40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  OMC elog, Page 8 of 9  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categorydown Subject
  299   Mon Jul 2 12:29:01 2018 KojiElectronicsCharacterizationImpedances of individual components (3IFO EOM)

[Rich Koji]

The impedances of the individual components from the 3IFO EOM (before modification) were tested.
Each component was modeled by LISO. The LISO model (in PDF and txt) are attached at the end of the entry.

Coils
There are three inductors taken from the EOM unit. They showed the Q ranging from 150~300.
Their impedances are compared with the coil taken from the 9MHz port of the spare EOM (=current LHO EOM).
The inductance of the 8.7MHz inductor indicated higher L but still higher Q.

Todd made a replica of the 45.3MHz coil. He used a silver plated wire and it actually showed highest Q of ~400.

Crystal capacitance
The crystal capacitances were measured by attaching a test rig on the DB15 connector of the crystal housing. The rig was calibrated such that the impedances of the attched components on the rig were measured. They showed somewhat similar feature with parasitic resonances at ~50MHz. Above this frequnecy the capacitance went down (i.e. Abs(Z) went up). This indicates there are stray series LCR in pararrel to the crystal. Not sure what is the cause of this.

The central (24.1MHz) port showed smaller capacitance. This probably means the plates for the central port is smaller. Not sure the actual dimensions of the plates for this unit.
 

Attachment 1: impedance_coils.pdf
impedance_coils.pdf
Attachment 2: impedance_xtals.pdf
impedance_xtals.pdf
Attachment 3: q_coils.pdf
q_coils.pdf
Attachment 4: component_models.pdf
component_models.pdf component_models.pdf component_models.pdf component_models.pdf component_models.pdf component_models.pdf component_models.pdf component_models.pdf
Attachment 5: liso_models.zip
  301   Tue Jul 3 12:07:47 2018 Rich AbbottElectronicsCharacterizationNotes on 3rd IFO EOM

Attached please see my notes summarizing the models for the electrodes and inductors within the 3rd IFO EOM

Attachment 1: EOM_Analysis2.pdf
EOM_Analysis2.pdf EOM_Analysis2.pdf
  302   Wed Jul 4 18:30:51 2018 KojiElectronicsCharacterizationEOM circuit models

The circuit models for the 3IFO EOM (before mods) were made using LISO.
Then the modification plan was made to make it a new LLO EOM.

Impedance data, LISO model, Mathematica files are zipped and attached at the end.

Attachment 1: eom_models.pdf
eom_models.pdf eom_models.pdf eom_models.pdf
Attachment 2: eom9.pdf
eom9.pdf
Attachment 3: eom24.pdf
eom24.pdf
Attachment 4: eom45.pdf
eom45.pdf
Attachment 5: 180704_3IFO_EOM_model.zip
  303   Thu Jul 26 20:57:07 2018 KojiElectronicsCharacterization9MHz port tuned impedance

[Rich Koji]

The 9MHz port was tuned and the impedance was measured.

Attachment 1: impedance_eom.pdf
impedance_eom.pdf
Attachment 2: eom9.pdf
eom9.pdf
Attachment 3: eom_models_9MHz.pdf
eom_models_9MHz.pdf
  304   Tue Aug 7 15:43:12 2018 KojiElectronicsCharacterizationNew LLO EOM stuffed

[Rich, Dean, Koji]

Stuffed all inductors for the new LLO EOM. As the impedances were sensitive to the positions of the inductors in the housing, they were glued with a glue gun.
Also the lid of the housing significantly change the stray capacitance and lowers the resonant frequency (meaning lowers the Q too), we decided to tune the matching circuit without the lid.

The attached plots show the measured impedances. They all look well tuned and matched. We will prepare and perform the optical measurement at the 40m.

Attachment 1: P_20180806_154457.jpg
P_20180806_154457.jpg
Attachment 2: impedance_eom.pdf
impedance_eom.pdf
Attachment 3: impedance_eom_zoom.pdf
impedance_eom_zoom.pdf
  305   Wed Aug 8 17:32:56 2018 Rich AbbottGeneralCharacterizationModulation 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

Attachment 1: 40mLabModIndexSetup.pdf
40mLabModIndexSetup.pdf
  306   Thu Aug 9 11:24:29 2018 KojiGeneralCharacterizationModulation 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

 

Attachment 1: modulation_depth.pdf
modulation_depth.pdf
Attachment 2: modulation_depth_zoom.pdf
modulation_depth_zoom.pdf
  311   Thu Jan 10 20:42:54 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationFSR / 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 KojiOpticsCharacterizationPZT test cable

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.

