ELOG OMC

PD/QPD path gluing ~ preparation

[Jeff Koji]

- Placed the optics on the PD/QPD path

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

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

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

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

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

- They are now in the OMC lab.

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

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

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

112

Tue Apr 16 08:12:14 2013

Further More Mirror T measurement

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

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

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

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

113

Tue Apr 16 09:43:58 2013

Configuration

Mirror list for L1OMC

L1 OMC

Cavity Mirrors

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

DCPD path

BS3 (BS for DCPDs): B5 B7

QPD path

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

114

Tue Apr 16 23:26:51 2013

Further More Mirror T measurement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

115

Wed Apr 17 07:30:04 2013

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

- Check the alignment of the beam with the cavity.

- Placed the prisms

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

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

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

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

- FInally a glass bracket was glued.

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

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

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

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

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

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

- The dumps were glued.

120

Mon May 6 19:31:51 2013

Spot position measurement on the diode mounts

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

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

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

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

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

121

Wed May 8 15:08:57 2013

Spot position measurement on the diode mounts

Remeasured the spot positions:

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

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

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

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

132

Thu May 30 15:00:28 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the raw numbers

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

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

133

Fri May 31 05:46:54 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

134

Fri May 31 14:07:54 2013

Transverse Mode Spacing measurement afte the baking

Measurement for pitch

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

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

Measurement for yaw

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

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

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

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

135

Mon Jun 3 18:58:08 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date	2013/6/2	2013/6/2	2013/6/2
Condition	Before the cleaning	After the FC cleaning	After drag wiping
Input Power [mW]	39.8	38.4	38.4
REFLPD dark offset [V]	-0.0080	-0.0080	-0.0080
REFLPD locked [V]	0.048	0.0437	0.046
REFLPD unlocked [V]	6.41	6.39	6.37

Transmitted Power to DCPD1 (T) [mW]	18.8	18.8	18.8
Transmitted Power to DCPD2 (R) [mW]	18.1	18.2	18.2
FM2 transmission [mW]	-	-	-
CM1 transmission [mW]	0.200	0.193	0.198
CM2 transmission [mW]	0.204	0.204	0.205
Input BS transmission [mW]	0.260	0.228	0.245

Cavity Finesse	396.9	403.79	403.79

Junk Light Power (Pjunk) [mW]	0.303	0.302	0.317
Coupled beam power (Pcouple) [mW]	39.50	38.10	38.08
Mode Matching (Pcouple/Pin) [mW]	0.992	0.992	0.992
Cavity reflectivity in power	0.00112	0.000211	0.000206
Loss per mirror [ppm]	111	35.9	34.8
Cavity transmission for TEM00 carrier	0.934	0.971	0.972

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

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

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

To Do

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

- Application of the first contact for the surface protection

145

Tue Jun 18 10:01:11 2013

Cavity Finesse analysis

This is the analysis of the cavity finesse data taken on Apr/13/2013 (before baking), May/30/2013 (after baking), and Jun/02/2013 (after cleaning).
If we believe this result, baking contaminated the cavity, and the first contact removed it. That agrees with the power measurement of the transmitted light.

151

Fri Aug 16 15:31:17 2013

Link to the "Mirror/PZT Characterization links"

Configuration

Mirror list for OMC(002)

OMC(002)

Cavity Mirrors

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

DCPD path

BS3 (BS for DCPDs): B10

QPD path

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

152

Fri Aug 16 16:36:19 2013

Breadboard

BB1 OMC(001) OMC
BB2 OMC(002) OMC
BB3 - BB4 OMC(003) OMC
BB5 - BB6 -

Mounting Prisms:

M01 M02 M06 OMC(002) CM1 (PZT ASSY #6)
M07 M10 OMC(003) CM1 (PZT ASSY #5)
M11 OMC(002) CM2 (PZT ASSY #4) M12 M13 OMC(003) CM2(PZT ASSY #3) M14 M15 M16 OMC(001) CM1 (PZT ASSY #1) M17 M20 OMC(001) CM2 (PZT ASSY #2) M21 M22

Mirror A:
A1 fOMC FM1 A2 Fullerton for the scattering measurement
A3 fOMC FM2
A4
A5
A6 OMC(003) FM2
A7 OMC(001) FM2
A8 OMC(001) FM1
A9 OMC(002) FM1
A10
A11
A12 OMC(003) FM1
A13 OMC(002) FM2
A14

