The top (seen with several threaded holes along with 16 through holes) and bottom (only 2 threaded holes for lifting and 16 through holes) plate for the vacuum chamber has arrived and I have moved them into the QIL optical bench/table. Using some aluminum struts/bosch, I am making a simple 3’’ tall spacer on top of which the bottom plater will be resting. After wiping them with solvents, I will start assembling the chamber and the plates.
The schematic of the homodyne configuration is shown below.
Following is the component list
This afternoon Chris and I installed the ADC and DAC cards in fb4.
We may want to start with a fresh install of Debian 9 and just reinstall the LIGO binaries.
I know there is some CTN slow channel data on the disk. Is it at all possible to boot so that can be recovered?
This afternoon Chris and I installed the ADC and DAC cards in fb4. We connected them to the timing card adapters (left external to the computer chassis for now).
We found fb4 to be running Debian 8 so first attempted to upgrade to 9, as that is the version supported by Jamie's cymac binaries. However, we encountered problems during the upgrade, apparently with gdm (the linux GUI). By switching to consol mode and killing gdm, were able to proceed to the point of updating all the packages. It completed successfully, but then the system failed to reboot, even in recovery mode. During boot, the advligo-rts kernel fails to start, and then boot hangs completely at the point the graphical interface is started.
OK...but how will the amplitude stabilization be done? How about a diagram showing the feedback loop and electronics?
Attachment #1 shows the schematic of the experimental setup for amplitude stabilization using AOM. The proposed idea is as follows
Following are the results from RF driver and AOM characterisation.
Attachment #1 shows the results from characterisation of Brimrose RF driver . The RF power and frequency are measured on Agilent spectrum analyser. A 30 dB attenuator was also used in the path from RF driver to spectrum analyser. This attenuation value is taken care in RF power output calculation. The RF driver has two BNC connectors labelled as “Modulation” and “Frequency” , located on the front panel. Varying the modulation input (in the range 0 V to 1 V) changes the RF output power from the RF driver as shown in attachment #1 (a). The maximum RF output power is about 0.6 W and the input RF power to the AOM is limited to this value as exceeding the same might cause damage to the AOM. Varying the frequency input (in the range 0 V to 10 V) changed the RF frequency from the RF driver as shown in attachment #1 (b). The AOM centre frequency is at 80 MHz with a frequency shift range of 8 MHz.
Attachment #2 and #3 shows the output power from the zeroth order and first order port of the AOM when the frequency input voltage to the RF driver (thus the RF frequency from the driver) is varied. The output power from the first order port is maximum (output power from zeroth order is minimum) when the frequency is about 78.8 MHz. As expected, the power in the zeroth order port is completely transferred to the first order port. This happens when the frequency input voltage to the RF driver is about 8.8 V.
Attachment #4 and #5 shows the output power from the zeroth order port of the AOM when the Modulation input voltage to the RF driver (thus the RF power from the driver) is varied. The output power from the first order port is maximum (output power from zeroth order is minimum) when the RF power to the AOM is maximum. This happens when the modulation input voltage to the RF driver is 1 V.
Attachment #5 shows the diffraction efficiency to the first order port (we use output power from first order port for the heterodyne measurement) as a function of frequency and RF power. The diffraction efficiency is calculated from the ratio of Power in first order port to the input power to the AOM.The power at the input end of AOM is 1.29 mW. So the percentage value calculated includes the insertion loss ( as per data sheet : 3-4 dB for the first order port ) as well . So the conclusion is , inorder to get maximum diffraction efficiency to the first order port of AOM, we should supply RF power of about 0.6 W at 78.8 MHz . If we are using the Brimrose driver, this can be set by giving modulation input voltage of 1 V and frequency input voltage of 8.8 V.
We then attempted to measure the band width. To do that, the source output from SR785 was fed into input B of SR560. Part of the source output was fed into channel 1 of SR 785, through T connector, for the transfer function measurement. We also used a T connector at the input A port of SR 560 and one of the ports of this T connector was fed into channel B of SR785. I still must interpret most of the results that we got.
