ELOG OMC

Modulation Index Test Setup at 40m Lab

Attached is a block diagram of the test setup used in the 40m lab to measure the modulation index of the IO modulator

306

Thu Aug 9 11:24:29 2018

Modulation Index Test Setup at 40m Lab

[Rich Koji]

The impedances of the new LLO EOM were measured with the beat note setup at the 40m PSL (as described in the previous ELOG entry.

At the target frequencies (9.1MHz, 24.1MHz, 45.5MHz, 118.3MHz), the modulation responses were (0.09, 2.9e-3, 0.053, 0.021) rad/V.

This corresponds to the requirement for the driving power as follows.

Frequency [MHz]	Response [rad/V]	modulation depth required (LHO) [rad]	Required drive [Vpk]	Required drive [dBm]
9.1	0.09	0.22	2.4	17.8
24.1	2.9e-3	0.014	4.8	23.7
45.5	0.053	0.28	5.3	24.5
118.3	0.021	0.010	0.48	3.6

307

Wed Aug 29 11:06:30 2018

RF AM RIN and dBc conversion

0. If you have an RF signal whose waveform is $1 \times \sin(2 \pi f t)$ , the amplitude is constant and 1.

1. If the waveform $[1+0.1 \sin(2 \pi f_{\rm m} t)] \sin(2 \pi f t)$ , the amplitude has the DC value of 1 and AM with the amplitude of 0.1 (i.e. swing is from 0.9 to 1.1). Therefore the RMS RIN of this signal is 0.1/1/Sqrt(2).

2. The above waveform can be expanded by the exponentials.

$\left[-\frac{1}{2} i e^{i\,2\,\pi f t} + 0.025 e^{i\,2\,\pi (f-f_{\rm m}) t}- 0.025 e^{i\,2\,\pi (f+f_{\rm m}) t} \right] - {\rm C.C.}$

Therefore the sideband carrier ratio R is 0.025/0.5 = 0.05. This corresponds to 20 log10(0.05) = -26dBc

In total, we get the relationship of dBc and RIN as ${\rm dBc} = 20 \log_{10}(\rm{RIN}/\sqrt{2})$ , or R = RIN/sqrt(2)

308

Sun Sep 23 19:42:21 2018

Montecarlo simulation of the phase difference between P and S pols for a modeled HR mirror

[Koji Gautam] 

With Gautam's help, I ran a coating design code for an HR mirror with the standard quarter-wave design. The design used here has 17 pairs of lambda/4 layers of SiO₂ and Ta₂O₅ (=34 layers) with the fused silica as the substrate to realize the transmission of tens of ppm. At the AOI (angle of incidence) of 4 deg (=nominal angle for the aLIGO OMC), there is no significant change in the reflectivity (transmissivity). With 95% of the case, the phase difference at the AOI of 4 deg is smaller than 0.02 deg for given 1% fluctuation (normal distribution) of the layer design and the refractive indeces of the materials. Considering the number of the OMC mirrors (i.e. 4), the total phase shift between P and S pols is less than 0.08 deg. This makes P and S resonances matched well within 1/10 of the cavity resonant width (360/F=0.9deg, F: Finesse=400).

Of course, we don't know how much layer-thickness fluctuation we actually have. Therefore, we should check the actual cavity resonance center of the OMC cavity for the polarizations.

Attachment 1 shows the complex reflectivity of the mirror for P and S pols between AOIs of 0 deg and 45 deg. Below 30 deg there is no significant difference. (We need to look at the transmission and the phase difference)

Attachment 2 shows the power transmissivity of the mirror for P and S pols between AOIs of 0 deg and 45 deg. For the purpose to check the robustness of the reflectivity, random fluctuations (normal distribution, sigma = 1%) were applied to the thicknesses of each layer, and the refractive indices of Silica and Tantala. The blue and red bands show the regions that the 90% of the samples fell in for P and S pols, respectively. There are median curves on the plot, but they are not well visible as they match with the ideal case. This figure indicates that the model coating well represents the mirror with the transmissivity better than 70ppm.