Mirror B:
B1
B2
B3 OMC(001) BS2 (QPD)
B4
B5 OMC(003) BS2 (QPD) B6
B7 OMC(001) BS3(DCPD) B8
B9 OMC(002) BS2 (QPD)
B10 OMC(002) BS3 (DCPD) B11
B12 OMC(003) BS3 (DCPD)

Mirror C:

C1 OMC(003) CM1 (PZT ASSY #5) C2 Fullerton for the scattering measurement
C3 OMC(003) CM2 (PZT ASSY #3)
C4 OMC(002) CM2 (PZT ASSY #4)
C5 OMC(001) CM2 (PZT ASSY #2) C6 OMC(001)CM1 (PZT ASSY #1)
C7 fOMC CM1 C8 fOMC CM2 -> OMC(002) CM1 (PZT ASSY #6)
C9 OMC(002) CM1 (PZT ASSY #6) -> BURNT C10 (Liyuan tested) C11 (Liyuan tested) C12 curvature untested, faux OMC CM2 C13 curvature untested

Mirror E:
E1 OMC(002) SM2
E2 OMC(002) SM3 E3 OMC(002) BS1 E4 OMC(001) SM2
E5 OMC(002) SM1
E6
E7 OMC(003) BS1
E8 OMC(003) SM1 E9
E10 OMC(001) BS1
E11
E12 OMC(001) SM1
E13 OMC(003) SM2
E14 E15 E16 OMC(001) SM3 E17 OMC(003) SM3 E18

PZT:
PZT11
PZT12
PZT13
PZT14 OMC(003) CM1 (PZT ASSY #5)
PZT15 OMC(003) CM2 (PZT ASSY #3)
PZT21 OMC(002) CM1 (PZT ASSY #6)
PZT22
PZT23 OMC(001) CM2 (PZT ASSY #2)
PZT24
PZT25 OMC(002) CM2 (PZT ASSY #4)
PZT26 OMC(001) CM1 (PZT ASSY #1)

154

Wed Aug 21 08:31:21 2013

H1 OMC cavity alignment

Alignment of the H1 OMC cavity mirrors

- The cavity mirrors as well as the first steering mirror were aligned on the cavity side template.

- The locking of the cavity was not so stable as before. Some high freq (several hundreds Hz) disturbance makes the cavity
deviate from the linear range. This can be mitigated by turning off the HEPA units but this is not an ideal condition.

- FSR and TMS were measured.

FSR: 264.305MHz
TMS(V): 58.057MHz
TMS(H): 58.275MHz

These suggest the cavity length L and f_TMS/f_FSR (say gamma, = gouy phase / (2 pi) ) as
L=1.1343 m        (1.132m nominal)
gamma_V = 0.219659    (0.21879 nominal)
gamma_H = 0.220484    (0.21939 nominal)

- the 9th modes of the carrier is away from the resonance 6-9 times of the line width (LW)
- the 13th modes of the lower f2 sideband are 11-15 LW away
- the 19th modes of the upper f2 sideband are 0.6-7 LW away

We still need precise adjustment of the gouy phase / cavity length, this was enough for the gluing of the flat mirrors

155

Thu Aug 22 15:34:03 2013

OMC 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.

159

Thu Aug 29 02:52:50 2013

H1OMC Curved Mirror Alignment

Cavity parameter was measured with 50V bias on PZT1 (CM1)

- PZT combination was changed: PZT1 #21 (PZT ASSY#6) / PZT2 #25 (PZT ASSY #4)

- 19th HOMs of the USB makes accidental resonance with the nominal cavity length.
Because of the mirror astigmatism, HOMs spreads more than the design.
In order to avoid these modes, the cavity length had to be moved from the nominal value (1.134m).

- The clearance between the fixture and the prism was limited. This prevents to shorten the cav length.
The cavity length was made longer about 10mm.

