40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  OMC elog, Page 9 of 10  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Authorup Type Category Subject
  443   Wed Aug 24 03:20:59 2022 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC #002 Delamination repair Part2 (2)

Bonding

Attachment 1: IMG_1182.JPG
IMG_1182.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_1183.JPG
IMG_1183.JPG
Attachment 3: IMG_1184.JPG
IMG_1184.JPG
Attachment 4: IMG_1185.JPG
IMG_1185.JPG
Attachment 5: IMG_1186.JPG
IMG_1186.JPG
Attachment 6: IMG_1187.JPG
IMG_1187.JPG
Attachment 7: IMG_1188.JPG
IMG_1188.JPG
Attachment 8: IMG_1189.JPG
IMG_1189.JPG
Attachment 9: IMG_1190.JPG
IMG_1190.JPG
Attachment 10: IMG_1191.JPG
IMG_1191.JPG
Attachment 11: IMG_1193.JPG
IMG_1193.JPG
  444   Wed Aug 24 03:26:43 2022 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC #002 Delamination repair Part2 (3)

Inspection

 

Attachment 1: IMG_1199.JPG
IMG_1199.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_1200.JPG
IMG_1200.JPG
Attachment 3: IMG_1201.JPG
IMG_1201.JPG
Attachment 4: IMG_1202.JPG
IMG_1202.JPG
Attachment 5: IMG_1203.JPG
IMG_1203.JPG
Attachment 6: IMG_1204.JPG
IMG_1204.JPG
Attachment 7: IMG_1205.JPG
IMG_1205.JPG
Attachment 8: IMG_1206.JPG
IMG_1206.JPG
  445   Wed Aug 24 11:29:47 2022 KojiGeneralGeneralOMC #002 ready for shipment

[Stephen Koji]

The OMC #002 is ready for shipment.

Attachment 1: Work done on Sept 19, 2022

Other attachments: Putting the OMC in the pelican case.

Attachment 1: IMG_1207.JPG
IMG_1207.JPG
Attachment 2: PXL_20220825_004259850.jpg
PXL_20220825_004259850.jpg
Attachment 3: PXL_20220825_004307204.jpg
PXL_20220825_004307204.jpg
Attachment 4: PXL_20220825_005423342.jpg
PXL_20220825_005423342.jpg
Attachment 5: PXL_20220825_005549985.jpg
PXL_20220825_005549985.jpg
  446   Thu Aug 25 14:22:08 2022 KojiGeneralGeneralLLO OMC #001 Ballast Mass investigation

Inspected the past LLO add-on mass configuration.

There are unknown masses at the DCPD side. It looks like a small SS mass with an estimated mass of 5g. But the DCC number is unknown.

We are going to add 10g on each corner as well as the damping aterial. We should be able to figure out the fastener / mass configuration.

Attachment 1: DSCN0917.JPG
DSCN0917.JPG
Attachment 2: DSCN0922.JPG
DSCN0922.JPG
Attachment 3: P6108705.JPG
P6108705.JPG
Attachment 4: P6108707.JPG
P6108707.JPG
Attachment 5: P6108706.JPG
P6108706.JPG
  447   Thu Aug 25 20:05:00 2022 KojiGeneralGeneralLLO OMC #001 Ballast Mass investigation

Here is the balance mass info for the LLO OMC#001 analyzed from the photographs

  • Added masses are: 50+10g, 50+20, 10+20+5, and 20+20+10 for the mass right above FM1/CM1/FM2 and CM2, respectively.
  • The length of the 1/4-20 screws seem L=3/4"~1"

If we attach the additional mass, longer 1/4-20 screws (1", 1" 1/8, 1" 1/4) are going to be used.

Attachment 1: balance_mass_config_LLO.pdf
balance_mass_config_LLO.pdf
  448   Fri Aug 26 22:29:02 2022 KojiGeneralGeneralTool Shipping Prep

Shipping preparation for the LLO trip

Started July 15, 2022 and finished Aug 30. So it took ~1.5 months (with a couple weeks of break)


Class B special tools

  • Screw Drivers 1
    • https://www.steritool.com/
    • https://www.steritool.com/precision-screwdrivers-mini.aspx
  • Screw Drivers 2
    • What I have seems S555Z-7
    • https://www.starrett.com/
    • https://www.starrett.com/dms/flipbooks/Cat-33/index.html?page=354
  • Allen Wrenches
    • Bondhus: These are not made of SS, but of so called protanium steel. I have a chrome finish one (BriteGuard) and K14 gold finish one (goldguard).
    • https://intl.bondhus.com/pages/goldguard-ball-end
    • https://intl.bondhus.com/pages/briteguard-ball-end
  • Scissors
    • VWR - Stainless Steel
    • Unknown PN /  probably this?
    • https://us.vwr.com/store/product/4527635/vwr-dissecting-scissors-sharp-blunt-tip
  • Forceps
    • VWR - Stainless Steel
    • https://us.vwr.com/store/product/4531765/vwr-hemostatic-forceps
  • Wire cutters
    • Looks like they are orthodontic wire cutters. One has the marking "Orthomechanic Stainless Steel" but the company does not sell cutters anymore. The other has a marking "333" but the company is unknown. Similar products can be found on Amazon
  • Long nose pliers - straight stainless steel
    • https://www.aventools.com/
    • https://www.aventools.com/long-nose-pliers-stainless-steel-6-2
  • Bent nose pliers - stainless steel
    • unknown 
  • Tweezers
    • Excelta 
    • The short one is 20A-S-SE. The longer one is 24-SA-PI, maybe?
    • https://www.excelta.com/
    • https://www.excelta.com/straight-laboratory-instruments-forceps
    • https://www.excelta.com/style-24-24-6-sa
  • Mighty-Mouse spanner
  • 2x driver bits for the digital torque wrench