Attachment 3 shows the phase difference of the mirror complex reflectivity for P and S pols between AOIs of 0deg and 45deg. In the ideal case, the phase difference at the AOI of 4deg is 1x10^-5 deg. The Monte-Carlo test shows that the range of the phase for 90% of the case fell into the range between 5x10^-4 deg and 0.02 deg. The median was turned to be 5x10^-3 deg.

Attachment 4 shows the histogram of the phase difference at the AOI of 4deg. The phase difference tends to concentrate at the side of the smaller angle.

309

Thu Sep 27 20:19:15 2018

Aaron

Montecarlo simulation of the phase difference between P and S pols for a modeled HR mirror

I started some analytic calculations of how OMC mirror motion would add to the noise in the BHD. I want to make some prettier plots, and am adding the interferometer so I can also compute the noise due to backscatter into the IFO. However, since I've pushed the notebook I wanted to post an update. Here's the location in the repo.

I used Koji's soft limit of 0.02 degrees additional phase accumulation per reflection for p polarization.

310

Thu Nov 1 19:57:32 2018

Aaron

Montecarlo simulation of the phase difference between P and S pols for a modeled HR mirror

I'm still not satisfied/done with the solution to this, but this has gone too long without an update and anyway probably someone else will have a direction to take it that prevents me spinning my wheels on solved or basic questions.

The story will have to wait to be on the elog, but I've put it in the jupyter notebook. Basically:

I considered the polarization-separated OMC in several configurations. I have plots of DARM referred noise (measured free-running and controlled noise for the current OMC, thermal theoretical noise curve, scattered light) for the case of such an OMC with one lambda/2 waveplate oriented at 45 degrees. This is the base case.
I also considered such an OMC with a lambda/2 both before and after the OMC, where their respective polarization axes can be arbitrary (I look at parameter space near the previous case's values).
- I optimize the BHD angle to balance the homodyne (minimize the E_LO^2 term in the homodyne readout).
- I then optimize the rotations of the lambda/2 polarization axes to minimize the noise
- For the optimum that is closest to the base case, I also plotted DARM referred length noise.

It's clear to me that there is a way to optimize the OMC, but the normalization of my DARM referred noise is clearly wrong, because I'm finding that the input-referred noise is at least 4e-11 m/rt(Hz). This seems too large to believe.

Indeed, I was finding the noise in the wrong way, in a pretty basic mistake. I’m glad I found it I guess. I’ll post some plots and update the git tomorrow.

311

Thu Jan 10 20:42:54 2019

FSR / HOM Test of OMC SN002

OMC SN002 = Former LHO OMC which CM1 was destroyed by the lock loss pulse in 2016. This OMC needs to be optically tested before storage.

The test items:

[done] FSR measurement with offset PDH locking (FM->AM conversion)
[done] FSR/finesse measurement with the EOM RFAM injection
[done] TMS measurement with input miaslignment and the trans RFPD misalignment: with no PZT offset
[done] TMS measurement with input miaslignment and the trans RFPD misalignment: with PZT offsets
PZT response
Mirror cleaning
Power budget
Diode alignment: shim height
PD/QPD alignment

312

Thu Jan 10 20:45:00 2019

As OMC SN002 already has the PZTs connected to the Mighty-Mouse connector, a test cable with a female mighty-mouse connector was made.

A small imperfection: When the cable was inserted to the connector shell, I forgot to mirror the pin out. Therefore the color and pin number do not match.

313

Sat Jan 12 22:49:11 2019

PM-SM patch cable mode cleaning effect

Mode cleaning capability of an optical fiber was measured. The conclusion is that the leakage of the non-fiber mode to the fiber output is insignificant and also practically negligible.

The tested fiber was Thorlabs 5-m Polarization Maintaining Single-Mode fiber (P3-1064PM-FC-5, PM Patch Cable, PANDA, 1064 nm, FC/APC, 5m).

The output mode cleaner was used as a mode analyzer. The fiber input was aligned and the misaligned so that the amount of higher order mode for the fiber is changed. The fiber output has been mode matched to an output mode cleaner. Therefore excess mode mismatch when the fiber input was misaligned, was accounted as the leakage higher order mode.