-----

Cavity parameter obtained from the pitch misalignment

Free Spectral Range (FSR): 261.777947 +/− 0.000299 MHz
Cavity roundtrip length: 1.145217 +/− 0.000001 m
Lock offset: 1.636183 +/− 0.238442 kHz
Transverse mode spacing (TMS): 57.581950 +/− 0.000163 MHz
TMS/FSR: 0.219965 +/− 0.000001
Cavity pole (1st order modes, avg and stddev): 353.465396 +/− 0.657630 kHz
Finesse (1st order modes, avg and stddev): 370.302940 +/− 0.688585

Carrier 9th-order HOM: -8.1 line width away
Upper Sideband 13th-order HOM: 13.3 LW away
Lower Sideband 19th-order HOM: 2.2 LW away

-----

Cavity parameter obtained from the pitch misalignment

Free Spectral Range (FSR): 261.777106 +/− 0.000226 MHz
Cavity roundtrip length: 1.145220 +/− 0.000001 m
Lock offset: 0.215937 +/− 0.183434 kHz
Transverse mode spacing (TMS): 57.875622 +/− 0.000116 MHz
TMS/FSR: 0.221087 +/− 0.000000
Cavity pole (1st order modes, avg and stddev): 356.862001 +/− 0.448102 kHz
Finesse (1st order modes, avg and stddev): 366.776766 +/− 0.460598

Carrier 9th-order HOM: -4.1 line width away
Upper Sideband 13th-order HOM: 19.1 LW away
Lower Sideband 19th-order HOM: 10.8 LW away

-----

We could avoid hitting the 19th modes of the 45MHz sidebands.

First accidental hit is the 28th order modes of the lower sideband.

Red: Carrier
Blue: Upper sideband (45MHz)
Green: Lower sideband (45MHz)

161

Fri Aug 30 12:14:50 2013

H1 OMC Cavity length adjustment

Short conclusion:

The roundtrip cavity length for the H1 OMC was adjusted to be 1.145m
instead of 1.132m such that the 19th HOMs of the lower sideband do not get resonant together with the carrier.

Background:

The purpose of the OMC is to transmit the carrier TEM00 mode while anything else is rejected.
As the optical cavity has infinite numbers of resonant modes, what we practically do is to select
the roundtrip accumulated gouy phase so that low order higher order modes for the carrier
as well as the sidebands (including the TEM00 modes).

The nominal round trip length of the OMC is 1.132m. The curvature of the mirror is 2.575m.
The nominal ratio between the TMS and FSR is 0.218791 and 0.219385 (TMS_V/TMS_H= 0.9973)
for the vertical and horizontal modes. This split comes from the non-zero angle (~4deg) of incidence on the curved mirrors.

In reality, the TMS/FSR ratio depends on the true curvature of the mirror. More importantly, astigmatism
of the mirror changes the difference of the ratios for the vertical and horizontal modes.

The mirror astigmatism can either reduce or increase the split. between the TMSs. For example,
the L1 OMC showed the TMS/FSR ratio of (0.218822, 0.219218) for the vertical and horizontal modes.
TMS_V/TMS_H is 0.9982 which is 0.18% from the unity. This suggests, roughly to say, that 0.27% of the
astigmatism coming from the AOI of 4deg was partially compensated by the mirror astigmatism. This was lucky.

Something unlucky happened to the case for the first choice of the H1OMC curved mirrors.
TMS_V/TMS_H is 0.990 which is indeed 1% away from the unity. This actually caused some problem:
As the modes spreads too wide, the 19th modes became unavoidable. (see the picture below)

Red - carrier, Blue - upper sideband (+45MHz), Green - lower sideband

After the replacing one of the PZT assembly with another one, 1-TMS_V/TMS_H went down to 6%.
But still the 19th mode is on resonance. In order to shift the 19th mode from the resonance, the cavity length
had to be changed more than the range of the micrometer.

Simple simulation:

Attached Mathematica file calculates expected mode structure when the curved mirror position is
moved by DL (then the total roudtrip length changes 4*DL). This tells us that the 19th mode is
moved from the resonance by giving DL=-0.003 or DL=0.0025.

It was impossible to make the cavity short enough as the gluing fixture interferes with the curved mirror.
In fact, it was also impossible to make the cavity long enough as it was. Therefore PEEK shims with
the thickness of 1.5mm was inserted.

Result:

The FSR and TMS were measured with the longer cavity. 50V was applied to PZT1.

FSR: 261.775MHz
TMS_V: 57.575MHz
TMS_H: 57.880MHz

=> Cavity round trip length of 1.1452m
=> TMS/FSR = {0.219941, 0.221106}

The 19th modes for the lower sidebands are successfully moved from the carrier resonance.
The first accidental resonance is the lower sideband at the 28th order modes.