First Contact Kit

  • FC bottole / PEEK mesh

Bonding kit (excl EP30-2 bond)

  • reinforcement bars (4 types)
  • bonding liner powder
  • tools: spatula / bond applying rod

Power meters (excl Power meter controller)

  • Thorlabs Thermal
  • Thorlabs Photodiode
  • Thorlabs Integrating Sphere

Electronics

  • preamp + power cable
  • PD testing kit (PD connector / DB9 break out / grabber-BNC)
  • Nitrile gloves

Cable bracket replacement kit

  • PEEK cable bracket (Helicoiled)
  • Cable pegs (x4 salvaged / spare)
  • fastners
  • kapton sheet
  • cable ties

Optics / Optomechanics

  • Optical fiber / spare fiber
  • OMC transport feet
  • OMC backscatter inspection prisms

Misc tools

  • digital torque wrench

=== Action done on Aug 30 ===

Fiber MM setup / Fiber coupler mount
Glass Beamdumps (for optical testing)
Flipper mirror
Thorlabs fiber coupler tool
General bent nose plier for fiber
Thorlabs collimator tiny allen
Spare High QE PDs

Spare OMC bags / Zip bags

Balance Mass 10g Qty 8 (Different Type D11*** 1.25" dia), 20g Qty 10 / Mass damper D1700301 -04 / Mass damper screws SHCS 1/4-20 x 1.25 Qty 25 / 1" screws and 1 1/8" screws

Shipping request: https://services1.ligo-la.caltech.edu/FRS/show_bug.cgi?id=25002


=== Low supply! ===

  • Masks
  • 7.0 gloves supply low
  • 7.5 glove completely gone
  • Wet vectra cloth
  • Dry vectra cloth
Attachment 1: PXL_20220831_025623318.jpg
PXL_20220831_025623318.jpg
Attachment 2: PXL_20220831_024518032.jpg
PXL_20220831_024518032.jpg
Attachment 3: PXL_20220831_030234581.jpg
PXL_20220831_030234581.jpg
  449   Tue Sep 20 08:54:33 2022 KojiGeneralGeneralPD cage arrangement

Upon the LLO work, the current PD arrangement in the cages are:
CAGE B
B1 OMC1 PDT (A1-23)
B2 OMC1 PDR (A1-25)
B3 original (C1-03)
B4 OMC2 PDT (B1-22)

CAGE C
C1 OMC2 PDR (B1-23)
C2 original (C1-08)
C3 original (C1-09)
C4 original (C1-10)

  450   Mon Sep 26 14:27:49 2022 KojiGeneralGeneralLLO OMC ICS work

OMC #001

OMC #002

  452   Mon Nov 7 22:00:33 2022 KojiOpticsConfigurationSetting up the fiber couplers

Fiber matching: 43.2/56.7 = 76%
S/P-pol ratio 0.7/43.2 = 1.6%

 

  453   Fri Nov 11 19:07:48 2022 KojiSupplyGeneralSupply Order

Clean Supply Ordered

  • TexWipe TX8410 AlphaSat Vectra Alpha 10 50 sheets x 12 pk  (VWR TWTX8410)
  • Mask KIMTECH PURE® M3 Pleat-Style Face Masks 50 masks x 10 pk (VWR 15628-213)
  • Stainless Pan x3 (VWR 10193-562)
  • Ansell Accutech Latex Gloves 6.5 25*8pk (Fisher 19162026)
  • Ansell Accutech Latex Gloves 7.0 25*8pk (Fisher 19162027)
  455   Mon Nov 14 09:27:13 2022 KojiOpticsCharacterizationtransmission measurements through OMC #1 (before cleaning)

The measured total optical loss of the OMC was

1st:   0.015 +/- 0.003
2nd: 0.085  +/- 0.005
3rd:  0.0585+/- 0.0008
4th:  0.047  +/- 0.002

In avegrage the estimated loss is
Loss = 0.055 +/- 0.014

This is unchanged from the measurement at LLO after the FC cleaning
Loss = 0.053 +/- 0.010

Attachment 1: OMC_Powerbudget.xlsx
  457   Tue Nov 15 10:58:53 2022 KojiOpticsGeneralOMC #1 damaged black glass removal

[Camille, Koji]

The damaged black glass was removed from the OMC breadboard leaving the glass base.
The black glass pieces were bonded very tightly on the FS base with EP30-2. The apparent amount of the bond was not so much but it was such hard that removal by hand was not possible.
We decided to give drips of Acetone on the base hoping the gradual dissolving of EP30-2. Using a knife edge, the "filets" of the bonds were removed, but the BD was still tight.

By wedging the black glass-black glass bonding with the nife edge, the left side (the directly damaged one) was taken off from the structure leaving a tiny fragment of the glass on the base.

The remaining one was even stronger. We patiently kept dripping Acetone on the base and finally, the black glass piece was knocked off and removed from the base.

Attachment 1: The base right after the black glass removal.

Attachment 2: The black glass pieces were stored in a container with Al foil + clean cloth bed. The damaged and fogged surfaces faced up.

Attachment 3: The zoom-in shot of the black glass pieces.

Attachment 4: The base was wiped with Acetone and cleaned with FC. We will bond another BD assembly on the base, presumably using the UV epoxy.