For each alignment state, the OMC transmission (in V), the OMC reflection (in V), and the OMC reflection with the OMC unlocked were measured. The voltages were measured with a digital multimeter (non-portable unit). With the fiber input beam aligned to the fiber, the fiber input and output powers were measured with a power meter.

With the input beam aligned
- Fiber input: 52.5 +/- 0.2 [mW]
- Fiber output: 35.5 +/- 0.2 [mW] (~68% coupling)
- Reflection PD offset: -0.00677 +/- 0.00001 [V]

- Refl PD reading with the OMC unlocked: 6.32 +/- 0.01 [V]
- Refl PD reading with the OMC locked: 0.133 +/- 0.002 [V]
- OMC Trans PD with the OMC locked: -1.72 +/- 0.01 [V]

With the input beam misaligned
- Refl PD reading with the OMC unlocked: 3.63 +/- 0.01 [V]
- Refl PD reading with the OMC locked: 0.0752 +/- 0.001 [V]
- OMC Trans PD with the OMC locked: -1.00 +/- 0.01 [V]

The naive mode matching was 0.9779 +/- 0.0003 and 0.9775 +/- 0.0003 without and with misalignment. We initially had roughly 17mW of non-fiber mode incident. And it was increased by roughly 15mW. For the misaligned case, the amount of the OMC-matched carrier was also reduced due to the misalignment. So the actual fiber mode cleaning effect needs more careful quantitative analysis.

The power budget at each part of the setup was modeled as shown in Attachment 1. The blue numbers are the measured values.
The factor a is the ratio of the leakage non-fiber mode into the fiber transmission.
The factor (1-b) is the mode matching of the fiber mode into the OMC mode.

$\begin{align} P_{\rm omcrefl} & = a P_{\rm nofib} + b P_{\rm fib} \nonumber \\ P_{\rm fibout} & = P_{\rm omcrefl} + (1-b) P_{\rm fib} \nonumber \\ P_{\rm tot} & = P_{\rm nofib} + P_{\rm fib} \nonumber \end{align}$

and

$\begin{align} P'_{\rm omcrefl} &= a P'_{\rm nofib} + b P'_{\rm fib} \nonumber \\ P'_{\rm fibout} &= P'_{\rm omcrefl} + (1-b) P'_{\rm fib} \nonumber \\ P_{\rm tot} &= P'_{\rm nofib} + P'_{\rm fib} \nonumber \end{align}$

With the calibration between the refl PD and the power meter measurement,
$\begin{align} P_{\rm tot} &= 52.5 \pm 0.2 {[mW]} \nonumber \\ P_{\rm fibout} &= 35.5 \pm 0.2 {\rm [mW]} \nonumber \end{align}$
$\begin{align} P_{\rm omcrefl} &= 0.78 \pm 0.01\,\,{\rm [mW]} \nonumber \\ P'_{\rm omcrefl} &= 0.460 \pm 0.006\,\,{\rm [mW]} \nonumber \\ P'_{\rm fibout} &= 20.4 \pm 0.13 \,\,{\rm [mW]} \nonumber \end{align}$

The solution of the equations is
$\begin{align} a &= (4 \pm 4) \times 10^{-4} \nonumber \\ b &= 0.0219 \pm 0.0005 \nonumber \end{align}$

So, the leakage of the non-fiber mode to the fiber output is insignificant. Moreover, the number is practically negligible because the mismatching between the fiber and OMC modes is of the order of percent and dominated by the aberration of the collimator (i.e. the OMC reflection looks like concentric higher-order LG modes) with the order of 1~2%.

314

Fri Feb 1 12:52:12 2019

PZT deformation simulation

A simple COMSOL simulation was run to see how the PZT deforms as the voltage applied.

Use the geometry of the ring PZT which is used in the OMCs - NAC2124 (OD 15mm, ID 9mm, H 2mm)
The material is PZT-5H (https://bostonpiezooptics.com/ceramic-materials-pzt) which is predefined in COMSOL and somewhat similar to the one used in NAC2124 (NCE51F - http://www.noliac.com/products/materials/nce51f/)
The bottom surface of the ring was electrically grounded (0V), and mechanically fixed.
Applied 100V between the top and bottom.