Attachment # 2: Closed loop transfer function (a) Magnitude (b) Phase, at different gain values in SR 560 when the Marconi actuation slope is 10 kHz/V.
Attachment # 3: Closed loop transfer function at different actuation slope value in Marconi when the gain is 7 dB. The increase in noise at lower frequency in phase plot (b) may indicate that the phase/frequency noise of the Marconi increases if the actuation slope value is increased.
Attachment # 4: Closed loop transfer function at different actuation slope value set in Marconi when the gain is 10 dB. The transfer function measured for the case of gain = 10 dB and actuation slope = 100 kHz/V (that is the product of gain and actuation slope is larger) shows significantly different characteristics.
Using the SSUserFn option in SR785, we tried to get the open loop transfer function as well from SR 785. The functional form was
Attachment # 5: Open loop transfer function at different gain values set in SR 560 when the Marconi actuation slope is 10 kHz/V. The unity gain band width are 0.9 kHz, 2.8 kHz and 5.8 kHz respectively when the gain values are 3 dB, 7 dB and 10 dB
Attachment # 6 : Closed loop transfer function at different actuation slope value set in Marconi when the gain is 7 dB. The unity gain band width are 3 kHz, 9 kHz and 30 kHz respectively when the actuation slope values are 10 kHz/V, 30 kHz/V, and 100 kHz/V.
We also tried to estimate the open loop transfer function from the closed loop transfer function using the equation
Attachment # 7 : Comparison of Open loop transfer function that is measured from SR 785 and that is estimated from the closed loop transfer function using the above expression. These two values are significantly different. Kindly correct me.
I think you have made some coding error in your attachment 7 plot. Just pick a point in your plot and calculate by hand if your estimate is correct. Otherwise, we need to see your code to pinpoint the error. You can attach your code in a .zip file here.
The new photo detector has arrived (https://www.newport.com/p/818-BB-51F) . We did the DC and AC characterization of the same.
In this case, the input power was measured after the isolator.The power to voltage conversion is linear. The voltage levels are very low because this is a non-amplified detector. Also, the detector is coupled to a FC/UPC patch cord and we have all FC/APC fiber connectors. So, there could be some coupling loss from FC/APC to FC/UPC. FC/APC to FC/UPC conversion patch cord is ordered. We can check the performance again after it is arrived.
We then assembled the Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI) for the 2-micron laser source. Attachment #1 shows the schematic of the same. We measured a power level of 0.37 mW when the AOM was not turned on (RF power to AOM off). When AOM is turned ON, the power level measured at the output of MZI is 0.5 mW. Power meter was then replaced with the new photodetector and the beat note was observed on spectrum analyser.
After the discussion with Prof.Rana, we realised the mistake in our analysis. It was also suggested to make the measurement at the output of SR560. Attachment #1 shows the schematic of the setup for the measurement of closed loop transfer function. The RF power from AFG is 0 dBm and that from Marconi is 7 dBm.
The open loop transfer function is calculated from closed loop transfer function using the expression , where is the gain value set in SR560.
Attachment #2 : Closed loop and open loop transfer functions at different values of gain in SR 560 when the actuation slope in Marconi is 10 kHz/V. The unity gain frequencies are respectively 1kHz, 3 kHz and 5 kHz when the gain values are 3 dB, 7 dB and 10 dB.
Attachment #3 : Closed loop and open loop transfer function at different values of actuation slope in Marconi when the gain in SR 560 is 10 dB.The unity gain frequencies are respectively 5kHz, 16 kHz and 43 kHz when the actuation slope values are 10 kHz/V, 30 kHz/V and 100 kHz/V. It can be seen that the characteristics are significantly different for a larger value for the product of gain and actuation slope (G=10, S=100 kHz/V).