Attachment 1: PXL_20221114_222641455.jpg
PXL_20221114_222641455.jpg
Attachment 2: PXL_20221114_222544330.jpg
PXL_20221114_222544330.jpg
Attachment 3: PXL_20221114_222555849.jpg
PXL_20221114_222555849.jpg
Attachment 4: PXL_20221114_233748631.jpg
PXL_20221114_233748631.jpg
  458   Tue Nov 15 11:12:24 2022 KojiOpticsGeneralOMC #1 fogging on the AR side of BS1 cleaned

[Camille, Koji]

Photo of the BS1 AR cleaning process

Attachment 1: Before cleaning. Foggy surface is visible.

Attachment 2: After FC cleaning. The structure of the deposited material is still quite visible.

Attachment 3: Acetone scrubbing. Cotton Q-tip was used so that the stick does not melt with acetone.

Attachment 4: After acetone scrubbing. Nicely clean!

Acetone scrubbing was applied to HR/AR of BS1, FM1, FM2, BS2, and HR of CM1 and CM2. (total 10 surfaces)
Then final FC paint was applied to these 10 surfaces.

We'll come back to the setup on Thu for FC peeling and loss measurement.

Attachment 1: PXL_20221114_225338114.jpg
PXL_20221114_225338114.jpg
Attachment 2: PXL_20221114_232824245.jpg
PXL_20221114_232824245.jpg
Attachment 3: PXL_20221114_233714774.jpg
PXL_20221114_233714774.jpg
Attachment 4: PXL_20221114_233748631.jpg
PXL_20221114_233748631.jpg
  459   Thu Nov 17 18:56:22 2022 KojiOpticsGeneral Transmission measurements of OMC #1 after deep cleaning

[Camille, Koji]

- Removed the first contact we left on Monday.

- Measured transmission (Set1) Very high loss! Total optical loss of 18.5%! Observation with the IR viewer indicated that CM1 has bright scattering. We suspencted a remnant of FC.

- Applied the second FC on the four cavity mirrors. This made the CM1 sport darker.

- Measured the transmission (Set1~Set3). We had consistent loss of 4.2~5.0%. We concluded that this is the limitation of this OMC even with the cleaning.

Attachment 1: PXL_20221117_232145418.jpg
PXL_20221117_232145418.jpg
Attachment 2: Screen_Shot_2022-11-17_at_19.02.31.png
Screen_Shot_2022-11-17_at_19.02.31.png
  460   Thu Nov 17 19:50:00 2022 KojiOpticsCharacterizationConclusion on the cleaning of OMC #001

Conclusion on the cleaning of OMC #001

- After a couple of first contact cleaning trials and deep cleaning, the total loss was measured to be 0.045+/-0.004.
  This indicated a slight improvement from the loss measured at LLO before any cleaning (0.064+/-0.004).
  However, the number did not improve to the level we marked in 2013 (0.028+/-0.004).

- This loss level of 4.5% is comparable to the loss level of OMC #3, which is currently used at LHO.
  Therefore, this OMC #1 is still a useful spare for the site use.

- Some notes / to-do regarding this unit:
  1) The beam dump with melted black glass was removed. A new beam dump needs to be bonded on the base.
  2) The connector bracket still needs to be replaced with the PEEK version.
  3) The PZT of CM1 has been defunct since 2013. Combining LV and HV drivers is necessary upon use at the site. (LLO used to do it).

Attachment 1: OMC_loss.pdf
OMC_loss.pdf
  462   Mon Nov 21 19:13:35 2022 KojiGeneralGeneralTransmission measurement (2nd deep cleaning of OMC #1)

OMC Transmission measurement after the 2nd deep cleaning

The 2nd deep cleaning didn't improve the transmission. (See Attachment 2)
The measured loss was 0.044+/-0.002

 

Attachment 1: PXL_20221122_030736513.jpg
PXL_20221122_030736513.jpg
Attachment 2: OMC_loss.pdf
OMC_loss.pdf
  463   Tue Nov 29 15:54:47 2022 KojiGeneralConfigurationWindows laptop for WincamD Beam'R2 recovery

Aaron took the set to Cryo lab

 

  464   Fri Dec 2 11:42:03 2022 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC #1 cleaning for water soluble contaminants
[Camille, Koji] Log of the work on Nov 30, 2022
 
The following is the notes from GariLynn

Cleaning for water-soluble contaminants:
It uses deionized water instead of acetone.
Note:
  • The first contact must go on the mirror before the water can dry,  so you will need a bigger brush. We have some that are 1cm, I think they are in the back wall cabinet of B119.
  • For the bigger brush, you will need a beaker and perhaps a bigger bottle of First Contact.  There is one in the mini-fridge in the back corner of B110
  • You use an alpha swab instead of a cotton bud
  • For this effort, I encourage you to get a bottle of DI water from stores.
  • I also encourage you to rehearse the motions beforehand - timing is critical, and your mirrors are in a tight spacing

(Attachment 1)
We obtained Regent grade DI water. It was poured into a smaller cup.
FC liquid was also poured into a small beaker.
Wash the mirror with a swab. We should have used a smaller swab that GariLynn has in her lab.

As soon as the mirror was wiped with the water, the FC was applied with a large brush. Don't let the water away!
Then more layer of the FC was added as usual.


The quick painting of FC made a mess around the mirrors due to excess liquid (Attachment 2). So, we decided to remove the FC remnants (on non-optic surfaces) with cotton swabs and then applied FC as usual.

This made the mess removed, however, we found the OMC loss was increased to >10%(!) (Attachment 3). We decided to continue tomorrow (Thu) with more weapons loaded consulting with GariLynn.

