (see below image). I returned the sppol for Rich but it is living in Downs and available for use.
  • PEEK cable ties were damaged during bake, and will be replaced by SYS inventory.

Retrofit/Repair Capabilities:

  • Aluminum reinforcement brackets D1600316
  • Glass reinforcement brackets (Edmund Optics 45-072 and 45-071)

ref: E1900034 and other associated documents.

  207   Sun Jul 13 17:46:28 2014 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC backscatter measurement

Backscattering reflectivity of the 3rdOMC was measured.

Attached: Measurement setup

1) A CVI 45P 50:50 BS was inserted in the input beam path. This BS was tilted from the nominal 45 deg so that the reflection of the input beam is properly dumped.
This yielded the reflectivity of the BS deviated from 45deg. The measured BS reflectivity is 55%+/-1%.

2) The backward propagating beam was reflected by this BS. The reflected beam power was measured with a powermeter.

3) The powermeter was aligned with the beam retroreflected from the REFL PDH and the iris in the input path. The iris was removed during the measurement
as it causes a significant scatter during the measurement.

4) While the cavity was either locked or unlocked, no visible spot was found at the powermeter side.

The input power to the OMC was 14.6mW. The detected power on the powermeter was 66.0+/-0.2nW and 73.4+/-0.3nW with the cavity locked and unlocked, respectively.
This number is obtained after subtraction of the dark offset of 5.4nW.

Considering the reflectivity of the BS (55+/-1%) , the upper limit of the OMC reflectivity (in power) is 8.18+/-0.08ppm and 9.09+/-0.09ppm for the OMC locked and unlocked respectively. Note that this suggests that the REFL path has worse scattering than the OMC cavity but it is not a enough information to separate each contribution to the total amount.

Impact on the OMC transmission RIN in aLIGO:

- The obtained reflectivity (in power) was 8ppm.
- For now, let's suppose all of this detected beam power has the correct mode for the IFO.
- If the isolation of the output faraday as 30dB is considered, R=8e-9 in power reaches the IFO.
- The IFO is rather low loss when it is seen as a high reflector from the AS port.
- Thus this is the amount of the light power which couples to the main carrier beam.

When the phase of the backscattered electric field varies, PM and AM are produced. Here the AM cause
the noise in DC readout. Particularly, this recombination phase is changing more than 2 pi, the fringing
between the main carrier and the backscattered field causes the AM with RIN of 2 Sqrt(R).

Therefore, RIN ~ 2e-4 is expected from the above of backscattering.

Now I'm looking for some measurement to be compared to with this number.

First, I'm looking at the alog by Zach: https://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=8674

I'm not sure how this measurement can be converted into RIN. Well, let's try. Zach told me that the measured value is already normalized to RIN.
He told me that the modulation was applied at around 0.1Hz. The maximum fringe velocity was 150Hz from the plot.
At 100Hz, let's say, the RIN is 2e-6 /rtHz. The fringe speed at 100Hz is ~70Hz/sec. Therefore the measurement stays in the 100Hz freq bin
only for delta_f/70 = 0.375/70 = 5.3e-3 second. This reduces the power in the bin by sqrt(5.3e-3) = 0.073.

2e-6 = 2 sqrt(R) *0.73 ==> R = 2e-10

This number is for the combined reflectivity of the OMC and the OMC path. Assuming 30dB isolation of the output Faraday
and 20% transmission of SRM, the OMC reflectivity was 5e-6. This is in fact similar number to the measured value.

If I look at the OMC design document (T1000276, P.4), it mentions the calculated OMC reflection by Peter and the eLIGO measurement by Valera.
They suggests the power reflectivity of the order of 1e-8 or 1e-7 in the worst case. This should be compared to 8ppm.
So it seems that my measurement is way too high to say anything useful. Or in the worst case it creates a disastrous backscattering noise.

So, how can I make the measurement improved by factor of 100 (in power)

- Confirm if the scattering is coming from the OMC or something else. Place a good beam dump right before the OMC?

- Should I put an aperture right before the power meter to lmit the diffused (ambient) scatter coming into the detector?
  For the same purpose, should I cover the input optics with an Al foil?

- Is the powermeter not suitable for this purpose? Should I use a PD and a chopper in front of the OMC?
  It is quite tight in terms of the space though.