The probing signal from SR 785 was then disconnected. In this case, the oscilloscope measure the error signal in time domain and the measurement from SR 785 essentially gives the frequency noise of AFG. The measurement from SR 785 has the unit of V/rt Hz, which is then multiplied with actuation slope to get the frequency noise in Hz/rt Hz. During our measurements, the oscilloscope signal was showing a low level ( mV) DC line , confirming that the PLL is locked.
Attachment # 4 : Frequency noise of AFG at different gain value in SR 560 when the actuation slope in Marconi is 30 kHz/V. In the full span mode, the line width (resolution) is 128 Hz where as the line width is 2 Hz in short span mode. The peak at 60 Hz visible in short span plot corresponds to AC mains.
Attachment # 5 : Frequency noise of AFG at different actuation slope in Marconi when the gain in SR 560 is 10 dB. I was thinking, we should measure the same frequency noise irrespective of the setting in the PLL. It can be seen from attachment # 5 that the frequency noise measurement is affected by the value of actuation slope in Marconi. It was earlier observed that the phase noise of Marconi increases with increase in the actuation slope and , from these measurment shown in attachment #5, we are seeing increase in frequency noise value at larger values of actuation slope in Marconi.
Attachment # 1 shows the schematic of the experimental setup for the frequency noise measurement of 2-micron laser source using PLL. Instead of Brimrose driver, another Marconi is used to provide the RF power to the AOM. We know from the characterisation of AOM that we need to give RF power of 28 dBm at 78.8 MHz to achieve maximum diffraction efficiency to the first order port of AOM. The maximum output power from Marconi is 13 dBm. Hence, we used another RF amplifier (ZHL-3-A+) to amplify the RF power from Marconi. We initially tested the RF output from RF amplifier on spectrum analyser (RF power fed into spectrum analyser with proper attenuation in the path) and adjusted the RF frequency and power in Marconi such that we get 28 dBm output power from the RF amplifier at 78.8 MHz. The two marconis are set such that they are share the same time standard.
Now, the output power from the photodetector in MZI (Laser diode operated at input current of 90 mA) is fed into the RF input port of the mixer, instead of AFG. The 600 Ohm output of SR 560 is observed on oscilloscope and SR 785 simultaneously.
We observed dc line in the oscilloscope when the gain in SR 560 is set to 13 dB (20 times). Gain value below this ( 10 dB) or above this (17 dB) was showing oscillations in the oscilloscope with frequency varying with the actuation slope in Marconi. Attachment #2 shows the frequency noise measurement from SR 785 (V/rt Hz value from SR 785 multiplied with the actuation slope).
It is observed that, the time domain trace on the oscilloscope was not very stable. In between, we could see the oscillation was popping up. Also, the trace on SR 785 was swinging a lot (attached the video). As we observed in the case of AFG, the FM noise measured increses with the value of actuation slope in Marconi.
In this case, the RF power that is fed into the RF port of the mixer is very small (~ -40 dBm) compared to our previous experiment with AFG. So, I would like to repeat the sample experiment (locking AFG to Marconi) with AFG set to RF power comparable with that from the actual experiment.I should then find out the unity gain frequency of that particular combination of gain and actuation slope,which would help us to find the frequency range upto which the PLL measurment is valid.
I also need to measure the actual delay line length. I will also clean up the fiber connectors again and we can also use the FC/UPC to FC/APC patch cord for the detector after it is arrived. I still must understand the results better.Since we are using Non-PM fibers, the polarisation fluctuation might have also affected the measurement .Kindly give me further suggestions.
FC/UPC to FC/APC patch cord has arrived. I repeated the DC characterisation of the photodetector with this patchcord. The couping is improving by about 2 dB (Table below shws the result)
I added one more amplifier stage (ZFL-500 LN) after the detector. Since noise figure of ZFL-500LN (2.9 dB) is lower than that of ZHL-3A (5 dB), ZFL-500LN is the first amplifier stage after the photo detector and it is followed by ZHL-3A.