162

Fri Aug 30 12:22:56 2013

H1 OMC Cavity side UV gluing

H1 OMC Cavity side optics was glued on the breadboard

Curved mirror gluing

- Applied the UV glues to CM1/CM2 prisms.

- Checked the spot positions on the curved mirrors

- Apply 50V to CM1

- Measure the FSR and TMS while the cavity was locked.

FSR: 261.70925MHz
TMS_V: 57.60500MHz
TMS_H: 57.94125MHz

=> Cavity round trip length of 1.1455m
=> TMS/FSR = {0.220111, 0.221395}

First accidental resonance is the lower sideband at 28th order modes.

Carrier 9th-order HOM: 2.9~7.6 line width away
Upper Sideband 13th-order HOM: 14.1-20.7 LW away
Lower Sideband 19th-order HOM: 3.3-13.1 LW away

- As this result was satisfactory, the UV illumination was zapped. It did not change the alignment. The cavity was kept locked during the illumination.

Peripheral optics gluing

- QPD path BS/Steering Mirrors were glued
- DCPD path BS was glued

The UV glue was applied to the optics.
Then the optics were placed on the breadboard along with the fixture.

Placed the dummy QPD/DCPD mount with the alignment disks.
The horizontal positions of the spots were well with in the horizontal range of the mounts.
The UV illumination was zapped. Checked the alignment again and no problem was found.

163

Fri Aug 30 12:24:28 2013

Beam heights on the diodes

DCPD1: 14.459mm -> With 1.5mm shim, the beam will be 0.038mm too low.

DCPD2: 14.221mm -> With 1.25mm shim, the beam will be 0.026mm too low.

QPD1: 14.691mm -> With 1.75mm shim, the beam will be 0.056mm too low.

QPD2: 14.379mm -> With 1.5mm shim, the beam will be 0.118mm too low.

169

Mon Oct 14 13:40:16 2013

H1 OMC Optical testing

Since the middle of September, the optical tests of H1 OMC were took place.
Here is summary of the progress.

TEST1: FSR/FINESSE measurement before applying First Contact
TEST2: Power budget

MIrror cleaning with First Contact

TEST3: FSR/FINESSE measurement after First Contact application
TEST4: Power budget

TEST5: N/A

TEST6: HOM measurement @PZT V=0
TEST7: HOM measurement @PZT V=0-200

TEST8: DC response of the PZT
TEST9: AC response of the PZT

TEST10: PD/QPD alignment / output check

170

Mon Oct 14 15:50:55 2013

LHO OMC power budget

Date	2013/9/17	2013/9/17	2013/10/16	2013/10/22
Condition	Before the cleaning	After the cleaning	Confirmation	Confirmation
Input Power [mW]	35.2	35.4	34.54	34.9
REFLPD dark offset [V]	-0.00763	-0.00763	-0.00772	-0.000759
REFLPD unlocked [V]	0.0749 +/- 0.0005	0.067+/- 0.0005	0.0640+/-0.0005	0.0530+/-0.0001
REFLPD locked [V]	5.49 +/- 0.01	5.55+/-0.01	5.28+/-0.01	5.26+/-0.01

Transmitted Power to DCPD1 (T) [mW]	16.5	16.4	16.1	16.0
Transmitted Power to DCPD2 (R) [mW]	15.9	16.2	15.55	15.55
FM2 transmission [mW]	32.4	32.9+/-0.1	-	-
CM1 transmission [mW]	0.166	0.169	0.164	0.165
CM2 transmission [mW]	0.165	0.169	0.158	0.162
Input BS transmission [mW]	0.234	0.218	0.230	0.227

Cavity Finesse	373.114	373.114	373.114	373.114

Junk Light Power (Pjunk) [mW]	0.489	0.434	0.422	0.332
Coupled beam power (Pcouple) [mW]	34.71	34.97	34.12	34.57
Mode Matching (Pcouple/Pin) [mW]	0.986	0.988	0.988	0.990
Cavity reflectivity in power	0.00115	0.00119	0.00136	0.00199
Loss per mirror [ppm]	122	124	134	167
Cavity transmission for TEM00 carrier	0.933	0.932	0.927	0.913