- Any other possibility?

  208   Tue Jul 15 03:00:42 2014 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC backscatter measurement

Presence of the misaligned SRM (T=20%) was forgotten in the previous entry.
This effectively reduces the OMC reflectivity by factor of 25.

This is now reflected in the original entry. Also the argument about the power spectram density was modified.


First, I'm looking at the alog by Zach: https://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=8674

I'm not sure how this measurement can be converted into RIN. Well, let's try. Assuming his measurement is done with the single bounce beam from an ITM,
and assuming this plot is already normalized for RIN, we may need to multiply the number on the plot by factor of two or so. Then it's about factor of 5 lower RIN
than the expected RIN. And in terms of R, it is 25 times lower.


  209   Tue Jul 15 03:34:16 2014 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC backscatter measurement

Backscatter measurement ~ 2nd round


- The backscatter reflectivity of the 3rd OMC is 0.71 ppm

- From the spacial power distribution, it is likely that this is not the upper limit but the actual specular spot from the OMC,
propagating back through the input path.


- The power meter was heavily baffled with anodized Al plates and Al foils. This reduced many spourious contributions from the REFL path and the input beam path.
  Basically, the power meter should not see any high power path.

- The beam dump for the forward going beam, the beamsplitter, and the mirrors on the periscope were cleaned.

- The power meter is now farther back from the BS to reduce the exposed solid angle to the diffused light

- The REFL path was rebuilt so that the solid angle of the PD was reduced.


Backscattering measurement

- Pin = 12.3 +/- 0.001 [mW]

- RBS = 0.549 +/- 0.005

- Pback = 4.8 +/- 0.05 [nW] (OMC locked)       ==> ROMC(LOCKED) = 0.71 +/- 0.01 [ppm]

- Pback = 3.9 +/- 0.05 [nW] (OMC unlocked)   ==> ROMC(UNLOCKED) = 0.57 +/- 0.01 [ppm]

Note that the aperture size of Iris(B) was ~5.5mm in diameter. 

V-dump test

- Additional beam dump (CLASS A) was brought from the 40m. This allowed us to use the beam dump before and after the periscope.

- When the beam dump was placed after the periscope: P = 0.9+/-0.05nW

- When the beam dump was placed before the periscope: P=1.0+/-0.1nW

===> This basically suggests that the periscope mirrors have no contribution to the reflected power.

- When the beam dump was placed in the REFL path: P=2.1+/-0.1nW

Trial to find backward circulating beam at the output coupler

The same amount of backreflection beam can be found not only at the input side of the OMC but also transmission side.
However, this beam is expected to be blocked by the beamsplitter. It was tried to insert a sensor card between the output coupler
and the transmission BS, but nothing was found.

In order to see if the detected power is diffused light or not, the dependence of the detected light power on the aperture size was measured.
Note that the dark offset was nulled during the measurement.

aperture   detected
diameter   power

[mm]       [nW]
 1.0        1.1

 2.5        2.6
 4.25       4.0
 5.5        4.6
 8.0        5.3
 9.0        6.1
11.0        6.3
15.0        7.0

We can convert these numbers to calculate the power density in the each ring. 
(Differentiate the detected power and aperture area. Calculate the power density in each ring section, and plot them as a function of the aperture radius)

This means that the detected power is concentrated at the central area of the aperture.
(Note that the vertical axis is logarithmic)

If the detected power is coming from a diffused beam, the power density should be uniform.
Therefore this result strongly suggests that the detected power is not a diffused beam but
a reflected beam from the OMC.

According to this result, the aperture size of 2.6mm in raduis (5.5mm in diameter) was determined for the final reflected power measurement.

  191   Fri Jun 27 12:29:50 2014 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC baking

The OMC went into the oven at around 2PM on Thursday. It will be baked at 80degC for 48 hours.
The RGA result will be obtained on Monday.

Link to the ICS entry


  193   Wed Jul 2 16:41:43 2014 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC baking

OMC is back from the oven today.