Attachment # 1 shows the beat note spectrum measured from the spectrum analyser. There was a 30 dB attenuator in the path during the measurement. So, the output RF power from the MZI (with two stages of amplification) is now about 3 dBm and the SNR of 37 dB is preserved even after two stages of amplification.
So, now the RF power to the RF port of the mixer is 3 dBm. I have attached the video of signal from the PLL loop at different gain (G=1, G=2,G=5) values in SR 560. The time domain trace seems to very noise. I suspect this is because of the inherent large noise in 2-micron laser diode with a broad line width of 2 MHz.
I then attempted to do the closed loop transfer function in the present PLL configuration by injecting the signal from SR 785. Attachment 2 shows the closed and open loop transfer functions at different gain values in SR 560 when the actuation slope is 10 kHz/V. Attachment 3 shows the closed and open loop transfer functions at different values of actuation slope when the gain is 5. The magnitude and phase traces are not very smooth as we observed when we did the similar measurement with an arbitrary function generator (AFG) as the RF source. In this case, when MZI output is fed in as the RF source, the RF power is fluctuating.
I also tried to do the frequency noise measurement. Attchement # 4 is the FM noise at different gain values when the actuation slope is 10 kHz/V. Attachement 5 is the FM noise at different actuation slope values when the gain is 5. This time, depending on the gain value and the actuation slope value, a short frequency span was considered in SR 785 for the frequency noise measurement. The frequency span is considered based on the value of unity gain frequencies that are approximated from the open loop transfer functions measured from attachment # 2 and #3
Attachment #1 shows the oscilloscope traces at different gain values when the actuation slope is 100 kHz/V. It also shows the base line when there is no input to the oscilloscope. Even in the absence of any signal to the oscilloscope, there is an offset with mean value, RMS value and peak to peak value respectively of 35 mV, 42 mV and 200 mV.
Table below summarises the mean value, RMS value and peak to peak value for different combinations of actuation slope and gain.
The RMS value and the peak to peak value is increasing with increase in gain and the mean value is not showing any trend. I was pressing the Run/stop button before saving the data. I press the same to make the trace alive after saving the data as well. But the mean value read out from the oscilloscope shows different /random values in either case. If I don’t save the data, but only increases the gain, the mean value readout from oscilloscope shows almost the same.
I saw the beat note on the oscilloscope and I was trying to find the change in frequency. The frequency readout from oscilloscope was showing very large fluctuation (60-100 MHz). I feel its not a reliable measurement, but I don’t know whether we have an option to measure the frequency jitter in this oscilloscope (TDS 3032).
RXA: we have a few options for measuring large frequency fluctuations:
We tried the Lock in amplifier in Moku lab for the frequency noise measurement. In this case, the output of the photo detector , after dc block and one stage of amplification, is fed into input 1 of Moku. It gives out the inphase and quadrature component. We have saved the data. I will process the data offline and update later.
[Aidan, Chris, Koji]
We went down to the lab to check the situation of the setups for 2um laser measurement and stabilization and the new cryostat.
[2um laser frequency noise measurement]
Attachment # 1 show the schematic of the lock in amplifier configuration used in Moku lab. We saved the in phase and quadrature components.
In phase =
where corresponds to 2 -micron , is the delay time in the delay fiber and .
is the phase noise of the laser.
From the inphase and quadrature component value is extracted. So, we are actually extrating the combined effect of phase noise of laser as well the phase noise due to fiber length fluctuations due to environmental fluctuations. ASD of this is converted to frequency noise in Hz/rt Hz. Attachment # 2 shows the frequency noise estimated from two sets of measurements. This curve exhibit a 1/f characteristics from about 240 Hz upto 30 kHz
There was a correction in the script I used to estimate the frequency noise from the inphase and quadrature component. Attachment #1 shows the frequency noise estimated after the correction.