 

Attachment 1: PXL_20221130_234101575.jpg
PXL_20221130_234101575.jpg
Attachment 2: PXL_20221130_234013958.jpg
PXL_20221130_234013958.jpg
Attachment 3: PXL_20221201_021727724.jpg
PXL_20221201_021727724.jpg
Attachment 4: Screen_Shot_2022-12-02_at_12.43.02.png
Screen_Shot_2022-12-02_at_12.43.02.png
  465   Fri Dec 2 12:38:15 2022 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC #1 cleaning for water soluble contaminants

Another set of FC cleaning was applied to FM1/FM2/CM1/CM2 and SM2. Some FC strings are visible on SM2. So I decided to clean SM2 as well as the cavity mirrors close to SM2 (i.e. FM2 and CM2)

As a result, the bright scattering spot on CM1 is now very dim. And the loss was reduced to 4.0%. This is 0.4% better than the value before the water cleaning.

It'd be interesting to repeat the water cleaning, at least on FM1. FM1 is the closest cavity mirror to the beam dump damaged by the high-power laser pulse.
Maybe we should also clean the AR side of FM1 and BS1, as they were right next to the damaged beam dump. It is not for the loss but for reducing the scattering.

Attachment 1: PXL_20221202_034932211.jpg
PXL_20221202_034932211.jpg
Attachment 2: OMC_loss.pdf
OMC_loss.pdf
  466   Fri Dec 2 23:58:33 2022 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC #1 cleaning for water soluble contaminants

The second trial of the water scrub

A bright scatter is visible on FM1, so I tried water scrub on FM1. This time, both surfaces of FM1 and both surfaces of BS1 were cleaned.

Smaller Vectra swabs were used for the scrub. Then the water was purged by IPA splashed from a syringe. Right after that FC was applied.
This was a bit messy process as the mixture of water/IPA/FC was splattered on the breadboard.
Nevertheless, all the mess was cleaned by FC in the end.

The transmission measurements are shown in Attachment 1, and the analyzed result is shown together with the past results.

The 2nd water scrub didn't improve the transmission and it is equivalent to the one after the two times of deep cleaning.
I concluded that the water scrub didn't change the transmission much (or at all). We reached the cleaning limit.

Attachment 1: PXL_20221203_063327268.jpg
PXL_20221203_063327268.jpg
Attachment 2: OMC_loss.pdf
OMC_loss.pdf
  467   Mon Dec 5 20:09:39 2022 KojiOpticsGeneral(re)starting the OMC #4 build

[Camille Koji]

We started buikding the OMC #4.

  • Removed OMC #1 from the optical setup and placed it at a safe side on the optical table/
  • Fixed OMC #4 in the optical setup
  • Cleaned the OMC cavity mirrors
  • Placed the OMC cavity mirrors
    • FM1: A1
    • FM2: A3
    • CM1: PZT #11
    • CM2: PZT #12
  • Aligned the beam to the cavity
  • Locked the cavity on TEM00
  • Finely aligned the beam to the cavity
Attachment 1: PXL_20221205_233712211.jpg
PXL_20221205_233712211.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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  347   Fri Apr 19 09:21:07 2019 PhilipOptics Cleaning of OMC optics

ach[Joe, Phillip, Koji, Stephen]

Work from 17.04.2019

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

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

 

Attachment 1: IMG_7877.JPG
IMG_7877.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_7883.JPG
IMG_7883.JPG
Attachment 3: IMG_7884.JPG
IMG_7884.JPG
  300   Mon Jul 2 15:27:31 2018 Rich AbbottElectronicsGeneralWork on EOM (3rd IFO unit)

Koji, Rich

We took apart the unit removed from the 3rd IFO (Unit serial number aLIGO #3, XTAL 10252004) to see what makes it tick.  Koji has done a fine job of adding the plots of the impedance data to this log book.  Attached are some details of the physical construction showing the capacitor values used in shunt before the coils.

Attachment 1: EOM3_aLIGO_3rdIfo.JPG
EOM3_aLIGO_3rdIfo.JPG
  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
  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
  290   Thu Nov 30 12:18:41 2017 StephenGeneralGeneralPreparation for Modal Testing on 4 December

Norna Robertson, Stephen Appert ||  29 Nov 2017, 2 pm to 4 pm  ||  227 Downs, CIT

We made some preparations for modal testing, but did not have enough time to make measurements. Below is an after-the-fact log, including some observations and photos of the current state of the OMC bench.

  1. Previous testing results at T1700471 (technical note in progress as of 30 Nov 2017).
    1. One goal of the next round: add damping material to equate with damping material of T1600494.
    2. Second goal of the next round: use a more localized sweep to better resolve the body mode around 1080 Hz -1100 Hz
  2. Transport Fixture was opened without issue, revealing the "Top" (suspending and cable routing) surface of the bench. Damping stacks were still in place from previous testing
  3. We removed the bolts from the damper stacks, but found that all masses with metal-viton interfaces had adhered to viton washers, causing the stacks to stick together.
    1. By using an allen key as a lever to wedge apart bottom mass and the bracket where they were joined by a viton washer, we separated the masses from the bracket.
    2. An allen key was used as a lever to push apart the two masses, which were also joined by a viton washer
    3. Once exposed, viton washers were pried from metal surfaces.
  4. After the damper stacks had been detached from the  No viton washer appeared to leave any residue or particulate - the separated parts all appeared as clean as they had been at the onset.
  327   Thu Apr 11 10:54:38 2019 StephenGeneralGeneralOMC(004): preparation for the PZT subassembly bonding
Quote:

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

- M prisms
- C prisms
- Noliac PZTs

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

- clean work areas on laminar flow benches

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

 

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

  344   Wed Apr 17 09:08:47 2019 StephenGeneralGeneralOMC(004): Unwrapping and preparing breadboard

[Stephen, Philip, Koji, Joe]

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

Relevant procedure section: E1300201 section 6.1.5

Breadboard was unwrapped. No issues observed during unwrapping.