Attachment 1: OMC_PZT_wiring.pdf
OMC_PZT_wiring.pdf
  313   Sat Jan 12 22:49:11 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationPM-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%.
 

Attachment 1: fiber_mode_cleaning.pdf
fiber_mode_cleaning.pdf
  315   Sat Feb 2 16:17:13 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationSummary: 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~

Attachment 1: OMC_HOM_130531.pdf
OMC_HOM_130531.pdf
Attachment 2: HOM_PZTV.pdf
HOM_PZTV.pdf
Attachment 3: HOM_plot_PZT0_0.pdf
HOM_plot_PZT0_0.pdf
Attachment 4: Cav_scan_response_HOM.pdf
Cav_scan_response_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_HOM.pdf
  316   Sat Feb 2 20:03:19 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationSummary: OMC(002) HOM structure recalculation (before mirror replacement)

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

Attachment 1: OMC_HOM_131011.pdf
OMC_HOM_131011.pdf
Attachment 2: HOM_PZTV.pdf
HOM_PZTV.pdf
Attachment 3: HOM_plot_PZT0_0.pdf
HOM_plot_PZT0_0.pdf
Attachment 4: Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf
Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf
  317   Sat Feb 2 20:28:21 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationSummary: 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

Attachment 1: OMC_HOM_140705.pdf
OMC_HOM_140705.pdf
Attachment 2: HOM_PZTV_PZT1_0V.pdf
HOM_PZTV_PZT1_0V.pdf
Attachment 3: HOM_plot_PZT0_0.pdf
HOM_plot_PZT0_0.pdf
Attachment 4: Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf
Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT_HOM.pdf
  318   Sat Feb 2 20:35:02 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterization 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

Attachment 1: OMC_HOM_190110.pdf
OMC_HOM_190110.pdf
Attachment 2: HOM_PZTV.pdf
HOM_PZTV.pdf
Attachment 3: HOM_plot_PZT0_0.pdf
HOM_plot_PZT0_0.pdf
Attachment 4: Cav_scan_response_PZT.pdf
Cav_scan_response_PZT.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT.pdf Cav_scan_response_PZT.pdf
  319   Tue Mar 19 17:30:25 2019 KojiGeneralCharacterizationOMC (002) Test items

OMC #002 Optical tests

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

(Backscattering test)

(Cabling / Wiring)

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

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

  320   Thu Mar 28 16:36:52 2019 KojiMechanicsCharacterizationOMC(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.

Attachment 1: PZT_Scan.pdf
PZT_Scan.pdf
Attachment 2: OMC_PZT_Response.pdf
OMC_PZT_Response.pdf
  322   Fri Apr 5 01:07:18 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(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???

Attachment 1: CM1trasns.png
CM1trasns.png
Attachment 2: CM2trasns.png
CM2trasns.png
Attachment 3: FM2trans2.png
FM2trans2.png
  323   Fri Apr 5 01:08:17 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(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).

Attachment 1: IMG_7521.JPG
IMG_7521.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_7529.JPG
IMG_7529.JPG
Attachment 3: IMG_7539.JPG
IMG_7539.JPG
Attachment 4: IMG_7541.JPG
IMG_7541.JPG
  324   Fri Apr 5 20:50:54 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(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

Attachment 1: P_20190405_215906.jpg
P_20190405_215906.jpg
Attachment 2: P_20190405_215927.jpg
P_20190405_215927.jpg
  336   Mon Apr 15 21:11:49 2019 PhilipOpticsCharacterizationOMC(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 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(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)

Attachment 1: IMG_7620.jpg
IMG_7620.jpg
Attachment 2: IMG_7623.jpg
IMG_7623.jpg
Attachment 3: IMG_7629.jpg
IMG_7629.jpg
Attachment 4: IMG_7630.jpg
IMG_7630.jpg
Attachment 5: IMG_7631.jpg
IMG_7631.jpg
Attachment 6: IMG_7632.jpg
IMG_7632.jpg
Attachment 7: IMG_7633.jpg
IMG_7633.jpg
Attachment 8: P_20190416_091537.jpg
P_20190416_091537.jpg
Attachment 9: IMG_7634.JPG
IMG_7634.JPG
  342   Tue Apr 16 21:16:11 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(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.