I have also attached the Matlab script ( I am not able to attach the zip file with data files). I remember, while saving the data, we gave the time duration as 70 s. But while processing the data only I realised that the time domain data is captured only upto 2 s. Even in this case, I would expect the frequency axis to start from 0.5 Hz, but I don't see that in the FM noise plot. Kinldy let me know whther I am doing anything wrong in data proocessing.
c=3e8;%velocity of light
n=1.5;%refractive index of fiber
len=15;%length of delay fiber
omeg=2*pi*(c/lam);%optical frequency corresponds to 2-micron
tau=(len*n)/c;%time delay due to delay fier
Fiber Collimator (Thorlabs F028APC-2000+AD11F+LMR1) and MIR sensor cards (Thorlabs VRC6S Qty2) were delivered.
The sensor card is liquid crystal and seems temperature sensitive. It's slow and diffused. But at least we can now see 2um beams in a certain condition.
The fiber collimator seems working fine, but this gave me another issue. Now because the beam is small (w<500um) everywhere, I can't focus it very well. To make a focused beam, one needs a large beam, of course. Previously, the beam was not well focused. Therefore the final focused beam with f=150mm was sufficiently small like w=50um.
It looks like some kind of telescope is necessary.
Attached is a drawing of the first phase (minimal vibration isolation) cryocooler attachment, where the main tank connects via the blue rimmed feedthrough. Boxed/circled components are those that will require custom fabrication:
Currently there are only two connections that require viton o-ring rather than conflat connections (cooler to piece 1, piece 3 to HV feedthrough).
The PD mounts were delivered from ProtoLabs. The order was sent on Tue last week and it's here on Monday. Excellent!
And the quality looks pretty good.
The surfaces are sandblasted. Do we want to do any process on the bottom surface to reduce the thermal resistance?
An indium solder string also came in.
Normal solder (Sn63 Pb37): with flux, wetting o
Pure Indium - In 99.995: no flux, wetting x, low melting temp, like paste
Pb93.5 Sn5 Ag1.5: with flux, wetting o, high melting temp (soldering iron setting 380~430F)
Cryo solder In97 Ag3: no flux, wetting x, low melting temp, like paste
[Raymond and Koji]
We dunked the PD socket test piece into LN2 and repeated heat cycle 8 times. No obvious change was observed. Then the wires were pulled to find any broken joint or etc.
None of the solder joints showed the sign of failure.
For cleanliness, we are going to use In-Ag solder (no flux) for the actual wiring.
Attachment 1: Frozen connector
Attachment 2-4: Inspection after thawing.
1) I've brought another TEC driver fro the PD temp control. This unit was borrowed from the 2um ECDL setup. Eventually, we need to return this to ECDL. (Attachment 1)
The PID loop of the TEC control works. But it is not well optimized yet. If you change the target temp too quickly, the TEC out seemed oscillating. Watch the TEC out carefully and change the temp setpoint slowly.
So far I have tried to cool the thermister up to 30kOhm (~232K) and I_TEC was 0.33A. I did not try further. I felt it was better to cool the PD base for further trial.
2) A part of the alignment study, the beam is aligned to A2P6. Also, the lens position was investigated, and I decided to move the lens ~1 inch away from the window. (Attachment 2)
In fact, this allowed us to insert the power meter between the lens and the window.
The QEs were measured at 293K, 239K, 232K, and 293K again. The cooling was provided by the PD TEC. At each temperature, the incident power was changed from 30uW to 1mW to see the dependence of the QE on the incident power to check the possible saturation.
The QE was 79~81% (the window T=96.6% was already compensated). I'm not 100% sure this 1% variation in the plateau is real or due to insufficient calibration of the REF PD.
The REF PD was calibrated at 1mW at 100mA injection current to the laser.
No obvious saturation was observed.
We can cool the PD with LN2 and we should make a careful alignment of the beam at each temperature.
To check the status of all the labs, I went to WB. There was no ongoing water leakage in the labs.
Attachment 1: The subbasement was completely dry.
Attachment 2: Upon the lab inspection, I took PPE from the OMC lab. This was intended to prevent me to pick up anyone's anything and you to pick up my anything.
