[ericq, lydia, gautam]
IMC realignment, Arm dither alignment
Lydia and I investigated the extra green beam situation. Here are our findings.
I can't think of an easy fix for this - the layout on the OMC chamber is pretty crowded, and potential places to install a beam dump are close to the AS and IMC REFL beam paths (see Attachment #1). Perhaps Steve can suggest the best, least invasive way to do this. I will also try and nail down more accurately the origin of these spots tomorrow.
Light doors are back on for the night. I re-ran the dithers, and centered the oplevs for all the test-masses + BS. I am leaving the PSL shutter closed for the night
Tilted viewports installed in horizontal position. Atm2
[ericq, lydia, steve, gautam]
AS beam on OM1
Link to IMG_2337.JPG
AS beam on OM2
AS beam on OM3
AS beam on OM4
I didn't manage to get a picture of the beam on OM5 because it is difficult to hold a card in front of it and simultaneously take a photo, but I did verify the centering...
It remains to update the CAD diagram to reflect the new AS beam path - there are also a number of optics/other in-vacuum pieces I noticed in the BS/PRM and OMC chambers which are not in the drawings, but I should have enough photos handy to fix this.
Here is the link to the Picasa album with a bunch of photos from the OMC, BS/PRM and ITMY chambers prior to putting the heavy doors back on...
SRM satellite box has been removed for diagnostics by Rana. I centered the SRM Oplev prior to removing this, and I also turned off the watchdog and set the OSEM bias voltages to 0 before pulling the box out (the PIT and YAW bias values in the save files were accurate). Other Oplevs were centered after dither-aligning the arms (see Attachment #8, ignore SRM). Green was aligned to the arms in order to maximize green transmission (GTRX ~0.45, GTRY ~0.5, but transmission isn't centered on cameras).
I don't think I have missed out on any further checks, so unless anyone thinks otherwise, I think we are ready for Steve to start the pumpdown tomorrow morning.
These old specs are not so bad. But we now want to get replacements for the TRX and TRY and PSL viewports that are R <0.1% at 532 and 1064 nm.
I don't know of any issues with keeping BK-7 as the substrate.
The pressure on the newly installed gauge on the X arm was 6E-5 torr when I came in today evening, so I decided to start the recovery process.
I worked on recovering ALS today. Alignments had drifted sufficiently that I had to to the alignment on the PSL table onto the green beat PDs for both arms. As things stand, both green (and IR) beats have been acquired, and the noise performance looks satisfactory (see Attachment #1), except that the X beat noise above 100Hz looks slightly high. I measured the OLTF of the X end green PDH loop (after having maximized the arm transmission, dither alignment etc, measurement done at error point with an excitation amplitude of 25mV), and adjusted the gain such that the UGF is ~10kHz (see Attachment #2).
Given that most of the post vent recovery tasks were done, and that the ALS noise performance looked good enough to try locking, we decided to try PRFPMI locking again last night. Here are the details:
PRM alignment, PRMI locking
Post the most recent vent, where we bypass the OMC altogether, we have a lot more light now at the AS port. It has not yet been quantified how much more, but from the changes that had to be made to the loop gain for a stable loop, we estimate we have 2-3 times more power at the AS port now.
Great to hear that we have the PRG of ~16 now!
Is this 150ppm an avg loss per mirror, or per arm?
The autolocker was acting up today, Gautam traced it to EPICS channels ( namely C1:IOO-MC_LOCK_ENABLE and C1:IOO-MC_AUTOLOCK_BEAT ) served by c1iool0 not being responsive and keyed the crate. This restored it nominal operation.
I realized that I did not have a Finesse model to reflect the current situation of flipped folding mirrors (I've been looking at 'ideal' RC cavity lengths with folding mirrors oriented with HR side inside the cavity so we didn't have to worry about the substrate/AR surface losses), and it took me a while to put together a model for the current configuration. Of course this calculation does not need a Finesse model but I thought it would be useful nevertheless.
In summary - the model with which the attached plot was generated assumes the following:
This calculation agrees well with the analytic results Yutaro computed here - the slight difference is possibly due to assuming different losses in the RC folding mirrors.
The conclusion from this study seems to be that the arm loss is now in the 100-150ppm range (so each mirror has 50-75ppm loss). But these numbers are only so reliable, we need an independent loss measurement to verify. In fact, during last night's locking efforts, the arm transmission sometimes touched 400 (=> PRG ~22), which according to these plots suggest total arm losses of ~50ppm, which would mean each mirror has only 25ppm loss, which seems a bit hard to believe.