171

Tue Oct 15 18:50:08 2013

1) Deburr the bottom surfaces of the QPD housings

2) Aligned the QPDs

QPD# QPD1 QPD2 Housing# #004 #008 Diode# #44 #46 Shim 1.75mm 001 1.25mm 001------------------------------------- Power Incident 125.7 uW 126.4 uW Sum Out 80.1 mV 78.9 mV Vertical Out + 3.4 mV 0 mV Horizontal Out -23.7 mV -26 mV SEG1 -15.6 mV -13.2 mV SEG2 -13.1 mV -13.3 mV SEG3 -29.0 mV -26.4 mV SEG4 -23.2 mV -26.3 mV-------------------------------------Spot position X -13 um - 0.8 um (positive = more power on SEG1 and SEG4)Spot position Y +93 um +107 um (positive = more power on SEG3 and SEG4) ------------------------------------- Responsivity[A/W] 0.64 0.62 Q.E. 0.74 0.73 -------------------------------------

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

172

Wed Oct 16 19:16:29 2013

shim 1.5mm 001/002

Tue Mar 25 17:10:10 2014

OMC spot position estimation

Spot positions were inferred from the photos

182

Thu Apr 17 21:39:25 2014

STORY:

- The cavity mirrors have scattering spots. The cavity alignment should have been scanned to find a cavity mode to have lowest loss possible.
BTW, We only have horizontal dof for the alignment scan.

- After some struggle nice cavity mode was found. The cavity transmission was 96% for the ideally matched TEM00 carrier.

- It turned out that this imposed too much beam shift in the input beam (~2mm).

- This big shift induces a lot of trouble for the peripheral optics (PDs, QPDs, sterring mirrors).

- What should we do???

Analysis:

- The beam needed to go up between CM1 and CM2 to have the right spots on them. ("UP" is the input side of the OMC).

- This imposed the beam between FM1 and FM2 moved up. In other word, for the given alignment of the FMs by the template,
We needed to hit the upper part of the FMs to have the spots on the CMs up.

Solution:

- The above argument suggets that the nominal beam will give us the right spots on the CMs if we rotate the FMs.
Of course this induces the spot move on the FMs. But this should not be the issue as the most of the loss seems to come from the CMs.

- How much misalignment show we give to the FMs? We want to shift the beam by 2mm on the CMs.
The length of the optical lever is ~0.25m. Therefore the mialignment angle should be

theta = 2e-3/2/0.25 = 4e-3 rad = 4mrad.

The template pad has ~20mm separation. The thickness of the shim should be 20mm*4mrad = 80um

- Our aluminum foil seems to have the thickness of 30-40um. We can't have this minimum thickness on the template pad as there is not enough compression pressure
=> Just use a single layer of Al piece to shim the FMs.

Attempt:

- The shims were inserted at the upper pads of the FMs.

- Aligned the input beam and the CMs so that the spots on the CMs are approximately recovered.

- Measure the cavity power budget

Pin: 34.7mW
Refl PD: offset = -7.5mV, unlock = 6.07V, inlock = 89.7mV

Ptrans = 32.5mW

Ptrans(CM2) = 0.181mW
Ptrans(CM2) = 0.184mW

Assume finesse of 400

==>

Pin: 34.7mW
Pjunk: 0.534mW
Pcoupled: 34.1mW

Mode matching: 98.5%

Cavity reflectivity in power: 0.00061
Cavity transmission in power: 0.951 (This is not a best number but acceptable.)
Loss per mirror: 75.4ppm

FM power refl/trans: 0.9923 / 7630ppm
CM1 power refl/trans: 0.999882 / 42.8ppm
CM2 power refl/trans: 0.999881 / 43.5ppm
Total roundtrip loss of the cavity (Loss + CM leakage): 388ppm

Result:

How much the input beam is away from the left wall of the OMC breadboard?

40.88mm from the template edge
8.36mm between the template edge and the bread board
=> 32.52mm

How much should this number be? 32.94mm from the solidworks model => With in 0.5mm! Nice!

Next:

- Just in case plce all of the optics and check if the beam is delivered within the alignment range of the optics

183

Mon May 12 22:43:02 2014

Measured FSR/TSM of the OMC cavity

Data analysis of the FSR/TSM measruement last week.