  • Attachment 1: packaging of SN06.

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

  • Attachment 2: engraving of SN06.

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

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

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

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

  • Attachment 5: particulate after Top Gun

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

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

 

Attachment 1: IMG_7635_packaging_of_sn06.JPG
IMG_7635_packaging_of_sn06.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_7637_engraving_of_sn06.JPG
IMG_7637_engraving_of_sn06.JPG
Attachment 3: IMG_7641_particulate_before_top_gun_large_face.JPG
IMG_7641_particulate_before_top_gun_large_face.JPG
Attachment 4: IMG_7644_particulate_before_top_gun_small_face.JPG
IMG_7644_particulate_before_top_gun_small_face.JPG
Attachment 5: IMG_7646_particulate_after_top_gun.JPG
IMG_7646_particulate_after_top_gun.JPG
  358   Thu May 9 16:07:18 2019 StephenMechanicsGeneralImprovements to OMC Bonding Fixture

[Stephen, Koji]

As mentioned in eLOG 331, either increased thermal cycling or apparent improvements in cured EP30-2 strength led to fracture of curved mirrors at unintended locations of bonding to the PEEK fixture parts.

The issue and intended resolution is summarized in the attached images (2 different visualizations of the same item).

Redline has been posted to D1600336-v3.

Drawing update will be processed shortly, and parts will be modified to D1600336-v4.

 

Attachment 1: image_of_issue_with_OMC_PZT_bonding_fixture_from_D16003336-v3.png
image_of_issue_with_OMC_PZT_bonding_fixture_from_D16003336-v3.png
Attachment 2: image_02_of_issue_with_OMC_PZT_bonding_fixture_from_D16003336-v3.PNG
image_02_of_issue_with_OMC_PZT_bonding_fixture_from_D16003336-v3.PNG
  367   Tue May 28 12:14:20 2019 StephenOpticsGeneralCM PZT Assembly Debonding of EP30-2 in Acetone

[LiyuanZ, StephenA]

Downs B119

Summary: Beginning on 20 May 2019, two CM PZT assemblies were soaked in Acetone in an effort to debond the EP30-2 bonds between tombstone-PZT and between PZT-optic. Debonding was straightforward after 8 days of soaking. 24 hours of additional acetone soaking will now be conducted in an attempt to remove remnant EP30-2 from bonding surfaces.

Procedure: The assemblies were allowed to soak in acetone for 8 days, with acetone level below the HR surface of the optic. No agitation of the solution, mechanical abrasion of the bond, or other disturbance was needed for the bond to soften.

GariLynn contributed the glassware and fume hood, and advised on the process (similar to debonding of CM and PZT from OMC SN002 after damaging event). The equipment list was (WIP, more detail / part numbers will be gathered today and tomorrow):

  • crystallizing dish (no spout, like a deep petri dish)
  • curved lid
  • wax sheet (to seal)
  • acetone
  • fume hood

Results: Today, 28 May 2019, I went to the lab to check on the optics after 8 days of soaking. Liyuan had monitored the acetone level during the first 4 days, topping up once on 24 May. All bonds were fully submerged for 8 days.

There were 2 assemblies soaked in one crystallizing dish. Debonded assemblies - ref OMC eLOG 328 for specified orientations and components:

PZT Assy #9 - ref. OMC eLOG 334 - M17+PZT#12+C10

PZT Assy #7 - ref. OMC eLOG 332 - M1+PZT#13+C13

PZT Assy #7 was investigated first.

  • C13 was removed with no force required.
  • PZT#13 was removed with no force required.
  • EP30-2 remained at the bond surfaces and tracing the diameters of each bond on each of the 3 bonding surfaces of the PZT and tombstone - these components were returned to the dish to soak.
  • No EP30-2 remained on the surface of the curved mirror - C13 was removed and stored.

A video of removal of C10 and PZT#12 from PZT Assy #9 was collected (See Attachment 8), showing the ease with which the debonded components could be separated.

  • C10 was removed with no force required.
  • A slight force - applied by gripping the barrel of the PZT and pushing with the index finger on the surface of the tombstone - was required to separate PZT#12 from M17,
    • likely due to excess glue at the barrel of the PZT
  • EP30-2 remained at the bond surfaces and tracing the diameters of each bond on each of the 3 bonding surfaces of the PZT and tombstone - these components were returned to the dish to soak.
  • No EP30-2 remained on the surface of the curved mirror - C13 was removed and stored.

Photos and video have been be added to supplement this report (edit 2019/07/08).