315

Sat Feb 2 16:17:13 2019

Summary: OMC(001) HOM structure recalculation

Each peak of the transfer function measurement was fitted again with a complex function:

$\begin{align} h(f;a_{\rm r}, a_{\rm i}, f_0, dT, \Gamma, a_0, b_0, a_1, b_1) & \nonumber\\ = (a_{\rm r} + i a_{\rm i}) e^{-i 2 \pi f dT} \frac{1}{1 + i (f - f_0)/\Gamma} &+ (a_0 + i b_0) + (a_1 + i b_1)f \nonumber \end{align}$

OMC (001)
History: Measurement date 2013/5/31, Installed to L1 2013/6/10~

316

Sat Feb 2 20:03:19 2019

Summary: OMC(002) HOM structure recalculation (before mirror replacement)

OMC (002)
History: Measurement date 2013/10/11, Installed to L1 2013/XX

317

Sat Feb 2 20:28:21 2019

Summary: OMC(003) HOM structure recalculation

OMC (003)
History: Measurement date 2014/7/5, Stored for I1, Installed to H1 2016/8 upon damage on 002

318

Sat Feb 2 20:35:02 2019

Summary: OMC(002) HOM structure recalculation (after mirror replacement)

OMC (002) after repair
History:Mirror replacement after the damage at H1. Measurement date 2019/1/10

319

Tue Mar 19 17:30:25 2019

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)

(Baking)
(First Contact)
(Packing / Shipping)

320

Thu Mar 28 16:36:52 2019

OMC(002) PZT characterization

As performed in the ELOG 202, the PZTs of the OMC 002 were tested.

DC response was measured by sweeping each PZT with 0-150V triangular voltage at 11Hz. Acquire 0.2sec of the tie series using an oscilloscope to get the PDH error, cavity transmission, and the sweep signal.

The voltage where the tranmission peaks were observed were fitted were recorded. One fringe corresponds to the displacement of 532nm. So the displacement and the applied volatagewere fitted witha linear function.

This gave the PZT response for PZT1 and PZT2 to be 14.9nm/V and 14.4nm/V.

AC response was measured with SR785. The PZT was shaken with 1~50mVpp signal with the DC offset of 5V while the OMC was locked with the feedback to the laser fast PZT. The transfer function from the applied PZT voltage to the servo output were measured. The closed loop TF was also measured to remove the effect of the servo control. The DC levels of the responses were calibrated using the values above.

321

Thu Apr 4 20:07:39 2019

== Office Depot ==
Really Useful Box 9L x 6 (delivered)
Really Useful Box 17L x 5 (ordered 4/4)
P-TOUCH tape (6mm, 9mm, 12mmx2, 18mm) (ordered 4/4)

== Digikey ==
9V AC Adapter (- inside, 1.3A) for P-TOUCH (ordered 4/4)
12V AC Adapter (+ inside, 1A) for Cameras (ordered 4/4)

== VWR ==
Mask KIMBERLY CLARK "KIMTECH Pure M3" ISO CLASS 3 (ordered 4/4)

322

Fri Apr 5 01:07:18 2019

OMC(002): transmitted beam images

There was a concern that the transmission from CM1 has additional fringes. The shape of the transmitted beams from CM1, CM2, and FM2 (main) werecaptured with WinCamD.
Indeed CM1 and CM2 have the fringes, but it does not exist in the main transmission. So it seems that the fringes are associated with the curved mirrors. But how???

323

Fri Apr 5 01:08:17 2019

OMC(002): DCPD / QPD alignment

The beam height in the cavity became totally different from the previous one and the shims needed to be much thicker than before. This is probably because of the alignment of the newly-glue curved mirror.

As the beam height is 2~2.5mm higher, two shims need to be stacked. The preliminary check of the heights using the alignment disks (dummy PDs) suggested the following combinations.