1. FSR was measured with "the golden arches" technique.

FSR = 263.0686 MHz +/- 900Hz

Lcav = 1.1396 m --> 7.6 mm too long! (nominal 1.132m)

2. Transverse mode spacings for the vertical and horizontal modes were measured.

TMS/FSR = 0.219366 (V) / 0.220230 (H) (Predicted value with the current cavity length 0.2196/0.2202 very close!)

We want to make this to be ~0.219 (~3% less)

With the current parameters, the 19th-order lower sideband make the coincident resonance.

184

Wed May 14 02:15:15 2014

FSR/TSM adjustment of the OMC cavity

1. FSR was adjusted and measured with "the golden arches" technique again.

FSR = 264.8412 MHz +/- 1400Hz => Lcav = 1.13197 m. (nominal 1.132m)

2. Transverse mode spacings for the vertical and horizontal modes were measured.

TMS/FSR = 0.218144 (V) / 0.219748 (H)

This is almost perfect!

The 19th-order lower sideband hit the resonance. Next step is to glue some of the flat mirrors.

185

Fri May 16 00:13:36 2014

Cavity mirror gluing part 1

BS1/FM1/FM2 for I1OMC were glued.

FM1 had to be intentionally rotated.
FM1 had to be intentionally shifted to avoid scattering spot.

Pin: 36.3 / Ptrans: 33.7 = Raw transmission 92.8%
Vunlock = 6.30 / Vlock = 0.120

Mode matching (estim) 0.98
Loss per mirror 84ppm
Cavity transmission 0.947

ummm

Tomorrow:
- Transmission needs to be optimized
- Apply 50V to a PZT
- Cavity FSR/HOM should be optimized
- gluing

Put a cover
Return power meter / DC supply

186

Sat May 17 07:40:14 2014

I1OMC cavity mirrors glued

I1OMC cavity mirrors were glued.

FSR = 264.82MHz => Lcav = 1.132m (nominal 1.132m)

TMS/FSR for Vpzt1=Vpzt2=0: 0.2185 (V) and 0.2196 (H) (nominal 0.219)

aLIGO OMC: Power Budget 2014/5/16

<<<Measured Values>>>
Input Power: 35.7 [mW]
Transmitted Power through FM2: 33.5 [mW]
Transmitted Power through CM1: 0.188 [mW]
Transmitted Power through CM2: 0.192 [mW]
Reflection PD DC output (Unlocked): 6.2 [V]
Reflection PD DC output (Locked): 0.096 [V]
Reflection PD DC output (Dark Offset): -0.00745 [V]
Assumed cavity finesse : 400.

<<<Results>>>
Input Power: 35.7 [mW]
Uncoupled light Power (Junk light + sidebands): 0.575698 [mW]
Input TEM00 Carrier Power: 35.1243 [mW] (Ratio: 0.983874)
Cavity reflectivity (in power): 548.319 ppm
Cavity transmission (in power): 0.953756
Loss per mirror: 70.1183 ppm
FM1 power transmission: 7640.17 ppm
FM2 power transmission: 7640.17 ppm
CM1 power transmission: 43.2093 ppm
CM2 power transmission: 44.1337 ppm

187

Thu Jun 19 23:16:50 2014

All of the prisms have been glued

- All of the PRISM mirrors have been glued

- 4 out of 5 beam dumps have been glued

TODO

EP30-2 gluing of the INVAR blocks for the PDs

PDs/QPDs need to be slightly lower -> order more shims

Remove the templates

Glue the last beam dump

Vibration test?

Bring the OMC to the bake lab

Vacuum baking

Bring it back to the OMC lab

Cabling / Wiring

Optical tests

Backscattering test

Packing / Shipping

188

Fri Jun 20 18:59:12 2014

All of the invar blocks have been glued

All of the INVAR blocks have been glued.

I found thinner shims in the stock.

On Monday, the template will be removed.

EP30-2 7g mixed with 0.35g of 75-90um sphere

TODO

~~EP30-2 gluing of the INVAR blocks for the PDs~~

~~PDs/QPDs need to be slightly lower -> order more shims~~

Remove the templates

Glue the last beam dump

Vibration test?

Bring the OMC to the bake lab

Vacuum baking

Bring it back to the OMC lab

Cabling / Wiring

Optical tests

Backscattering test

Packing / Shipping

189

Mon Jun 23 21:54:16 2014

All of the gluing completed

The bottom-side templates were removed.