Attachment 3: The EE shop has no problem
Attachment 4: Cryo Lab. No problem.
Attachment 5: Crackle Lab. No problem, but a lot of dead cockroaches on the floor!
Attachment 6: OMC Lab. No problem.
Attachment 7: C.Ri.Me Lab. Gabriele has already checked the status in the morning. And I found no problem. Didn't bother to turn on the light.
Attachment 8: CTN Lab. No problem.
Attachment 9: QIL Lab. The floor was mostly dry. Did someone wipe the floor?
Attachment 10: Some water drip was found in front of the workbench.
Attachment 11: It comes from the ceiling.
Attachment 12: Left a trash box to catch future possible leak.
Attachment 13/14: TCS Lab. No problem found.
Attachment 15: As per Aidan's request, the instruments were moved to the North-East area of the room to avoid future possible leak.
I did not see anyone in the building.
Attachment 1/2: Our labs have no sticker/paper to indicate any disinfection of the room. (Make sense)
Attachment 3: Most of the basement offices have the notes to indicate disinfection.
Attachment 4/5: Our offices have no notes.
I put together two PSOMA layouts, one for a bowtie cavity and one for a ring cavity configuration.
I expect there are a number of problems with the layout as I've drawn it, and I note a number of these in the bowtie diagram. Among these
Attachment 1 contains the SR785 dark noise measurements at number of PD reverse bias voltages from 77-295K with filenaming convention:
[PD]_drkspec_[date]_[temp]_[input V]_[scan freq]_[FEMTO gain]_[date]_.txt
It also contains the keithley sweeps for QE calculations.
I'm still working out what is wrong with the QE data and how to effectively process the dark noise versus temperature.
I've updated the PSOMA optical layout. I still have some questions on locking, and there are a few additional configurations that we could try. In particular:
Each of these configurations also has a couple different ways to pickoff an LO for homodyne readout. Shruti and I enumerated these configurations on a zoom whiteboard a couple weeks ago, and I've attached them (the zip contains png).
Chris also mentioned last week that we may run into a frequency-dependent loss in the critically coupled cavity configurations. The pdf I've attached shows a configuration that I think is a minimal modification of the Mach-Zehnder amplifier described in PSOMA. One of the ring cavities is replaced with a tunable steering mirror, and the LO is picked off before the pump reaches the MZ.
In the new diagram, I'm thinking about controlling the following degrees of freedom:
Some things I'm unsure about:
Shruti and I are now tracking our work on git issues in the PSOMA repo.
Picked up the prototype shield panels from Hamilton Metalcraft 7/22 and brought them to QIL. All of the parts are wrapped by part number and in a bin (see attached photo). There are 6 sets of shield panels, but 2 full sets were removed for coating vendors. One full set is as follows (20 parts total):
All component #'s are preceded by 'D2000298-'. 031, 032, and 033 are 03 panels but with hole variations, same goes for 131, 132, and 133 with respect to panel 13
Used the 19-pin MIL feedthrough to run 4 platinum RTD's and a 25 Ω 100 W resistive heater to the cold head. Attachment 1 is the wiring diagram for the feedthrough and the D-sub connector to the CTC-100 temperature sensor. Attachment 2 shows the three RTDs placed on the cold head. It also shows the thermal anchoring of all lead wires. Attachment 3 shows the RTD attached to the cooler below the cold head using cigarette paper and cryo varnish (stored in the flammables cabinet in QIL).
The Al block is a premade PT-RTD integrated mounting setup, which was placed on some indium sheet bits and clamped down with a screw and belleville washer. The other two cold head sensors are pressure fit to the cold head by a spring loaded mini dog clamps, and one of the two has some indium underneath the RTD to see if there is any value in doing so going forward with these mounting springs. The glued sensor was attached by painting a thin layer of cryo varnish on the cooler, adding a strip of cig paper, layer of varnish, press in sensor, another strip of paper, paint over all of it with a last thin layer of varnish that reaches beyond the bounds of the paper strips.