 

Attachment 1: omc367_IMG_3499_omc_removal_c13_from_CM7.JPG
omc367_IMG_3499_omc_removal_c13_from_CM7.JPG
Attachment 2: omc367_IMG_3500_omc_removal_pzt13_from_CM7.JPG
omc367_IMG_3500_omc_removal_pzt13_from_CM7.JPG
Attachment 3: omc367_IMG_3501_omc_removal_pzt13_from_CM7_thickness.JPG
omc367_IMG_3501_omc_removal_pzt13_from_CM7_thickness.JPG
Attachment 4: omc367_IMG_3505_omc_removal_M1_from_CM7.JPG
omc367_IMG_3505_omc_removal_M1_from_CM7.JPG
Attachment 5: omc367_IMG_3507_omc_removal_c10_from_CM9.JPG
omc367_IMG_3507_omc_removal_c10_from_CM9.JPG
Attachment 6: omc367_IMG_3512_omc_removal_pzt12_from_CM9.JPG
omc367_IMG_3512_omc_removal_pzt12_from_CM9.JPG
Attachment 7: omc367_IMG_3515_omc_removal_m17_from_CM9.JPG
omc367_IMG_3515_omc_removal_m17_from_CM9.JPG
Attachment 8: omc367_IMG_3506_omc_removal_of_c10_and_pzt12_from_CM9.MOV
  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
  375   Wed Sep 18 22:30:11 2019 StephenSupplyGeneralEP30-2 Location and Status

Here is a summary of the events of the last week, as they relate to EP30-2.

1) I lost the EP30-2 syringes that had been ordered for the OMC, along with the rest of the kit.

  • Corrective action: Found in the 40m Bake Lab garbing area.
  • Preventative action: log material moves and locations in the OMC elog
  • Preventative action: log EP30-2 moves and locations in PCS via location update [LINK]
  • Preventative action: keep EP30-2 kit on home shelf in Modal Lab unless kit is in use

2) The EP30-2 syringes ordered for the OMC Unit 4 build from January had already expired, without me noticing.

  • Corrective action: Requested LHO ship recently-purchased EP30-2 overnight
  • Preventative action: log expiration dates in OMC elog
  • Preventative action: begin purchasing program supported by logistics, where 1 syringe is maintained on hand and replaced as it expires

3) LHO shipped expired epoxy on Thursday. Package not opened until Monday.

  • Corrective action: Requested LHO ship current EP30-2 overnight, this time with much greater scrutiny (including confirming label indicates not expired)
  • Preventative action: Packages should be opened, inspected, and received in ICS or Techmart on day of receipt whenever possible.

4) Current, unopened syringe of EP30-2 has been received from LHO. Expiration date is 22 Jan 2020. Syringe storage has been improved. Kit has been docked at its home in Downs 303 (Modal Lab) (see attached photo, taken before receipt of new epoxy).

Current Status: Epoxy is ready for PZT + CM subassembly bonding on Monday afternoon 23 September.

Attachment 1: IMG_5217.JPG
IMG_5217.JPG
  376   Wed Sep 18 23:16:06 2019 StephenSupplyGeneralItems staged at 40m Bake Lab for PZT Subassembly Bonding

The following items are presently staged at the 40m Bake Lab (see photo indicating current location) (noting items broght by Koji as well):

  1. Bonding fixtures, now modified with larger washers to constrain springs, and with modification from OMC elog 358.
  2. Curved Mirrors and Tombstones as selected by Shruti in OMC elog 374.
  3. PZTs as debonded from first iteration subassemblies (SN 12 and SN 13)
  4. Epoxy-cure-testing toaster oven
  5. Other items I can't think of but will populate later  =D

The following item is in its home in Downs 303 (Modal Lab)

  1. EP30-2 epoxy (expiration 2020 Jan 22) with full kit (tracked in PCS via location update [LINK])

 

Attachment 1: IMG_5216.JPG
IMG_5216.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_5215.JPG
IMG_5215.JPG
  377   Wed Sep 18 23:38:52 2019 StephenGeneralGeneralDirty ABO ready for PZT Subassembly Bonding

The 40m Bake Lab's Dirty ABO's OMEGA PID controller was borrowed for another oven in the Bake Lab, so I have had to play with the tuning and parameters to recover a suitable bake profile. This bake is pictured below (please excuse the default excel formatting).

I have increased the ramp time, temperature offset, and thermal mass within the oven; after retuning and applying the parameters indicated, the rate of heating/cooling never exceeds .5°C/min.

Expected parameters:  Ramp 2.5 hours Setpoint 1 (soak temperature) 94 °C no additional thermal mass
Current parameters:    Ramp 4 hours Setpoint 1 (soak temperature) 84 °C Thermal mass added in the form of SSTL spacers (see photo)


The ABO is controlled by a different temperature readout from the data logger used to collect data; the ABO readout is a small bead in contact with the shelf, while the data logger is a lug sandwiched between two stainless steel masses upon the shelf. I take the data logger profile to be more physically similar to the heating experienced by an optic in a gluing fixture, so I feel happy about the results of the above bake.

I plan to add the data source file to this post at my earliest convenience.

Attachment 1: index.png
index.png
  379   Tue Sep 24 12:19:20 2019 StephenGeneralGeneral Dirty ABO test run prior to PZT Subassembly Bonding

The 40m Bake Lab's Dirty ABO's OMEGA PID controller was borrowed for another oven in the Bake Lab (sound familiar? OMC elog 377), so I have had to play with the tuning and parameters to recover. This bake seemed to inadequately match the intended temperature profile for some reason (intended profile is shown by plotting prior qualifying bake for comparison).

The parameters utilized here are exactly matching the prior qualifying bake, except that the autotuning may have settled on different parameters.

Options to proceed, as I see them, are as follows:

  1. reposition the oven's driving thermocouple closer to the load and attempt to qualify the oven again overnight
  2. retune the controller and attempt to qualify the oven again overnight
  3. proceed with current bake profile, except monitor the soak temperature via data logger thermocouple and intervene if temperature is too high by manually changing the setpoint.