QPD1(SHORT) D1201467-03 (SN 007) + D1201467-03 (SN 008) (2.0 mm + 2.0 mm = 4 mm) QPD2(LONG) D1201467-01 (SN 001) + D1201467-01 (SN 002) (1.5 mm + 1.5 mm = 3 mm) DCPD1(TRANS) D1201467-02 (SN 006) + D1201467-03 (SN 005) (1.75mm + 2.0 mm = 3.75 mm) DCPD2(REFL) D1201467-02 (SN 002) + D1201467-03 (SN 006) (1.75mm + 2.0 mm = 3.75 mm)

This resulted that the fixing button head socket screws for the PD housings to be replaced from 5/16" to 7/16". Stephen kept CLASS A spare screws from Jeff's time.

For the DCPD alignment, a cap-removed Excelitas 3mm InGaAs PD is used. -> This needs to be returned to the PD stock next time.

- DCPD1 was aligned using the zoomed CCD image (Attachment 1). Once the beam is aligned, the angle was tweaked to have the reflection nicely dumped by the glass beam dump (Attachment 2).

- DCPD2 was aligned too. (Attachment 2/3)

- The two housings were fastened by a torque wrench at 2 inch lb.

Next step:

Continue with the QPDs. The QPD amp was already set.

Notes:
The cable of the CCD monitor has a problem -> need to check what's wrong
The servo box probably have large offset at the output stage or somewhere (but not input stages).

324

Fri Apr 5 20:50:54 2019

OMC(002): QPD alignment

QPD#              QPD1       QPD2 Housing#          #004       #008 Diode#            #44        #46 Shim              (see OMC ELOG 323)
------------------------------------- Power Incident    252.3 uW 266.0 uW Sum Out           174.2 mV 176.0 mV   +0.3 Vertical Out    + 4.7 mV +19.0 mV   +0.2 Horizontal Out -16.1 mV - 8.0 mV   +0.0 SEG1          -52.4 mV -53. mV   -0.1 SEG2              -37.6 mV -47. mV   -0.1 SEG3              -41.8 mV -34. mV   -0.1 SEG4          -43.7 mV -36. mV   -0.1
-------------------------------------
Spot position X   +39 um +15. um (positive = more power on SEG1 and SEG4)
Spot position Y   - 8.1 um -56. um (positive = more power on SEG3 and SEG4) ------------------------------------- Responsivity[A/W] 0.69      0.66 Q.E.              0.80      0.77 -------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

325

Fri Apr 5 23:30:20 2019

OMC (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

326

Wed Apr 10 19:22:24 2019

OMC(004): preparation for the PZT subassembly bonding

Preparation for the PZT subassembly bonding (Section 6.2 and 7.3 of T1500060 (aLIGO OMC optical testing procedure)
- Gluing fixture (Qty 4)
- Silica sphere powder
- Electric scale
- Toaster oven for epoxy mixture qualification

- M prisms
- C prisms
- Noliac PZTs

- Cleaning tools (forceps, tweezers)
- Bonding kits (copper wires, steering sticks)
- Thorlabs BA-2 bases Qty2
- Razor blades

327

Thu Apr 11 10:54:38 2019

Stephen

OMC(004): preparation for the PZT subassembly bonding

Quote:

Preparation for the PZT subassembly bonding (Section 6.2 and 7.3 of T1500060 (aLIGO OMC optical testing procedure)
- Gluing FIxture (Qty4)
- Silica Sphere Powder
- Electric scale
- Toaster Oven for epoxy mixture qualification

- M prisms
- C prisms
- Noliac PZTs

- Cleaning tools (forceps, tweezers)
- Bonding kits (copper wires, steering sticks)
- Thorlabs BA-2 bases Qty2
- Razor Blades

Also brought to the 40m on 10 April, in preparation for PZT subassembly bonding:

- new EP30-2 epoxy (purchased Jan 2019, expiring Jul 2019 - as documented on documents attached to glue, also documented at C1900052.

- EP30-2 tool kit (maintained by Calum, consisting of mixing nozzles, various spatulas, etc)

Already at the 40m for use within PZT subassembly bonding:

- "dirty" ABO A with temperature controller (for controlled ramping of curing bake)

- clean work areas on laminar flow benches

- Class B tools, packaging supplies, IPA "red wipes", etc.

Upon reviewing EP30-2 procedure T1300322 (current revision v6) and OMC assembly procedure E1300201 (current revision v1) it appears that we have gathered everything required.