It is also difficult to have a high arm transmission without having high PRG.
What about to plot the arm trans and the REFL DC power in a timeseries?
Or even in a correlation plot (X: Arm Trans or PRG vs Y: REFL Reflectivity)
This tells you an approximate location of the critical coupling, and allows you to calibrate the PRG, hopefully.
As Gautam mentioned, we had some success locking the PRFPMI last night. (SRM satellite box is still in surgery...)
Unsurprisingly, changing the loss/PRG/CARM finesse means we had to fiddle with the common mode servo parameters a little bit to get things to work. However, before too long, we achieved a first lock on the order of a few minutes. Not long afterwards, we had a nice half hour lock stretch where we could tune up the AO crossover and loop UGFs. The working locking script was committed to SVN. Really, no fundamentally new tactics were used, which is encouraging. (One thing I wondered about was whether a narrower CARM linewidth would still let our direct ALS->REFL11 handoff with no offset reduction work. Turns out it does)
However, the step where we increase the analog CARM gain isn't as bulletproof as it once had been. The light levels "sputter" in and out sometimes if the gain increases are too agressive, and can cause a lockloss. Maybe this is an effect of the narrower linewidth and injecting more ALS noise at high frequencies with the higher CARM bandwidth.
The spatial profiles of the light on the cameras is totally bananas. Here's AS and REFL.
As Koji suggested, here is a 2D histogram of TRY vs REFLDC. It appears that the visibility would max out at 75% or so at arm powers around 400. Indeed, we briefly saw powers that high, but as can be seen on the plot, we were usually a little under 300. Exploring the transmon QPD offset space didn't seem to have much effect here.
One thing that I hadn't looked at in previous locks is coherence with our ground seismometers. It would be cool to have more seismic feedforward, and looking at the frequency domain multiple coherence, it looks like we can win a lot between 1 and 20 Hz. I expected more of a win at 1Hz, though.
Following Koji's suggestion, I decided to investigate the relation between my Finesse model and the measured data.
For easy reference, here is the loss plot again:
Sticking with the model, I used the freedom Finesse offers me to stick in photodiodes wherever I desire, to monitor the circulating power in the PRC directly, and also REFLDC. Note that REFLDC goes to 0 because I am using Finesse's amplitude detector at the carrier frequency for the 00 mode only.
Both the above plots essentially show the same information, except the X axis is different. So my model tells me that I should expect the point of critical coupling to be when the average arm loss is ~100ppm, corresponding to a PRG of ~17 as suggested by my model.
Eric has already put up a scatter plot, but I reproduce another from a fresh lock tonight. The data shown here corresponds to the IFO initially being in the 'buzzing' state where the arms are still under ALS control and we are turning up the REFL gain - then engaging the QPD ASC really takes us to high powers. The three regimes are visible in the data. I show here data sampled at 16 Hz, but the qualitative shape of the scatter does not change even with the full data. As an aside, today I saw the transmission hit ~425!
I have plotted the scatter between TRX and REFL DC, but if I were to plot the scatter between POP DC and REFL DC, the shape looks similar - specifically, there is an 'upturn' in the REFL DC values in an area similar to that seen in the above scatter plot. POP DC is a proxy for the PRG, and I confirmed that for the above dataset, there is a monotonic, linear relationship between TRX and POPDC, so I think it is legitimate to compare the plot on the RHS in the row directly above, to the plot from the Finesse model one row further up. In the data, REFL DC seems to hit a minimum around TRX=320. Assuming a PRM transmission of 5.5%, TRX of 320 corresponds to a PRG of 17.5, which is in the ballpark of the region the model tells us to expect it to be. Based on this, I conclude the following:
In other news, I wanted to try and do the sensing matrix measurements which we neglected to do yesterday. I turned on the notches in CARM, DARM, PRCL and MICH, and then tuned the LO amplitudes until I saw a peak in the error signal for that particular DOF with peak height a factor of >10 above the noise floor. The LO amplitudes I used are
There should be about 15 minutes of good data. More impressively, the lock tonight lasted 1 hour (see Attachment #6, unfortunately FB crashed in between). Last night we lost lock while trying to transition control to 1f signals and tonight, I believe a P.C. drive excursion of the kind we are used to seeing was responsible for the lockloss, so the PRFPMI seems pretty stable.