To Do:

Optical tests

  • Cleaning
  • Power Budget
  • FSR measurement
  • TMS measurement
  • TMS measurement (with DC voltage on PZTs)
  • PZT DC response
  • PZT AC response
  • QPD alignment
  • DCPD alignment
  • First Contact

Backscattering test

Cabling / Wiring

  • Attaching cable/mass platforms
  • PZT cabling
  • DCPD cabling
  • QPD cabling

Vibration test

Packing / Shipping

  27   Tue Oct 16 14:50:54 2012 jamie, jeffGeneralGeneralOMC breadboard/plate measurement dimensions

We have measured the dimensions and mass of the OMC glass plates/breadboards:

S/N Mass (g) Length (mm) Width (mm) Height (mm) Notes
01 6146 449.66 149.85 41.42, 41.42  for LLO
02 6126 449.66 149.97 41.32, 41.32  for LHO
03 6143 449.76 149.98 41.39, 41.43  
04 6139 449.78 149.81 41.40, 41.40  for 3IFO
05 6132 449.76 150.03 41.27, 41.31 corner chip, front-bottom-left*
06 6138 449.84 149.71 41.42, 41.42  
  • * orientation is relative to "front" face, i.e. long-short face with S/N on it, with S/N upright.
  • Height measurements were made twice, once at each end.
  • TMeasurements of 03, 05, 02, and 06 were done in the open in the OMC lab.  This was not thought to be too much of an issue since the plates
    are already covered with particulate matter from the tissue paper that they were wrapped in. 
    Measurements of 04 and 01 were done on the optics table, under the clean room enclosure.

Note by Koji:

  • The scale of the bake lab was used. (Max 60kg, Min resolution of 1g)
  • The dimensions were measured by a huge caliper which Jeff brought from Downs.
  • S/N 01, 03, 04 look pretty similar. They should be the primary candidates.
  80   Mon Mar 25 18:34:25 2013 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC building plan / procedure ~ Mar 25 Mon

25 March (Mon):

Inspect the test PZT assembly

  • => Give it to Bob. (done)

Glue topside components (done)

  • Clean up the table for the gluing work.
  • Prepare the transport fixture on the table.
  • Glass breadboard
    • Pick breadboard #1 (cf. [ELOG 27])
    • Wipe the entire glass breadboard with IPA
    • Place the breadboard in the fixture (check which is the upper side)
  • Gluing
    • Set the gluing template on the breadboard.
    • Place all of the glass components on the plate (just for confirmation)
    • Wipe (locally) both surfaces to be glued.
    • Apply glue on the component to be glued
    • Align the components in the template. Use the cantilever pusher if necessary.
    • Illuminate UV
    • Repeat the above process for all of the components.
  • Close the transport fixture and wrap with Al foil
  83   Wed Mar 27 20:54:45 2013 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC building plan / procedure ~ Mar 26 Mon

26 March (Tue):

- Curved mirror characterization (Koji, done)

- Input optics for the cavity locking (Zach)

Faraday, BB EOM, Resonant EOM, AOM, MZ

  84   Wed Mar 27 20:54:54 2013 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC building plan / procedure ~ Mar 27 Wed

27 March (Wed)

- AOM drift investigation (Lisa, Zach)

- Cavity input optics ~ Fiber coupling (Zach)

Action Items

  • Glue curved mirror sub-assys.
  • R&T measurement
  85   Wed Mar 27 20:55:10 2013 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC building plan / procedure ~ Mar 28 Thu

28 March (Thu):

  • Rebuild the bottom template in the lab
  • Place the bottom template on the OMC
  • Glue the PZTs on the mounting prisms (x2)
  • Glue the curved mirrors on the PZTs (x2)
  • R&T measurement
  • Placing optics on the OMC breadboard
  • Better coupling to the fiber
  • Matching to the OMC cavity


29 March (Fri):

Start gluing bottom side: Set 4 cavity mirrors and 1 HR mirror
   and try to resonate beam.  Glue when OK.

Place BS and DCPD mounting brackets.  Glue when OK.
Friday: Place QPDs and rest of optics.  Glue when OK.