328

Thu Apr 11 12:15:31 2019

PZT sub assy mirror orientations

329

Thu Apr 11 21:22:26 2019

OMC(004): PZT sub-assembly gluing

[Koji Stephen]

The four PZT sub-assemblies were glued in the gluing fixtures. There were two original gluing fixtures and two additional modified fixtures for the in-situ bonding at the repair of OMC(002).

- Firstly, we checked the fitting and arrangements of the components without glue. The component combinations are described in ELOG 329.
- Turned on the oven toaster for the cure test (200F).
- Then prepared EP30-2 mixture (7g EP30-2 + 0.35g glass sphere).
- The test specimen of EP30-2 was baked in the toaster oven. (The result shows perfect curing (no stickyness, no finger print, crisp fracture when bent)
- Applied the bond to the subassemblies.
- FInally the fixtures were put in airbake Oven A. We needed to raise one of the tray with four HSTS balance weights (Attachment 2).

330

Thu Apr 11 21:22:58 2019

OMC(004): PZT sub-assembly air baking

[Stephen Koji]

The baking of the PZT subassemblies was more complicated than we initially thought.

The four PZT subassemblies were placed in the air bake oven A. We meant to bake the assemblies with the ramp time of 2.5h, a plateau of 2h at 94degC, and slow ramp down.

The oven controller was started and the temperature has been monitored. The ramping up was ~20% faster than expected (0.57degC/min instead of 0.47degC/min), but at least it was linear and steady.

Once the temperature reached the set temperature (around t=120min), the temperature started oscillating between 74 and 94degC. Stephen's interpretation was that the PID loop of the controller was not on and the controller falled into the dead-bang mode (=sort of bang-bang control).

As the assembly was already exposed to T>70F for more than 2.5hours, it was expected the epoxy cure was done. Our concern was mainly the fast temperature change and associated stress due to thermal expansion, which may cause delamination of the joint. To increase the heat capacity of the load, we decided to introduce more components (suspension balance weights). We also decided to cover the oven with an insulator so that the conductive heat loss was reduced.

However, the controller thought it was already the end of the baking process and turned to stand-by mode (i.e. turned off everything). This started to cause rapid temp drop. So I (Koji) decided to give a manual heat control for mind cooling. When the controller is turned off and on, it gives some heat for ramping up. So the number of heat pulses and the intervals were manually controlled to give the temp drop of ~0.5degC/min. Around t=325, the temperature decay was already slower than 0.5degC/min without heat pulse, so I decided to leave the lab.

We will check the condition of the sub-assemblies tomorrow (Fri) afternoon.

331

Sun Apr 14 23:58:49 2019

OMC(004): PZT sub-assembly post air-bake inspection

[Koji Stephen]

(Friday afternoon) We retrieved the PZT sub-assemblies to the clean room.

We started removing the ASSYs from the fixtures. We noticed that some part of the glass and PZT are ripped off from the ASSY and stuck with the fixture. For three ASSYs (except for #9), the effect is minimal. However, ASSY #9 has two large removals on the front surface, and one of the bottom corners got chipped. This #9 is still usable, I believe, but let's avoid to use this unit for the OMC. Individual inspection of the ASSYs is posted in the following entries.

This kind of fracture events was not visible for the past 6 PZT sub-ASSYs. This may indicate a few possibilities:
- More rigorous quality control of EP30-2 was carried out for the PZT ASSY bonding. (The procedure was defined after the past OMC production.) The procedure leads to the strength of the epoxy enhanced.
- During the strong and fast thermal cycling, the glass was exposed to stress, and this might make the glass more prone to fracture.

For the production of the A+ units, we think we can avoid the issues by modifying the fixtures. Also, reliable temperature control/monitor technology should be employed. These improvements should be confirmed with the bonding of spare PZTs and blank 1/2" mirrors before gluing any precious components.

332

Mon Apr 15 00:08:32 2019

OMC(004): PZT sub-assembly post air-bake inspection (Sub-assy #7)

Sub-ASSY #7

Probably the best glued unit among the four.

Attachment #1: Mounting Block SN001

Attachment #2: PZT-Mounting Block bonding looks completely wet. Excellent.