With regards to the step in the lock acquisition sequence where the REFL gain is turned up, I found in my (4) attempts tonight that I had most success when I adjusted the CARM A slider while turning up the REFL gain to offload the load on the CARM B servo. Of course, this may mean nothing...
I don't think the loss of 25 ppm is outrageous. Its just surprisingly good. The SIS model predicted numbers more like 1 ppm / mirror taking into account just the phase map and not the coating defects.
However, we should take into account the lossed in the DRMI to be more accurate: AR coating reflectivities, scatter loss on those surfaces, as well as possible clipping around BS or some other optics.
Building: Campus Wide
Date: Thursday 11/03/16 at Approx. 6:20 a.m.
Notification: Unplanned City Wide Power Glitch Affecting Campus
*This is to notify you that the Caltech Campus experienced a campus wide power glitch at approx. 6:20 a.m. this morning.
The city was contacted and they do not expect any further interruptions related to this event.
The vacuum was not effected. ITM sus damping restored. IFO room air conditions on.
PSL Innolight and ETMY Lightwave lasers turned on
I did the following:
There was a regular beat coming from the speakers. After muting all the channels on the mixer and pulling the 3.5mm cable out, the sound persisted. It now looks like the mixer is broken
The projector failed just now with a pretty loud 'pop' sound - I've never been present when the lamp goes out, so I don't know if this is usual. I have left the power cable unplugged for now...
Replacement is ordered Nov 4
Looking back at elog 12528, the uncertainty in the armloss number from the individual quantities in the equation for can be written as:
Making some generous assumption about the individual uncertainties and filling in typical values we get in our measurements, results in the following uncertainty budget:
In my recent round of measurements I had a 2.5% uncertainty in the ASDC reading, which completely dominates the armloss assessment.
The most recent numbers are 57 ppm for the YARM and 21 ppm for the XARM, but both with an uncertainty of near 150 ppm, so while these numbers fit well with Gautam's estimate of the average armloss via PRG, it's not really a confirmation.
I set the whitening gain in ASDC to 24 dB and ran LSC offsets, and now I'm getting a relative uncertainty in measured reflected power of .22%, which would be sufficient for ~25ppm accuracy according to the above formula. I'm going to start a series of measurements tonight when I leave, should be done in ~2 hours (10 pm) the latest.
If anybody wants to do some night work: I misaligned ITMY by a lot to get its reflection off ASDC. Approximate values are saved as a restore point. Also the whitening gain on ASDC will have to be rolled back (was at 0dB) and LSC offsets adjusted.
PRM and SRM sat. boxes have been switched for some time now - but the PRM sat. box has one channel with a different transimpedance gain, and the damping loops for the PRM and SRM were not systematically adjusted to take this into account (I just tweaked the gain for the PRM and SRM side damping loops till the optic damped). Since both sat. boxes are nominally functioning now, I saw no reason to maintain this switched configuration so I swapped the boxes back, and restored the damping settings to their values from March 29 2016, well before either of this summer's vents. In addition, I want to collect some data to analyze the sat. box noise performance so I am leaving the SRM sat. box connected to the DAQ, but with the tester box connected to where the vacuum feedthroughs would normally go (so SRM has no actuation right now). I will collect a few hours of data and revert later tonight for locking activities....
I had a mistake in my script that reported the wrong error after averaging several datapoints, and because I hadn't looked at the individual numbers I didn't catch it so far. Thanks to Gautam it is no more.
The updated numbers are (with fresh, more trustworthy data):
XARM: 21 +/ 35 ppm
YARM: 69 +/- 45 ppm
This looks much better. I'm planning to take more data with the AS110 PD rather than AS55 when I get the chance, increase the averaging time, and also sigma filter the datapoints. That should get us to a good spot and cut down the uncertainty even further.
I am currently looking at the acoustic noise around both arms to see if there are any frequencies from machinery around the lab that stand out and to see what we can remove/change.
I don't like AS110 or AS55. Neither of them are designed for DC and so the DC readout chain is hokey. How about use an actual transimpedance PD with a 100-1000 Ohm resistor and a 3 mm diode? This would eliminate the alignment sensitivity and the drifts due to electronics and room lights.