 

  350   Sat Apr 20 00:50:12 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(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)

Attachment 1: misalignment2.pdf
misalignment2.pdf
Attachment 2: misalignment3.pdf
misalignment3.pdf
  354   Wed Apr 24 13:58:51 2019 JoeOpticsCharacterizationOMC power budget and UV Epoxy Bonding of BS1

[koji,philip,joe,liyuan,stephen]

need to add spot positions.

Mirrors: PZT11,PZT22, A14, A5

Measurement postion Power P_normalise
P_in 15.66+-0.01mV 3.251+-0.001
V_ref,lock 64+-2mV 3.22+-0.001
V_ref,unlock 2.808+-0.001 V 3.253+-0.001
P_qpd 99.5+-0.5 uW 3.24+-0.002
P_cm1 79.0+-0.5 uW 3.22+-0.002
P_cm2 76.2+-0.03 uW 3.22+-0.01
P_trans 14.55+-0.05 mW 3.22+-0.01
Vref,dark -6.286 mV +-0.01mV  

Mode matching = 97.72%

15.66-> 15.30mW coupled.

~100uW for QPD

->15.2mW in cavity

Trans = 14.55mW -> 95.7% transmission

The flat mirrors were the ones with the most scattering, so we thought about how to improve it. We tried to move the first flat mirror by pushing it with our finger so that he beam would move along the optic. We tried this a couple of times, however the second time we moved it we lost our alignment and could not retrieve it. We looked at the mirror and we could see quite a lot of newtonian rings. We could see a small fibre on the glass bread board. We cleaned the optics base and the gbb, and we could get the alignment back. The beam was aligned to the cavity, the spots no longer hit the centre of the CM2. 

We measured the power budget again.

Measurement position Power P_normalise
V_ref,lock 47mV 3.24V
P_trans 14.45+-0.005mW 3.24 +-0.003 V
V_ref,unlock 2.68+-0.001 V 3.25+-.003
     

mode matching = 1-47/2680 = 0.9824, 98.2% mode matching

same p_normalise so

15.66-> 15.34mW coupled.

~15.24mW in cavity

transmission = 14.45, so 94.8% transmission.

Koji noticed that FM1 wasn't touching the template correctly, so he re-aligned the cavity.

Afternoon session - UV Bonding (E1300201-v1 procedure 6.4.4 "Gluing" using procedure in section 7.2 "UV Gluing")

Wiped down UV PPE, UV Illuminator, and UV Power Meter

Applied Optocast 3553-LV Epoxy to sample fused silica optics, to test quantity of glue needed and to become familiar with the process and tools. Philip and Joe each created a successful bond. Joe's had 3 visible spots in the bulk of the bond. Acetone was used to scrub some residue of epoxy from the surface near the OD, which was likely cured. Short duration exposure (seconds) to acetone at the perimeter of the bond did not yield any weakening of bond.

While test pieces were bonded, Koji was making some adjustments to the cavity alignment in preparation for gluing of the steering mirror BS1.

Koji noticed that the spring clamp was causing pitch in the BS1 mirror, so he recommended that we utilize the "restrain by allen key" technique to load the mirror during curing.

Once aligned, we tried taking the BS1 mirror out of the template and then putting it back. We did this twice and both times the cavity needed realigning (with the curved mirrors as well as the input steering periscope). Why is this? Since the mirror was touching the template it should not have become misaligned right? Maybe the template moves slightly? I think before glueing in the cavity mirrors we should find out why probably? Koji took a look and claimed that a few optics may have been unconstrained. 

Planning between Koji and Joe led to placement of 5 drops of epoxy on the BS1 surface, to match the bonding area. At this point we noticed that the template was not secured very well, by poking down on it we could see it move. This might explain why we are becoming misaligned very easily. Once the prism was back on the board, Koji used allen keys to move around the prism. This was done until we could align it again (i.t looked too pitched). The beam was aligned back into the cavity, and the UV light was used to cure the bond. The reflected DC when locked was

  • pre-cured = 47mV
  • cured = 55 mV

so it looks ok still.

 

 

 

  355   Thu Apr 25 15:05:19 2019 JoeOpticsCharacterizationLooking at PZT HOM spacing dependance and thinking about workflow

[koji, joe]

The template or glass breadboard was wobbling, and we noticed that the caivty alignment became worse/better when it was pressed down. We saw that it was the glass breadboard, so it was fixed into the transport fixture more securely. Now its alignement didn't change when it was pressed down. We took a pzt mirror out and replaced it, the alignment din't change much so that was good. We set up posts to hold the pzt wires.