The diaphragm pump was turned on earlier this week after finally closing up this external adapter tank. Out of an overabundance of caution the tank and cryocooler are supported by the skycrane and a number of posts to prevent it walking off the foam resting pad once the cryocooler is switched on.
All temperature sensors agree with each other within 0.1 K at room temperature
Cryopump is up and running. Initial attempts to run the cooler were stymied by an open circuit in the cold head to compressor connection caused by one of the two accessory port fuses (right, circled in attachment 1). The compressor would run but the valve motor wouldn't start in the cooler itself. I extended the spring in the fuse housing (attachment 2) and it seems to have fixed the problem, as now the valve motor starts at the same time the compressor is turned on. Attachment 1 also shows the highly technical cord management procedure done to reduce the trip hazard caused by the compressor power plug.
User manual recommendations*:
*Manuals for both the compressor and the cryocooler are linked on the West Bridge wiki manuals page
Quick update, more detailed update to follow.
Still to do:
Embellished Chris's PD MEDM screen a bit to illustrate controls in a diagram. The representation of the RELAY SWITCH between the Keithley and the SR560 is a bit off - I think the transimpedance amplifier is switched out as well.
Also - Keithley bright PD sweep output is attached.
Okay - all the steps in the procedure of eLOG 2476 have been verified as working - with the exception of the RTDs in the chamber.
With regards to taking dark noise spectra at different biases and temperatures, looks like Raymond took spectra with biases of [50, 100, 200, 400, 600, 1000]mV. If no objections, I’ll stick to that number of measurements.
I’m a bit pushed for time with other stuff. I wonder if the shield RTD is sufficient to run tests on the system? I’ll go back through the data and see how reproducible the relationship between shield temperature and PD temperature is. If it is reliable then in the interests of time, I’m going to forgo re-installing the extra RTDs in the chamber just now.
Looks like the temperature difference between the PD and the shield is relatively small. Even the transients when the heater is applied are order 5K.
This means that, for quick purposes, the shield RTD is a good proxy for the PD temperature.
The attached data is the difference between PD and shield RTD from circa 5th-6th February 2020.
I installed the Agilis mirror before the lens and cryo-chamber. Used the USB interface to align the beam onto the PD. So we can control the alignment remotely now (or once I’ve properly connected the USB cable instead of today’s janky test connection).
Here's the python code I used to control this.
I incorrectly used the Move to Limit command ('1MV-3': axis 1, MoVe, negative direction, speed 3', where the speeds are given in the manual, see Section 4.7 in particular). Once this command is issued, the stage will keep moving until it receives the stop command. The JOG command would be more appropriate.
I confirmed a smooth change in the PD output as the beam translated across it.
I installed the Agilis mirror before the lens and cryo-chamber. Used the USB interface to align the beam onto the PD. So we can control the alignment remotely now (or once I’ve properly connected the USB cable instead of today’s janky test connection).
I ran the bright PD test on the photodiode currenlty in the vacuum chamber. The test was run at air and room temperature. I aligned the 2um laser onto the PD using the piezo mirror and the readout from the preamp. I then switched to the Keithley and ran the bright scan with the "runsweep.py" script. I actually ran the scan at multiple laser diode current settings by varying the control voltage into the diode driver. The change in response wrt control voltage looks linear but I need to run an analysis on it.
The data is stored in /home/controls/JPL_PD/data/20210303_bright_scans
I measured the power incident on the cryo chamber viewport and the reference PD reading to calibrate the incident power. Data is attached. Power meter head = S148C.
I pumped the small vacuum volume down but the pressure started rising as soon as I turned off the vacuum pump. Closing the main valve to the pump and the valve to the chamber did little to change the leak rate. So the main leak seems to be from the volume around the pressure gauge - best guess, the section and O-ring that I connected to the chamber yesterday.
Vacuum pressure was recorded from vacuum gauge to text file in Python (using pyserial). Haven't got this into EPICS just yet.