Vivitek D952HD sn2160130 was send out for warranty repair. It's hard to believe that it has a 5 year warranty...... RMA - WR16004483.....expected to be back by Friday, Dec 2
The most recent power outage took out our projector and mixer. The projector was sent for repair while we ordered a new mixer. Both arrived today. Steve is working on re-installing the projector right now, and I installed the mixer which was verified to be working with our DAFI system (although the 60Hz issue still remains to be sorted out). The current channel configuration is:
Ch1: 3.5mm stereo output from pianosa
Ch2: DAFI (L)
Ch3: DAFI (R)
I've set some random gains for now, but we will have audio again when locking
Manasa pointed me to the CAD drawings in the 40m SVN and I've now uploaded them to the 40m DCC Tree so that EricG and SteveV can convert them into SolidWorks.
Caltech Facilities promissed to email the 40m facility drawings in Cad format.
I organized the old of optical , vacuum and facility layout drawings on paper in the old cabinet.
As stated in elog 12618, using an oscilloscope to average the reflected powers and thus circumventing all filtering yielded much better results than before:
XARM: 21 +/- 35 ppm
YARM: 69 +/- 45 ppm
We can probably decrease the measurement uncertainty further by using a larger photodiode that is more suited for DC measurements. It will be placed in the AS pathtemporarily. If we get below 10 ppm systematic errors will begin to matter. To get those under control I will have to re-determine the visibility in the arm cavities and the modulation indices. The numbers to match from an estimate via the power recycing gain are <= 50 ppm arm average from elog 12586. Once the measurement scheme is up and running, we can proceed to generate ETM lossmaps. ITM will still be tricky but let's see what we can do.
Following Yutaro's approach, we can move the beams on the optcs in a deterministic way by several mm on the ETMs. Moving the beam is achieved by introducing offsets into the ASS auto alignment. As an example, the Yaw dither for ETMY is shown:
Each of the 8 test mass rotational degrees of freedom is driven by a particular frequency, and 2 signals are digitally demodulated in the real-time system: The arm transmission ("T") and the LSC arm length feedback signal to the ETM (L). The T signal feeds back to the input pointing, aka Tip Tilts and BS. This maximizes the transmission for a given test mass orientation. The L feedback controls the beam position on the mirrors in the arms. It minimizes the coupling of the dither to the length feedback, which is achieved when the beam goes through the axis of the rotational motion. This is where we introduce the offset:
The signal C1:ASS-YARM_ETM_YAW_L_DEMOD_I_OFFSET (for this example) moves the locking point of the dither-to-length coupling and thus moves the beam around on the ETM. This is true for the PIT and YAW of all test masses except ITMX. In the current configuration the TTs optimize the alignment into the YARM, and for the X we only have the BS, which is why the beam spot on ITMX cannot be independently controlled as-is. We could, however, for the sake of this measurement, temporarily temporarily give TT authority to the XARM feedback to control the ITMX beam position. I imagine something like dither-aligning with ASS the normal way, and then run a customized script in which the XARM is treated as the YARM, feecback to the BS is cut, and the YAW signals are inverted due to the reflection on BS.
Knowing the angle of the offset gives us a way to calculate the beam spot displacement with the cavity geometry. For best results I want to make sure our OpLev calibration is still good (laser power decay, although last time this was done was only about a year ago), which would be analogous to elog 11831.
As for ITM beam position, this scheme only works partially, because it would require the beam to steer further off its axis than in the ETM case. This is problematic because of the spacing between tip tilts and ITMs. I summarize:
I installed a DC PD (Thorlabs PDA 520) in the beam path to AS55. I placed a 2" 90/10 BS on a flip mount that picks of enough light for the PD to spit out ~8V when the port is bright. Single arm continuous signal will be ~2V. While most of the light still continues towards AS55, the displacement from the BS moves the beam off AS55, so I used the flip mount in case anyone needs to use AS55. The current configuration is UP.
When we're done with loss investigations the flip mount should be removed from the bench.
I hooked the PD up to an ethernet-enabled scope and started scripting the loss map measurement (scope can receive commands via http so we can automate the data acquisition). The scope that was present at the bench and had been used for the MC ringdown measurements had a 'scrambled' screen that I couldn't fix so I had to retrieve another scope ("scope1"). I'll try to find out what's wrong with it but we may have to send it in for repair.
After Koji's leap second fix, we were playing around with the X arm locking. In particular, we were playing around with the limit value on the X arm LSC filter bank - the nominal value is 4000, we wanted to see if we could increase this without kicking the optic while acquiring arm lock. We initially increased it to 8000, and then turned it off altogether. Then we rapidly turned the output of the servo ON/OFF, and looked at the arm transmission to see if it came back to the level before unlocking, as an indication of whether the optic was kicked.