We noticed that the bottom of the mirrors were dirty, so we cleaned them, and once we were happy with the newton rings, we aligned the cavity

Took a photo of CM2, the spot is maybe 1 beam diameter vertically and horizontally from the centre, and quite a bright spot could be seen. The same problem with CM1. We thought it would be good to see a measurement of higher order mode spacing dependence on PZT DC voltage rather than doing the full characterisation since the alignment seems to change quite a lot when ever we do anything, and this cavity arrangement probably isn't very good anyway (can see scattering on both curved mirrors with the IR camera). 

did measurements of FSR, = 2.64835MHz

did HOM spacing for 0,75,150V on CM1 in pitch and yaw.

we want to come up with a work flow for how to do these measurements, and make automate parts of the analysis?

 

  356   Wed May 1 15:40:46 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(004): Spot positions and the scattering

Tried a few things.

1. Replaced CM1 (PZT ASSY #10=M21+PZT#22+C12) with PZT ASSY #7 (=M1+PZT#13+C13)

We tried PZT ASSY #7 at the beginning and had the spots at almost at the top edge of the curved mirrors. As we found a particle on the bottom of the M1 prism (and removed it), I gave it a try again. Resulting spots are again very high. This results in rejecting PZT ASSY #7 and we set the combination of the PZT ASSYs as #8 (M7+P11+C11) and #10 (M21+P22+C12). This combination nominally gives the spot ~1mm above the center of the curved mirrors.

2. Swapped FM1 and FM2. Now FM1=A5 and FM2=A14.

No significant change of the scattering features on the FMs. The transmitted power was 14.85mW (Ref PD Vin = 3.42V), Reflection PD Vrefl,lock = 54.3mV and Vrefl,unlock = 2.89V (Vin=3.45V), Vrefl,offset = -6.39mV. The incident power was 17.43mW (Vin 3.69V).

==> Coupling 0.979 , OMC transmission 0.939 (This includes 0.6% loss to the QPD path) ...Not so great number

3. Built better camera setups to check the spot position and the scattering from the cavity mirrors.

Now the spot heights are fixed and safe to move the camera up for inches to obtain better views of the mirror faces. The camera was set 15" away from the mirrors with 1.5" height from the beam elevation. This is 0.1rad (~ 5 deg) and Cos(0.1)~0.995 so the distortion (compression) of the view is negligible. (Attachment) The spot photo were taken with the fixed CCD gain, the focus on the glass, and  lens aperture F=8.0. Later the focus and aperture were adjusted to have clear view of the scattring points.

The intensity of each scattering was constant at different views. I suppose this is because the scattering is coming from a spot smaller than the wavelength. The bright spots does not show any visible feature on the mirror surfaces when they were inspected with a green flash light.

CM2 has the excellent darkness and we want to keep this spot position. FM1, FM2, and CM1 showed bright scattering.

The spot at CM1 is not well centered on the mirror. And this is the way to avoid this scattering point. So let's think about to move the spot on CM1 by 1.3mm towards the center while the spot on the CM2 is fixed. Note that this is going to be done by the micrometers for CM1 and CM2.

By turning right micrometer of CM1 forward (50um = 5div = 1/10 turn) and the left micrometer of CM2 backward (60um = 6div) moves the spots on FM1, FM2, CM1, and CM2 by (0.43, 0.87, 1.3, 0)mm. This basically moves the spots toward the center of each mirror. Let's give it a try.

 

Attachment 1: misalignment.pdf
misalignment.pdf misalignment.pdf
  357   Fri May 3 11:06:28 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(004): Spot positions and the scattering

Experiment on 5/1
- CM1 right knob was moved 1div (10um) backward such that the spots were better centered on the mirrors 

FM1 (A5): h=-0.2mm -> 0.4mm made the spot much darker but still it has a few scattering spots.
FM2 (A14): h=-0.8mm -> 0.2mm reduced the number of spots from 2 to 1. And it is darker. The remaining spot at the center.
CM1 (C11): h=-1.3mm -> +1.0mm made the spot much darker.
CM2 (C12): h=-0.7mm -> +0.2mm remains dark.

Note: CM1 h=1mm and CM2 h~0mm are good locations. h+ is the good direction to move. Avoid h-.
FM1 and FM2 has the scat spots at the center. Want to go h+ more.