 

Attachment 1: image_showing_20190923_abo_qualifying_bake.png
image_showing_20190923_abo_qualifying_bake.png
  380   Thu Sep 26 17:33:52 2019 StephenGeneralGeneralDirty ABO test run prior to PZT Subassembly Bonding - ABO is Ready!

Follow up on OMC elog 379

I was able to obtain the following (dark blue) bake profile, which I believe is adequate for our needs.

The primary change was a remounting of the thermocouple to sandwich it between two stainless steel masses. The thermocouple bead previously was 1) in air and 2) close to the oven skin.

Attachment 1: image_showing_20190924_abo_qualifying_bake.png
image_showing_20190924_abo_qualifying_bake.png
  382   Tue Oct 22 10:25:01 2019 StephenGeneralGeneralOMC PZT Assy #9 and #10 Production Cure Bake

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

We have monitored the temperature in two ways:

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

Comments on bake:

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


 

Attachment 1: OMC_ABO_PZT_Curing_Bake_effort_201906_thru_201909.xls
Attachment 2: production_cure_bake_pzt_assys_9_and_10_20190927.png
production_cure_bake_pzt_assys_9_and_10_20190927.png
  383   Tue Oct 22 11:52:53 2019 StephenGeneralGeneralEpoxy Curing Timeline of OMC PZT Assy #9 and #10

This post captures the curing timeline followed by OMC PZT Assys #9 and #10.

Source file posted in case any updates or edits need to be made.

Attachment 1: omc_elog_383_Epoxy_Curing_Timeline_of_OMC_PZT_Assy_20191022.png
omc_elog_383_Epoxy_Curing_Timeline_of_OMC_PZT_Assy_20191022.png
Attachment 2: omc_elog_383_Epoxy_Curing_Timeline_of_OMC_PZT_Assy.pptx
  384   Tue Oct 22 11:56:09 2019 StephenSupplyGeneralEpoxy Status update as of 22 October 2019

The following is the current status of the epoxies used in assembly of the OMC (excerpt from C1900052)

Re-purchasing efforts are underway and/or complete

Attachment 1: image_ep30-2_epoxy_kit_pcs_item_1582_location_downs_3303.JPG
image_ep30-2_epoxy_kit_pcs_item_1582_location_downs_3303.JPG
  387   Fri Dec 13 14:59:18 2019 StephenGeneralGeneralOMC Beam Dump Production Cure Bake

[Koji, Jordan, Stephen]

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

Images are shared and references are linked below

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

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

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

Attachment 1: IMG_6080.JPG
IMG_6080.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_6079.JPG
IMG_6079.JPG
  407   Fri Feb 5 07:40:37 2021 StephenSupplyGeneralOMC Unit 4 Build Machined Parts

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

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

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

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

Attachment 1: IMG_8117.JPG
IMG_8117.JPG
  411   Wed Jul 7 14:21:50 2021 StephenSupplyGeneralOMC Unit 4 Build Machined Parts

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

Machined Parts:

Cable Components:

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

Retrofit/Repair Capabilities:

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

ref: E1900034 and other associated documents.

Attachment 1: IMG_9238.JPG
IMG_9238.JPG
Attachment 2: IMG_9236.JPG
IMG_9236.JPG
  4   Wed Jun 20 20:37:45 2012 ZachOpticsConfigurationTopology / parameter selection

EDIT (ZK): All the plots here were generated using my MATLAB cavity modeling tool, ArbCav. The utility description is below. The higher-order mode resonance plots are direct outputs of the function. The overlap plots were made by modifying the function to output a list of all HOM resonant frequencies, and then plotting the closest one as a function of cavity length. This was done for various values of highest mode order to consider, as described in the original entry.

Description:

This function calculates information about an arbitrary optical cavity. It can plot the cavity geometry, calculate the transmission/reflection spectrum, and generate the higher-order mode spectrum for the carrier and up to 2 sets of sidebands.

The code accepts any number of mirrors with any radius of curvature and transmission, and includes any astigmatic effects in its output.

As opposed to the previous version, which converted a limited number of cavity shapes into linear cavities before performing the calculation, this version explicitly propagates the gouy phase of the beam around each leg of the cavity, and is therefore truly able to handle an arbitrary geometry.

----------------Original Post----------------

I expressed concern that arbitrarily choosing some maximum HOM order above which not to consider makes us vulnerable to sitting directly on a slightly-higher-order mode. At first, I figured the best way around this is to apply an appropriate weighting function to the computed HOM frequency spacing. Since this will also have some arbitrariness to it, I have decided to do it in a more straightforward way. Namely, look at the spacing for different values of the maximum mode number, nmax, and then use this extra information to better select the length.

Assumptions:

  • The curved mirror RoC is the design value of 2.50±0.025 m
  • The ±9 MHz sidebands will have ~1% the power of the other fields at the dark port. Accordingly, as in Sam's note, their calculated spacing is artificially increased by 10 linewidths.
  • The opening angle of 4º is FIXED, and the total length is scaled accordingly

Below are the spacing plots for the bowtie (flat-flat-curved-curved) and non-bowtie (flat-curved-flat-curved) configurations. Points on each line should be read out as "there are are no modes of order N or lower within [Y value] linewidths of the carrier TEM00 transmission", where N is the nmax appropriate for that trace. Intuitively, as more orders are included, the maxima go down, because more orders are added to the calculation.