These trials suggested a value of 8000 for the limiter was OK, so we left the LSC mode on with the limiter set to 8000. But just as we were about to leave for the night, I noticed on the wall Striptool that the X arm was unlocked. Investigating, we found that the green wasn't even locking to a HOM. Further investigation of the Oplev spot showed that ETMX had received a large kick (both pitch and law errors were ~200urad). ITMX was unaffected.
We initially tried lowering the LSC limit value back to 4000, then used first the Oplev spot and then the green to align the arm. But turning on LSC misaligned the arm after acquiring lock. So we decided to leave LSC off, thinking that the notorious ETMX suspension problems have resurfaced. As a diagnostic, we figured we'd leave the watchdog tripped, and use the Oplev to see if the optic was getting kicked. But the act of turning the watchdog off kicked the optic again (WHY?!).
Looking at the ETMX sus screen, turning off all the damping and LSC (but watchdog on) still leaves a non-zero offset in the "Vmon" field, between 0.02-0.05V depending on the coil. Turning the watchdog OFF takes all these to 0.009V, although I can see the LR value fluctuating between 0.004V and 0.009V. I went to the Xend and squished all the cables on the Sat. Box, but the problem persisted.
At this time, I can't think of any explanation, so I am giving up for the night. To avoid unnecessarily kicking the optic, I am going to unplug the suspension from the Sat. Box and leave one of our tester boxes plugged in, lets see if that sheds any light on the situation...
Last night, I plugged the ETMX suspension coils back into the satellite box. Tonight, we turned on the damping loops for ETMX. Rana centered the Oplev so we can use that as an additional diagnostic to see if the optic gets kicked around overnight. We will re-assess the situation tomorrow.
Sometime earlier today, Lydia noticed that the +/- 5V Sorensens at the X end were not displaying their nominal voltage/current values (as per the stickers on them). She corrected this.
Summary pages show no kicking in the ETMX watchdogs from midnight to 6 AM (0800 - 1400 UTC):
Brief Summary: I am currently looking at the acoustic noise around both arms to see if there are any frequencies from machinery around the lab that stand out and to see what we can remove/change. I am using a Bluebird microphone suspended with surgical tubing from the cable trays to isolate it from vibrations. I am also using a preamp and the SR875 spectrum analyzer taking 6 sets of data every 1.5 meters (0 to 200Hz, 200Hz to 400Hz, 400z to 800Hz, 800Hz to 3200Hz, 3.2kHz to 12kHz, 12kHz to 100kHz).
· Attachment 1 is a PSD of the first 3 measurements (from 0 to 12kHz) that I took every 1.5 meters along the x arm with the preamp and spectrum analyzer
· Attachment 2 is a blrms color map of the first 6 sets of data I took (from 2.4m to 9.9m)
· Attachmetn 3 is a picture of the microphone set up with the surgical tubing
Problems that occurred: settings on the preamp made the first set of data I took significantly smaller than the data I took with the 0dB button off and the last problem I had was the spectrum analyzer reading only from -50 to -50 dBVpk
This AmScope microscope would have 3.5x-180x magnification, calibratable measurement function, 5MP picture and good working distance to work on printed circuit boards.
received this note: at 4:11pm Tuesday, Feb 7, 2017
Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Time: 7:30 AM – 8:30 AM
Contact: Rick Rodriguez x-2576
Pasadena Water and Power (PWP) will be performing a switching operation of the
Caltech Electrical Distribution System that is expected to be transparent to Caltech,
but could result in a minor power anomaly that might affect very sensitive equipment.
IMPACT: Negligible impact......?
There may be temporary power interruption tomorrow!
PS:we did not see any effect
http://www.amscope.com/3-5x-180x-boom-stand-trinocular-zoom-stereo-microscope-with-144-led-ring-light-and-10mp-camera.html will be ordered today.
The actual unit we are getting has lockable zoom for better repeatability after calibration: SM-3NTPZZ-144
I'd like to fix a few things at 1X1 when we plug in the new amplifier for the 29.5MHz modulation signal.
Steve has ordered rolls of pre-twisted wire to run from 1X1 to the PSL table, so that part can be handled later.
But at 1X1, we need to tap new paths from +/- 24V to the DIN connectors. I think it's probably fine to turn off the two Sorensens, do the wiring, and then turn them back on, but is there any procedure for how this should be done?