The last beam dump was removed

TODO

~~ICS entry~~

~~Bring the OMC to the bake lab~~

Vacuum baking

Bring it back to the OMC lab

Cabling / Wiring

VIbratin test

Optical tests

Backscattering test

Packing / Shipping

196

Sun Jul 6 02:45:56 2014

3rd OMC FSR / Finesse measurement

RF AM was injected by detuning a HWP.

197

Sun Jul 6 02:46:20 2014

3rd OMC power budget (2014/7/2)

Input power: 34.8mW

REFLPD dark offset: -7.57mV
REFLPD unlocked: 6.22 V
REFLPD locked: 110mV

Transmitted Power: 16.8mW (T) and 15.9mW (R)
CM1 transmission: 0.176mW
CM2 transmission: 0.181mW

Cavity Finesse: 399.73

Junk light: 0.64mW (out of 34.8mW)
Coupled beam: 34.16 mW (out of 34.8mW)
Mode Matching: 0.982
Cavity reflectivity: 467ppm
Loss per mirror in ppm: 63.8ppm
Cavity transmission (for TEM00 carrier): 0.957

FM1: R = 0.992277, T = 7659.46
FM2: R = 0.992277, T = 7659.46
CM1: R = 0.999895, T = 41.5461
CM2: R = 0.999893, T = 42.7309

Compare the above number with the best result obtained during the alignment trials

Input power: 34.4mW

REFLPD dark offset: -7.5mV
REFLPD unlocked: 5.99 V
REFLPD locked: 104mV

Transmitted Power: Total 32.7mW (T+R)
CM1 transmission: 0.194mW
CM2 transmission: 0.194mW

Cavity Finesse: 400

Junk light: 0.631mW (out of 34.4mW)
Coupled beam: 33.77 mW (out of 34.4mW)
Mode Matching: 0.982
Cavity reflectivity: 255ppm
Loss per mirror in ppm: 39.7ppm
Cavity transmission (for TEM00 carrier): 0.968

198

Sun Jul 6 03:56:40 2014

HOM measurement with PZT vol swept

Cavity FSR/TMS measurement (2014/7/5) with PZT voltages swept from 0V to 200V (50V step)

199

Sun Jul 6 08:31:14 2014

HOM measurement with PZT vol swept

3rd OMC, HOM diagram at PZT1=0V and PZT2=50V.

First coincidence with the carrier is the 32nd-order carrier mode. Very good.

205

Thu Jul 10 23:22:28 2014

QPD# QPD1 QPD2 Housing# #006 #007 Diode# #50 #51 Shim 1.25mm 03 1.25mm 02 (1.25mm = D1201467-10)------------------------------------- Power Incident 123.1-13.0 uW 124.5-8.0 uW Sum Out 77.0 mV 82.5 mV Vertical Out -24.0 mV - 8.8 mV Horizontal Out 4.2 mV 9.0 mV SEG1 -11.6 mV -16.0 mV SEG2 -12.6 mV -18.0 mV SEG3 -25.2 mV -24.4 mV SEG4 -21.4 mV -21.4 mV-------------------------------------Spot position X -21 um -19 um (positive = more power on SEG1 and SEG4)Spot position Y +102 um +47 um (positive = more power on SEG3 and SEG4) ------------------------------------- Responsivity[A/W] 0.70 0.71 Q.E. 0.82 0.83 -------------------------------------

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

206

Fri Jul 11 00:06:33 2014

DCPD# DCPD1 DCPD2 Housing# #009 #010 Diode# #07 #10 Shim 1.00mm 01 1.00mm 02 (1.00mm = D1201467-09)------------------------------------- Power Incident 11.1 mW 10.6 mW Vout 7.65 V 7.33 VResponsivity[A/W] 0.69 0.69 Q.E. 0.80 0.81 ------------------------------------- photo 2nd 1st

PD alignment confirmation

207

Sun Jul 13 17:46:28 2014

OMC 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

OMC 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.

Quote:

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

OMC backscatter measurement

Backscatter measurement ~ 2nd round

Summary

- 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.

Improvement

- 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

- P_in = 12.3 +/- 0.001 [mW]

- R_BS = 0.549 +/- 0.005

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

- P_back = 3.9 +/- 0.05 [nW] (OMC unlocked) ==> R_{OMC(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.