Attachment #3: The other side of the PZT-Mounting Block bonding. Also looks excellent.

Attachment #4: Overall look.

Attachment #5: The mirror-PZT bonding also look excellent. The mounting block surface has many EP30-2 residue. But they were shaved off later. The center area of the aperture is clear.

Attachment #6: A small fracture of the mirror barrel is visible (at 7 o'clock).

333

Mon Apr 15 00:39:04 2019

OMC(004): PZT sub-assembly post air-bake inspection (Sub-assy #8)

Sub-ASSY #8

Probably the best glued unit among the four.

Attachment #1: Mounting Block SN007

Attachment #2: Overall look.

Attachment #3: Some fracture on the barrel visible.

Attachment #4: It is visible that a part of the PZT removed. Otherwise, PZT-Mounting Block bonding looks pretty good.

Attachment #5: The other side of the PZT bonding. Looks fine.

Attachment #6: Fractured PZT visible on the fixture parts.

Attachment #7: Fractured glass parts also visible on the fixture parts.

Attachment #8: MIrror bonding looks fine except for the glass chip.

334

Mon Apr 15 01:07:30 2019

OMC(004): PZT sub-assembly post air-bake inspection (Sub-assy #9)

Sub-ASSY #9

The most fractured unit among four.

Attachment #1: Mounting Block SN017

Attachment #2: Two large removals well visbile. The bottom right corener was chipped.

Attachment #3: Another view of the chipping.

Attachment #4: PZT-mounting block bonding look very good.

Attachment #5: Another view of the PZT-mounting block bonding. Looks very good too.

Attachment #6: Fractures bonded on the fixture.

Attachment #7: Front view. The mirror-PZT bonding look just fine.

335

Mon Apr 15 01:23:45 2019

OMC(004): PZT sub-assembly post air-bake inspection (Sub-assy #10)

Sub-ASSY #10

Attachment #1: Mounting Block SN021

Attachment #2: PZT-Mounting Block bonding looks just excellent.

Attachment #3: The other side of the PZT-Mounting Block bonding is also excellent.

Attachment #4: The mirror-PZT bonding also look excellent. Some barrel fracture is visible at the lower left of the mirror.

336

Mon Apr 15 21:11:49 2019

Philip

OMC(004): PZT testing for spare OMC

[Koji, Philip]

Today we tested the functionality of the four remaining PZTs (11,12,13 and 22) . Each PZT was placed within a collimated 500um beam.
Roughly half of the beam was blocked by the PZT. The PZT and a PD then acted as shadow sensor. Each PZT was tested with 0 and
150 V. The resulting power change then could be converted into a displacement of the PZT using the beam diameter.

The open light value for each of these tests was 3.25 V.

PZT 11:
0 V supply voltage --> 1.717 V on PD
150 V supply voltage --> 1.709 V on PD
delta = 0.008 V

PZT 12:
0 V supply voltage --> 1.716 V on PD
150 V supply voltage --> 1.709 V on PD
delta = 0.007 V

PZT 13:
0 V supply voltage --> 1.702 V on PD
150 V supply voltage --> 1.694 V on PD
delta = 0.008 V

PZT 22:
0 V supply voltage --> 1.770 V on PD
150 V supply voltage --> 1.762 V on PD
delta = 0.008 V

0.008 V --> 0.24% change in power on PD --> about 3.8 um displacement assuming no light which is blocked
by the PZT is hitting the PD.

We further started to drive all four PZTs over night with 100 V (half of their range) at 100 Hz.
We additionally display the impedance to ensure none of them degrades.

All four PZTs seem to be connected to Teflon coated wires. It needs to be checked if these
fulfill the vacuum compatibility requirements.

337

Tue Apr 16 11:36:36 2019

OMC(004): PZT testing for spare OMC

Attachment 1: Shadow sensor setup for the PZT displacement test

Attachment 2: PZT endurance test. 4 PZTs were shaken at once.

Attachment 3~5: Function generator setup 100Hz, 3.5Vpp 1.75Voffset (meant be displayed for 50Ohm load)

Attachment 6: The above setting yields 7Vpp unipolar signal @Hi-Z load

Attachment 7: The output was monitored with a 1/10 probe with the PZTs connected. This shows 10Vmax 0Vin -> Good. This photo was taken at 17:35.