*All calculations are done using my cavity simulation function, ArbCav. The mode spacing is calculated for each particular geometry by explicitly propagating the gouy phase through each leg of the cavity, rather than by finding an equivalent linear cavity*

 ovlp_bowtie.pngovlp_non-bowtie.png

Since achievable HOM rejection is only one of the criteria that should be used to choose between the two topologies, the idea is to pick one length solution for EACH topology. Basically, one maximum should be chosen for each plot, based on how how high an order we care about.

Bowtie

For the bowtie, the nmax = 20 maximum at L = 1.145 m is attractive, because there are no n < 20 modes within 5 linewidths, and no n < 25 modes within ~4.5 linewidths. However, this means that there are also n < 10 modes within 5 linewidths, while they could be pushed (BLUE line) to ~8.5 linewidths at the expense of proximity to n > 15 modes.

Therefore, it's probably best to pick something between the red and green maxima: 1.145 m < L < 1.152 m.

By manually inspecting the HOM spectrum for nmax = 20, it seems that L = 1.150 m is the best choice. In the HOM zoom plot below and the one to follow, the legend is as follows

  • BLUE: Carrier
  • GREEN: +9 MHz
  • RED: -9 MHz
  • CYAN: +45 MHz
  • BLACK: -45 MHz

spect_zoom_bowtie.png

Non-bowtie

Following the same logic as above, the most obvious choice for the non-bowtie is somewhere between the red maximum at 1.241 m and the magenta maximum at 1.248 m. This still allows for reasonable suppression of the n < 10 modes without sacrificing the n < 15 mode suppression completely.

Upon inspection, I suggest L = 1.246 m

spect_zoom_non-bowtie.png

I reiterate that these calculations are taking into account modes of up to n ~ 20. If there is a reason we really only care about a lower order than this, then we can do better. Otherwise, this is a nice compromise between full low-order mode isolation and not sitting directly on slightly higher modes.

 

RoC dependence

One complication that arises is that all of these are highly dependent on the actual RoC of the mirrors. Unfortunately, even the quoted tolerance of ±1% makes a difference. Below is a rendering of the RED traces (nmax = 20) in the first two plots, but for R varying by ±2% (i.e., for R = 2.45 m, 2.50 m, 2.55 m).

ovlp_vs_R_bowtie.pngovlp_vs_R_non-bowtie.png

The case for the non-bowtie only superficially seems better; the important spacing is the large one between the three highest peaks centered around 1.24 m.

Also unfortunately, this strong dependence is also true for the lowest-order modes. Below is the same two plots, but for the BLUE (nmax = 10) lines in the first plots.

 ovlp_vs_R_N10_bowtie.pngovlp_vs_R_N10_non-bowtie.png

Therefore, it is prudent not to pick a specific length until the precise RoC of the mirrors is measured.

 

Conclusion

Assuming the validity of looking at modes between 10 < n < 20, and that the curved mirror RoC is the design value of 2.50 m, the recommended lengths for each case are:

  • Bowtie: LRT = 1.150 m
  • Non-bowtie: LRT = 1.246 m

 HOWEVER, variation within the design tolerance of the mirror RoC will change these numbers appreciably, and so the RoC should be measured before a length is firmly chosen.

  5   Thu Jun 21 03:07:27 2012 ZachOpticsConfigurationParameter selection / mode definition

EDIT 2 (ZK): As with the previous post, all plots and calculations here are done with my MATLAB cavity modeling utility, ArbCav.

EDIT (ZK): Added input q parameters for OMMT 

found the nice result that the variation in the optimal length vs. variation in the mirror RoC is roughly linear within the ±1% RoC tolerance. So, we can choose two baseline mode definitions (one for each mirror topology) and then adjust as necessary following our RoC measurements.

Bowtie

For R = 2.5 m, the optimal length (see previous post) is LRT = 1.150 m, and the variation in this is dLRT/dR ~ +0.44 m/m.

Here is an illustration of the geometry:

geom_bowtie.png

The input q parameters, defined at the point over the edge of the OMC slab where the beam first crosses---(40mm, 150mm) on the OptoCad drawing---are, in meters:

  • qix = - 0.2276 + 0.6955 i
  • qiy = - 0.2276 + 0.6980 i

 

Non-bowtie

For R = 2.5 m, the optimal length is LRT = 1.246 m, and the variation in this is also dLRT/dR ~ +0.44 m/m.

Geometry:

geom_non-bowtie.png

q parameters, defined as above:

  • qix = - 0.0830 + 0.8245 i
  • qiy = - 0.0830 + 0.8268 i
  6   Fri Jun 29 11:26:04 2012 ZachOpticsCharacterizationRoC measurement setup

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

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

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

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

RoC_measurement_setup.png

Attachment 2: RoC_measurement_setup.graffle.zip
  9   Sun Jul 22 15:56:53 2012 ZachOpticsCharacterizationRoC measurement setup

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

detailed_RoC_setup.png

Parts list:

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

Quote:

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

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

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

 

Attachment 2: detailed_RoC_setup.graffle.zip
  67   Tue Mar 5 19:37:00 2013 ZachOpticsCharacterizationeLIGO OMC visibility vs. power measurement details

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

More information about the power-dependent visibility measurement:

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

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

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

eOMC_visibility_3_4_13.png

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

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

Now, the traces

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

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

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

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

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

  68   Wed Mar 6 23:24:58 2013 ZachOpticsCharacterizationeLIGO OMC visibility vs. power measurement details

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

Here is the sweep measurement:

TEK00005.PNG TEK00007.PNG

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

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

eOMC_visibility_3_4_13.png

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

eOMC_AMTF_vs_power_3_6_13.png

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

ELOG V3.1.3-