IRIS B 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.

217

Wed Aug 27 23:13:13 2014

Collection of the power budgetting info

L1 OMC Cavity power budget

H1 OMC Cavity power budget

3IFO OMC Cavity power budget

241

Tue Sep 8 11:18:10 2015

PBS Transmission measurement

Motivation: Characterize the loss of the Calcite Brewster PBS.

Setup: (Attachment 1)

- The beam polarization is rotated by an HWP
- The first PBS filters out most of the S pol
- The second PBS further filters the S and also confirms how good the polarization is.

- The resulting beam is modulated by a chopper disk. The chopping freq can be 20~1kHz.

- The 50:50 BS splits the P-pol beam into two. One beam goes to the reference PD. The other beam goes to the measurement PD.

- Compare the transfer functions between RefPD and MeasPD at the chopping frequency with and without the DUT inserted to the measurement pass.

- The PBS shift the beam significantly. The beam can't keep the alignment on the Meas PD when the crystal is removed.
Therefore the "On" and "Off" states are swicthed by moving the PBS and the steering mirror at the same time.
The positions and angles of the mounts are defined by the bases on the table. The bases are adjusted to have the same spot position for these states as much as possible.

Device Under Test:

Brewster polarizer https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1300346

The prisms are aligned as shown in Attachment 2

Between the prisms, a kapton sheet (2MIL thickness) is inserted to keep the thin air gap between them.

Result:

Set1: (~max power without hard saturation)
PD1(REF) 10dB Gain (4.75kV/A) 6.39V
PD2(PBS) 10dB Gain (4.75kV/A) Thru 4.77V, PBS 4.75
Chopping frequency 234Hz, FFT 1.6kHz span AVG 20 (1s*20 = 20s)

Thru 0.748307, PBS 0.745476 => 3783 +/- 5 ppm loss
Thru 0.748227, PBS 0.745552 => 3575 +/- 5 ppm
Thru 0.748461, PBS 0.745557 => 3879 +/- 5 ppm
Thru 0.748401, PBS 0.745552 => 3806 +/- 5 ppm
Thru 0.748671, PBS 0.745557 => 4159 +/- 5 ppm
=> Loss 3841 +/- 2 ppm

Set2: (half power)
PD1(REF) 10dB Gain (4.75kV/A) 3.20V
PD2(PBS) 10dB Gain (4.75kV/A) Thru 2.38V, PBS 2.37
Chopping frequency 234Hz, FFT 1.6kHz span AVG 20 (1s*20 = 20s)

Thru 0.747618, PBS 0.744704 => 3898 +/- 5 ppm loss
Thru 0.747591, PBS 0.744690 => 3880 +/- 5 ppm
Thru 0.747875, PBS 0.744685 => 4265 +/- 5 ppm
Thru 0.747524, PBS 0.744655 => 3838 +/- 5 ppm
Thru 0.747745, PBS 0.744591 => 4218 +/- 5 ppm
=> Loss 4020 +/- 2 ppm

Set3: (1/4 power)
PD1(REF) 10dB Gain (4.75kV/A) 1.34V
PD2(PBS) 10dB Gain (4.75kV/A) Thru 1.00V, PBS 0.999
Chopping frequency 234Hz, FFT 1.6kHz span AVG 20 (1s*20 = 20s)

Thru 0.745140, PBS 0.741949 => 4282 +/- 5ppm loss
Thru 0.745227, PBS 0.741938 => 4413 +/- 5ppm
Thru 0.745584, PBS 0.741983 => 4830 +/- 5ppm
Thru 0.745504, PBS 0.741933 => 4790 +/- 5ppm
Thru 0.745497, PBS 0.741920 => 4798 +/- 5ppm
Thru 0.745405, PBS 0.741895 => 4709 +/- 5ppm
=> Loss 4637 +/- 2ppm

Possible improvement:

- Further smaller power
- Use the smaller gain as much as possible
- Compare the number for the same measurmeent with the gain changed

- Use a ND Filter instead of HWP/PBS power adjustment to reduce incident S pol
- Use a double pass configuration to correct the beam shift by the PBS

To be measured

- Angular dependence
- aLIGO Thin Film Polarizer
- HWP
- Glasgow PBS

242

Wed Sep 9 01:58:34 2015