Attachment 8: The test is going well @9:15 next day. (t=15.7hours = 5.6Mcycles)

Attachment 9: The test went well. The modulation was stopped @15:35. (t=21hours = 7.6Mcycles)

338

Tue Apr 16 16:35:09 2019

OMC(004): Glass breadboard selection

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

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

339

Tue Apr 16 16:40:26 2019

OMC(004): A Mirror selection

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

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

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

The attachment is the excerpt from T1500060.

340

Tue Apr 16 16:52:36 2019

OMC(004): B Mirror selection

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

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

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

The attachment is the excerpt from T1500060 with some highlighting.

341

Tue Apr 16 17:24:56 2019

OMC(004): E Mirror selection

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

The attachment is the excerpt from T1500060 with some highlighting

342

Tue Apr 16 21:16:11 2019

OMC(004): PZT testing for spare OMC

After having dug into the past email, it turned out that these wires were the ones already replaced from the original teflonwires. The length of them were confirmed to be ~19" (480mm).

Quote:

All four PZTs seem to be connected to Teflon coated wires. It needs to be checked if these
fulfill the vacuum compatibility requirements.

343

Tue Apr 16 23:11:43 2019

Borrowed items from the other labs

Apr 16, 2019
~~Borrowed two laser goggles from the 40m. (Returned Apr 29, 2019)~~
Borrowed small isopropanol glass bottole from CTN.

Apr 19, 2019
Borrowed from the 40m:
~~- Universal camera mount~~
- 50mm CCD lens
- zoom CCD lens (Returned Apr 29, 2019)
- Olympus SP-570UZ (Returned Apr 29, 2019)
- Special Olympus USB Cable (Returned Apr 29, 2019)

344

Wed Apr 17 09:08:47 2019

Stephen

OMC(004): Unwrapping and preparing breadboard

[Stephen, Philip, Koji, Joe]

Breadboard D1200105 SN06 was selected as described in eLOG 338. This log describes unwrapping and preparation of the breadboard.

Relevant procedure section: E1300201 section 6.1.5

Breadboard was unwrapped. No issues observed during unwrapping.

Attachment 1: packaging of SN06.

Visual inspection showed no issues observed in breadboard - no large scratches, no cracks, no chipping, polished area (1 cm margin) looks good.

Attachment 2: engraving of SN06.

Initially the breadboard has a large amount of dust and fiber from the paper wrapping. Images were gathered using a green flashlight at grazing incidence (technique typical of optic inspection).

PROCEDURE IMPROVEMENT: Flashlight inspection and Top Gun use should be described (materials, steps) in E1300201.

Attachment 3: particulate before Top Gun, large face.
Attachment 4: particulate before Top Gun, small face.

Top gun was used (with medium flow rate) to remove large particulate. Breadboard was placed on Ameristat sheet during this operation.

Attachment 5: particulate after Top Gun

Next, a clean surface within the cleanroom was protected with Vectra Alpha 10 wipes. The breadboard, with reduced particulate after Top Gun, was then placed inside the cleanroom on top of these wipes. Wiping with IPA Pre-wetted Vectra Alpha 10 wipes proceeded until the particulate levels were acceptable.

Joe and Koji then proceeded with placing the breadboard into the transport fixture.

345

Wed Apr 17 10:30:37 2019

Philip

OMC 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
screws.

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)

346

Thu Apr 18 20:47:54 2019

Joe

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.

347

Fri Apr 19 09:21:07 2019

Philip

Cleaning of OMC optics

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.

348

Fri Apr 19 09:35:28 2019

Joe

Adjusting cavity axis, re-alignment of OMC and locking

[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.

349

Fri Apr 19 11:34:19 2019

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.

350

Sat Apr 20 00:50:12 2019

OMC(004): Spot positions

Similarly to OMC ELOG 349 the spot positions after the replacement of CM2 were measured (Attachment 1)
Also, the spot positions after the realignment were measured. (Attachment 2)

351

Mon Apr 22 09:54:21 2019

Joe