Uniformly go h+ is the good move. => This can be done by rotate CM1 positive => CM1 right knob CCW.

2019/5/1 CM1 right micrometer 1div backward
         
    Unit   V_RefPD [V]
P_TRANS 13.53 [mW]   3.09
V_REFL_LOCKED 53.4 [mV]   3.09
V_REFL_UNLOCK 2.52 [V]   3.065
P_IN 14.45 [mW]   3.07
V_REFL_OFFSET -6.35 [mV]    
         
Coupling 0.977      
OMC_Trans 0.953      

Improvement of the transmission from 93.9%->95.3%


- Further moved CM1 right knob 0.5div (0.5um) backward such that the spots were moved to h+ directions.
FM1 (A5): h=0.4mm -> 1.1mm (there is only one spot rather than multiple spots)
FM2 (A14): h=0.2mm -> 1.1mm (darker but multiple spots)
CM1 (C11): h=1.0mm -> 1.8mm (brighter but single spot)
CM2 (C12): h=0.2mm -> 1.5mm (dark multiple spots)

2019/5/1 CM1 right micrometer 0.5div backward
         
    Unit   V_RefPD [V]
P_TRANS 14.55 [mW]   3.28
V_REFL_LOCKED 49 [mV]   3.28
V_REFL_UNLOCK 2.755 [V]   3.299
P_IN 15.64 [mW]   3.3
V_REFL_OFFSET -6.316 [mV]    
         
Coupling 0.980      
OMC_Trans 0.955      

Not much improvement of the transmission but kept 95% level.

- Replaced FM1 (A5) with A1 mirror (No photo)

Good news: This did not change the cavity alignment at all.

Transmission 95.4%

- Tweaked the CM1 angle

Transmission 95.3%

=> A1 mirror does not improve the transmission much.


Next Plan: Use A5 (or something else) as FM2 and see if A14 caused the dominant loss.

Attachment 1: misalignment.pdf
misalignment.pdf misalignment.pdf misalignment.pdf
  360   Thu May 9 18:10:24 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(004): Spot position scan / power budget

(Now the CCD image is captured as a movie and the screen capture is easier!)

Various spot positions on CM1 and CM2 were tried to test how the transmission is dependent on the spot positions. CM1 has a few bright spots while CM2 shows very dark scattering most of the case. Attachment 1 is the example images of one of the best alignment that realized the transmission of ~96%. FM1 and FM2 also showed bright spots. The replacement of the FM mirrors does not improve nor degrade the transmission significantly. The transmission is still sensitive to the spot positions on the alignment. This indicates that the loss is likely to be limited by CM1.

Attachment 2 shows the distribution of the (known) scattering spots on CM1. The bright spots are distributed every ~1mm on the spot height and the beam (with beam radius of .5mmm) can't find a place where there is no prominent spots.

We will be able to examine if the transmission can be improved or not by replacing this CM1 mirror.

Attachment 1: 190508.png
190508.png
Attachment 2: scattering_spots_CM1.png
scattering_spots_CM1.png
  365   Thu May 23 01:42:46 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationC30665 high power test

An Excelitas C30665 PD with the cap removed (SN07 in Case H slot #2) was exposed to the beam with the optical power of 1.4mW to 334mW.
After each illumination, the dark current and the dark noise level were tested. Also the photo image of the PD surface was taken each time.

- No significant change of the dark current after each illumination.

- No significant change of the dark noise after each illumination.

- No visible change of the surface observed.

 

Attachment 1: C30665_high_power_test.pdf
C30665_high_power_test.pdf
Attachment 2: pd_surface.jpg
pd_surface.jpg
  366   Thu May 23 23:27:38 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationIGHQEX3000 high power test

LaserComponents IGHQEX3000 (Cage B2: Serial# B1-23) was exposed to the beam with the optical power from 1.6mW to 332mW.
After each illumination, the dark current and the dark noise level were measured. Also the photo image of the PD surface was taken each time.

- No significant change of the dark current after each illumination.

- No significant change of the dark noise after each illumination.

- No visible change of the surface observed.

(During this dark noise measurement, the current amp gain was set to be 1e8 V/A, instead of 1e7 for the measurements yesterday.)

Attachment 1: HQEPD_high_power_test.pdf
HQEPD_high_power_test.pdf
Attachment 2: pd_images.png
pd_images.png
  369   Mon Jul 1 12:38:49 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationA and M prisms perpendicularity measurement

[Stephen, Koji]

The perpendicularity of some of the A and M prisms were tested.