Craig and I have been trying to put together a Simulink diagram of the proposed alternative calibration scheme. Each time I talk the idea over with someone, I convince myself it makes sense, but then I try and explain it to someone else and get more confused. Probably I am not even thinking about this in the right way. So I am putting what I have here for comments/suggestions.
What's the general idea?
Suppose the PSL is locked to the MC cavity, and the AUX laser is locked to the arm cavity (with sufficiently high BW). Then by driving a line in the arm cavity length, and beating the PSL and AUX lasers, we can determine how much we are modulating the arm cavity length in metres by reading out the beat frequency between the two lasers, provided the arm cavity length is precisely known.
So we need:
To be able to sense a 1kHz line being driven at 1e-16 m amplitude, I estimate we need a beat note stability of ~1mHz/rtHz at 1kHz.
Requirements and what we have currently:
On the hardware side of things, we need:
Koji and I briefly looked through the fiber inventory we have yesterday. We have some couplers (one mounted) and short (5m) patch fibers. But I think the fiber infrastructure we have in place currently is adequate - we have the AUX light brought to the PSL table, and there is a spare fiber running the other way if we want to bring the PSL IR to the end as well.
I need to also think about where we can stick the EOM in given physical constraints on the EX table and the beam diameter/aperture of EOM...
Question for Craig: What does the SNR of our lines have to be? IF we're only trying to calibrate the actuator in the audio band over long time scales, it seems we could get by with more frequency noise. Assuming we want a 1% calibration at 50-500 Hz, what is the requirement on the frequency noise PSD curve?
Koji, Gautam, Johannes
We quickly checked the situation of the projector in the control room.
- We found that the proejctor was indicating "lamp error".
==> Steve, could you remove the projector from the ceiling and check if it still does not work?
If it still does not work, send it back to the vender. It should be covered by the previous service.
- Zita seemed happy with the DVI output. We tried the dual display configration and VGA and DVI are active right now.
The DVI output (from RADEON something video card) is somewhat strange. We probably need to look into the video display situation.
We get SNR in two ways: the amplitude of applied force and the integration time. So we are limited in two ways: stability of the lock to applied forces and time of locklosses / calibration fluctuations.
At the sites, you probably know that we blow our spectrum out of the water with the calibration lines, with SNRs of about 100 on the scale of about 10 seconds. For us this might be impossible, since we aren't as quiet.
If we want 1% calibration on our sweeps, we'll need 0.01 = Uncertainty = sqrt( (1 - COH^2)/(2 * Navg * COH^2) ), where COH is the coherence of the transfer function measurement and Navg is the number of measurements at a specific frequency. This equation comes from Bendat and Piersol, and is subject to a bunch of assumptions which may not be true for us (particularly, that the plant is stationary in time).
If we let Navg = 10, then COH ~ 0.999.
Coherence = Gxy^2/(Gxx * Gyy), where x(t) and y(t) are the input signal and output signal of the transfer function measurement, Gxx and Gyy are the spectral densities of x and y, and Gxy is the cross-spectral density.
Usually SNR = P_signal / P_noise, but for us SNR = A_signal / A_noise.
Eric Q and Evan H helped me find the relationship between Coherence and SNR:
P = Pn + Pc, Pn = P * (1 - Coh), Pc = P * Coh
==> SNR = sqrt( Pc / Pn ) = sqrt( Coh / 1 - Coh )
From Coh ~ 0.999, SNR ~ 30.
This bulb was blown out on Feb 4, 2017 after 2 months of operation.
OK, but the questions still stands: "Assuming we want a 1% calibration at 50-500 Hz, what is the requirement on the frequency noise PSD curve?"
The microscope shipped back to the vendor for credit yesterday.
16 years old Lightwave NPRO M126-1064-700, sn 415 power output is tripping continously to zero.
The Lightwave Controller 125/126-OPN-POS sn516 was used in this test. Settings were lowered to close to nominal values without any success.
One can not determine what is broken: head or controller. This NPRO head was under Manasa's desk.
Property tag found.
As per Steve's request, I've checked the alignment of the IMC and the arms. These three cavities are locked and aligned.
I removed the video monitoring can and replaced it with Olympus SP-570UZ camera. It has no IR blocker. The OSEM light are dominant because I can not zoom in more.
I left the camera in place so you can try it. Leave the LEXAN plate on the glass window so no accident can happen. The illuminator is on and you can turn it off-on with the manual switch, close to the camera. Camera manual is on my desk.
The attached is the ETMY image with the single arm locked. This was the best I could do. Here is the recipe