WB 1 April

  • Testing at CIT
    • Transmission / Coupling / Loss
    • FSR / TMS
    • Power dependence
    • PZT position dependence
    • Back scattering
    • Openloop TF
    • PZT TF
    • Noise measurement
  • Epoxy cure bake at CIT
  • Retest at CIT
    • ditto

WB 8 April or after

  • Packing
  • Shipping - Shipping box?
  • Optical Testing at LLO (2 days anticipated)
  79   Mon Mar 25 02:04:05 2013 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC building plan / procedure ~ WB18

WB 18 March

  • Diode test
    • Dark current / Dark noise / Impedance
    • Quantum Efficiency test (but with glass)
    • Diode given to Bob for cleaning
  • Research possible issue of UV light on 1064 HR coating
    • ~ppm order loss increase after depositing 3J/cm^2 in 8 hours (i.e. same order to our illumination but in 10s for us)
    • Sent an e-mail to Ke-Xun Sun -> So far, no reply.
  • Glue test of PZT+prism+curved mirror with UV bond epoxy 
    • Done. Found some handling issues on the fixture.
  • Preparation of N2 line:
    • Done

Action items:

  • Bake test at 100°C for 1 hour at CIT 
    • Will be done on 25 Mon-26 Tue at Bob's lab
  • Curved mirror characterization
  • R&T measurement
  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.

  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

  346   Thu Apr 18 20:47:54 2019 JoeOptics OMC initial alignment and locking

[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. 

  349   Fri Apr 19 11:34:19 2019 KojiOptics OMC initial alignment and locking

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.

  119   Fri May 3 21:09:08 2013 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC is back

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

  128   Mon May 20 14:59:21 2013 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC is out from the oven

The OMC came back to the table again.

No obvious change is visible: no crack, no delamination

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

  345   Wed Apr 17 10:30:37 2019 PhilipOpticsGeneralOMC optical set-up day 1

[Joe, Koji, Liyuan, Philip, Stephen]
Work done on 16.04.2019

Finishing assembly of transport box
Assembly worked fine except for the clamping structure to clamp the lid of the transport box to the bottom part.
It seemed that some of the plastic of these clamps became brittle during the baking. The plastic was removed and the
clamps where wiped clean. It appears that the clamps can't be locked as they should. Still the transport box should be fine
as the long screws will mainly clamp the two parts together.

Preparing the transport box to mount the breadboard
The lid of the the transport box was placed upside down and clamped to the table. All peak clamping structures where pulled back as far as possible.

Preparation and cleaning of the breadboard
We unpacked the breadboard and found lots of dust particles on it (most likely from the soft paper cover which was used). We used the ionized nitrogen gun
at 25 psi to get rid of the majority of particles and cross-checked with a bright green flash light before and after blowing. The second stage of cleaning was done
below the clean room tent and included the wiping of all surfaces. The breadboard was then placed into the prepared lid of the transport box and clamped with peak

Unpacking of the template
The previously cleaned template was unpacked while the last layer of coverage was removed below the cleanroom tent.

Template adjustment on the breadboard
All peak screws of the clamping structure of the template where removed. The template was placed onto the breadboard only seperated by peak spacers.
All peak screws have been inserted for horizontal clapming. A calipper was used to measure the distance of each edge of the template to the edge of the
breadboard. For documentation the labeled side of the bradboard (facing away from the persons on the pictures) of the upside down breadboard is defined to 
be the south side, continuing clockwise with west, north and east. First rough alignment was done by shifting the template on the breadboard and then the 
peak screws where used for fine tuning. The caliper values measured where:
North   C 8.32mm     E 8.52 mm     W 8.41 mm
East     C 8.08 mm
South   C 8.32 mm
West    C 8.02 mm
(E indicating east side position, W indicating west side position and C indicating center position)

  272   Wed Dec 7 21:18:35 2016 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC placed on the table / the beam roughly aligned

The OMC mode matching sled was fixed on the nominal part of the table. Then the OMC was located at the nominal position marked by three poles.

The input periscope was adjusted to have the input beam roughtly centered on the OMC QPDs. This made the beam from FM2 aligned to the missing CM1, and the beam just went through the hole of the mounting prism. Very promising!

I wanted to use the new (modified) mirror gluing fixture to hold a curved mirror on the mounting prism. It turned out that the fixture was neither cleaned nor assembled. I will ask Downs Team to help me to get the cleaned and assembled fixtures.

Meanwhile, I just reused the original gluing fixture upside down in order to proceed cavity alignment and locking. (Attachment 1)
In fact, once the mirror is placed on the mounting prism, the cavity started to flash without further alignment. I thank for the very precise (repeatable) alignment of the OMC optics and PD/QPDs.

The next steps are initial cavity locking, more alignment, and mode matching.

ELOG V3.1.3-