Results

- The measurement results are listed as Attachment 1 and 2 together with the comparisons to the measurement in 2013 and the spec provided from the vendor.
- Here, the positive number means that the front side of the prism has larger angle than 90deg for the air side. (i.e. positive number = facing up)
- The RoC of the curved mirrors is 2.5m. Therefore, roughly speaking, 83arcsec corresponds to ~1mm beam spot shift. The requirement is 30 arcsec.
- The A prisms tend to have positive and small angle deviations while the M prisms to have negative and large (~50arcsec) angle deviations.
- The consistency: The measurements in 2013 and 2019 have some descrepancy but not too big. This variation tells us the reliability of the measurements, say +/-30arcsec.

Setup

- The photos of the setup is shown as Attachments 3/4/5. Basically this follows the procedure described in Sec 2.2.2 of T1500060.
- The autocollimator (AC) is held with the V holders + posts.
- The periscope post for the turning Al mirror was brought from Downs by Stephen.
- The turning mirror is a 2" Al mirror. The alignment of the turning mirror was initially aligned using the retroreflection to the AC. Then the pitching of the holder was rotated by 22.5deg so that the AC beam goes down to the prism.
- The prism is held on a Al mirror using the post taken from a prism mount.
- If the maximum illumination (8V) is used, the greenish light becomes visible and the alignment becomes easier.
- There are two reflections 1) The beam which hits the prism first, and then the bottom mirror second, 2) The beam which hits the bottom mirror first and then the prism second. Each beam gains 2 theta compared to the perfect retroreflection case. Therefore the two beams have 4 theta of their relative angle difference. The AC is calibrated to detect 2 theta and tells you theta (1div = 1 arcmin = 60 arcsec). So just read the angle defferencein the AC and divide the number by 2 (not 4).

Attachment 1: A_prism.png
A_prism.png
Attachment 2: M_prism.png
M_prism.png
Attachment 3: P_20190627_222658.jpg
P_20190627_222658.jpg
Attachment 4: setup2.JPG
setup2.JPG
Attachment 5: M01_1_id.JPG
M01_1_id.JPG
Attachment 6: A14_meas.JPG
A14_meas.JPG
  370   Mon Jul 1 12:49:42 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationScattering measurement of A and C mirrors

Liyuan's scattering measurement for the A and C mirrors.

Attachment 1: omc_cm_tis_062419.pdf
omc_cm_tis_062419.pdf omc_cm_tis_062419.pdf
Attachment 2: omc_prism_tis_062419.pdf
omc_prism_tis_062419.pdf omc_prism_tis_062419.pdf omc_prism_tis_062419.pdf
  371   Thu Aug 22 12:35:53 2019 StephenOpticsCharacterizationWedging of the debonded PZTs 2019 August

Wedge and thickness measurements of PZTs 12 and 13 took place after debonding and cleaning - results are shown in the first image (handwritten post-it format).

These thickness measurements seem to have come back thinner than previous measurements. It is possible that I have removed some PZT material while mechanically removing glue. It is also possible that there is systematic error between the two sets of measurements. I did not run any calculations of wedge ange or orientation on these data.

Note that cleaning of debonded PZTs involved mechanically separating glue from the planar faces of PZTs. The second image shows the razer blade used to scrape the glue away.

There were thick rings of glue where there had been excess squeezed out of the bond region, and there was also a difficult-to-remove bond layer that was thinner. I observed the presence of the thin layer by its reflectivity. The thick glue came off in patches, while the thin glue came off with a bit of a powdery appearance. It was hard to be certain that all of the thin bond layer came off, but I made many passes on each of the faces of the 2 PZTs that had been in the bonded CM assemblies. I found it was easiest to remove the glue in the bonded

I was anticipating that the expected 75-90 micron bond layer would affect the micrometer thickness measurements if it was still present, but I did not notice any irregularities (and certainly not at the 10 micron level), indicating that the glue was removed successfully (at least to the ~1 micron level).

 

Quote:

Yesterday I measured the thickness of the PZTs in order to get an idea how much the PZTs are wedged.

For each PZT, the thickness at six points along the ring was measured with a micrometer gauge.
The orientation of the PZT was recognized by the wire direction and a black marking to indicate the polarity.

A least square fitting of these six points determines the most likely PZT plane.
Note that the measured numbers are assumed to be the thickness at the inner rim of the ring
as the micrometer can only measure the maximum thickness of a region and the inner rim has the largest effect on the wedge angle.
The inner diameter of the ring is 9mm.



The measurements show all PZTs have thickness variation of 3um maximum.

The estimated wedge angles are distributed from 8 to 26 arcsec. The directions of the wedges seem to be random
(i.e. not associated with the wires)



As wedging of 30 arcsec causes at most ~0.3mm spot shift of the cavity (easy to remember),
the wedging of the PZTs is not critical by itself. Also, this number can be reduced by choosing the PZT orientations
based on the estimated wedge directions --- as long as we can believe the measurements.



Next step is to locate the minima of each curved mirror. Do you have any idea how to measure them?

 

Attachment 1: IMG_4775.JPG
IMG_4775.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_4770.JPG
IMG_4770.JPG
  372   Fri Aug 23 11:11:44 2019 shrutiOpticsCharacterizationFinding the curvature bottom

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

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

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

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

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

 

The distance from the curvature bottom is calculated as 

d = \frac{rR}{2L}

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

R: radius of curvature of the mirror 

L: Distance between mirror and CCD

 

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

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

 

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

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

For PZT 12, PZT 13 respectively:

Avg. height = 2.0063 mm, 2.0035 mm

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

Wedge angles = 45.8 arcsec, 30.6 arcsec

 

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

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

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

Quote:

Wedge and thickness measurements of PZTs 12 and 13 took place after debonding and cleaning - results are shown in the first image (handwritten post-it format).

These thickness measurements seem to have come back thinner than previous measurements. It is possible that I have removed some PZT material while mechanically removing glue. It is also possible that there is systematic error between the two sets of measurements. I did not run any calculations of wedge ange or orientation on these data.

Note that cleaning of debonded PZTs involved mechanically separating glue from the planar faces of PZTs. The second image shows the razer blade used to scrape the glue away.

There were thick rings of glue where there had been excess squeezed out of the bond region, and there was also a difficult-to-remove bond layer that was thinner. I observed the presence of the thin layer by its reflectivity. The thick glue came off in patches, while the thin glue came off with a bit of a powdery appearance. It was hard to be certain that all of the thin bond layer came off, but I made many passes on each of the faces of the 2 PZTs that had been in the bonded CM assemblies. I found it was easiest to remove the glue in the bonded

I was anticipating that the expected 75-90 micron bond layer would affect the micrometer thickness measurements if it was still present, but I did not notice any irregularities (and certainly not at the 10 micron level), indicating that the glue was removed successfully (at least to the ~1 micron level).

 

Quote:

Yesterday I measured the thickness of the PZTs in order to get an idea how much the PZTs are wedged.

For each PZT, the thickness at six points along the ring was measured with a micrometer gauge.
The orientation of the PZT was recognized by the wire direction and a black marking to indicate the polarity.

A least square fitting of these six points determines the most likely PZT plane.
Note that the measured numbers are assumed to be the thickness at the inner rim of the ring
as the micrometer can only measure the maximum thickness of a region and the inner rim has the largest effect on the wedge angle.
The inner diameter of the ring is 9mm.



The measurements show all PZTs have thickness variation of 3um maximum.

The estimated wedge angles are distributed from 8 to 26 arcsec. The directions of the wedges seem to be random
(i.e. not associated with the wires)



As wedging of 30 arcsec causes at most ~0.3mm spot shift of the cavity (easy to remember),
the wedging of the PZTs is not critical by itself. Also, this number can be reduced by choosing the PZT orientations
based on the estimated wedge directions --- as long as we can believe the measurements.



Next step is to locate the minima of each curved mirror. Do you have any idea how to measure them?

 

 

Attachment 1: PZT_Wedging_Results.pdf
PZT_Wedging_Results.pdf
Attachment 2: PZT_Wedging_Calc.pdf
PZT_Wedging_Calc.pdf
  395   Thu Oct 8 19:55:22 2020 KojiGeneralCharacterizationPower Measurement of Mephisto 800NE 1166A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impedance of the QPD segments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

  224   Wed Jul 15 22:23:17 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverE1400445 first look

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


E1400445 first look

LIGO DCC E1400445

Attachment 1: Record of the original state

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

Attachment 1: IMG_20150714_195534852.jpg
IMG_20150714_195534852.jpg
Attachment 2: IMG_20150714_195227746_HDR.jpg
IMG_20150714_195227746_HDR.jpg
  225   Sat Jul 18 11:37:21 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverD0900848 power board ~ oscillation issue solved

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

PCB schematic: LIGO DCC D0900848

0. Extracting the power board.

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

1. D1~D4 protection diodes

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

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

2.1 VREFP (U5)

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

2.2 VREFN (U6)

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

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

2.3 Positive supply systems (U10, U11, U12)

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

2.3 Negative supply systems (U7, U8, U9)

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

2.4 -24V system (U13)

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

3. Restoring all connections / final check of the voltages

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

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

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

All the above modifications are depicted in Attachment 6.

Attachment 1: IMG_20150715_215516907.jpg
IMG_20150715_215516907.jpg
Attachment 2: IMG_20150715_215706039.jpg
IMG_20150715_215706039.jpg
Attachment 3: IMG_20150714_203246414.jpg
IMG_20150714_203246414.jpg
Attachment 4: IMG_20150717_215132303.jpg
IMG_20150717_215132303.jpg
Attachment 5: IMG_20150717_220919527.jpg
IMG_20150717_220919527.jpg
Attachment 6: D0900848_modifications.jpg
D0900848_modifications.jpg
  227   Wed Jul 22 09:43:01 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverPower supply test of the EOM/AOM Driver

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

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

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

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

3) Verify the internal supply voltages:

All look good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

  228   Wed Jul 22 10:15:14 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverRF test of the EOM/AOM Driver S1500117

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

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

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

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

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

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

=> OK

10) Openloop transfer function

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

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

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

13dB setting -> 12.89dBm (maximum setting)

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

  229   Sat Jul 25 17:24:11 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverRF test of the EOM/AOM Driver S1500117

(Calibration for Attachment 5 corrected Aug 27, 2015)


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

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

Here are some supplimental information with plots

Attachment 1: OLTF of the AM amplitude stabilization servo.

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

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

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

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

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

Attachment 4: Raw power spectra of the monitor channels

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Attachment 1: EOM_Driver_AM_servo_OLTF.pdf
EOM_Driver_AM_servo_OLTF.pdf
Attachment 2: EOM_Driver_2ndAMdet_CLOLTF.pdf
EOM_Driver_2ndAMdet_CLOLTF.pdf
Attachment 3: EOM_Driver_Output_Power.pdf
EOM_Driver_Output_Power.pdf
Attachment 4: EOM_Driver_Mon_PSD.pdf
EOM_Driver_Mon_PSD.pdf
Attachment 5: EOM_Driver_AM_PSD.pdf
EOM_Driver_AM_PSD.pdf
Attachment 6: EOM_Driver_DAQ_TF_test.pdf
EOM_Driver_DAQ_TF_test.pdf
Attachment 7: EOM_Driver_CTRL_TESTRIG_TF.pdf
EOM_Driver_CTRL_TESTRIG_TF.pdf
  230   Tue Jul 28 18:36:50 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverRF test of the EOM/AOM Driver S1500117

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


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

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

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

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

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

Attachment 1: IMG_20150727_214536773_HDR.jpg
IMG_20150727_214536773_HDR.jpg
Attachment 2: EOM_Driver_DAQ_TF_test.pdf
EOM_Driver_DAQ_TF_test.pdf
Attachment 3: EOM_Driver_Mon_PSD.pdf
EOM_Driver_Mon_PSD.pdf
  231   Mon Aug 10 02:11:47 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverRF AM Measurement Unit E1500151

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

LIGO DCC E1500151

Power supply check

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Testpoint voltages:

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

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

 

Attachment 1: IMG_20150803_223403975.jpg
IMG_20150803_223403975.jpg
Attachment 2: IMG_20150803_221210816_HDR.jpg
IMG_20150803_221210816_HDR.jpg
Attachment 3: IMG_20150803_223420267.jpg
IMG_20150803_223420267.jpg
  232   Mon Aug 10 11:39:40 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverRF AM Measurement Unit E1500151

Entry for Aug 6th, 2015

I faced with difficulties to operate the RF AM detectors.

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

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

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

Setting Vbias
 [dBm]   [V]

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


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

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

Needs further investigation

  233   Mon Aug 10 11:57:17 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverRF AM Measurement Unit E1500151

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

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

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

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

Altium version is 15.1. Xilinx ISE Version is 14.7

Attachment 1: screen_shot.png
screen_shot.png
ELOG V3.1.3-