For ITMX, I used the values from the conlog:

2011/08/12,20:10:12 utc 'C1:SUS[-_]ITMX[-_]INMATRIX'

These are the latest values in the conlog that aren't the basic matricies.  Even though we did a round of diagonalization in Sept, and the 
matricies are saved in a .mat file, it doesn't look like we used the ITMX matrix from that time.

For PRM, I used the matricies that were saved in InputMatricies_16Sept2011.mat, in the peakFit folder, since I couldn't find anything in the Conlog other than the basic matricies.

UPDATE:  I didn't actually count the number of oscillations until the optics were damped, so I don't have an actual number for the Q, but I feel good about the damping, after having kicked POS of both ITMX and PRM and watching the sensors.

In the last post, I showed that SRCL element in the MICH sensor (AS55I-mich) is chaned 1% due to RAM.

Here I calculated how is this 1% residual in MICH sensor (AS55 I-mich) shown in MICH sensitivity. The senario is:

(1) we assume we are canceling SRCL in MICH by feed forward first (original matrix (2,3) element).

(2) SRCL in MICH (matrix(2,3) is changed 1% due to RAM, but you keep the same feed forward with the same feedforward gain

(3) You get 1% SRCL residual motion in MICH sensor. This motion depends on how SRCL is quiet/loud. The assumed level is

Pollution level = SRCL shot noise level in SRCL sensor  x  SRCL closed loop TF  x  1% residual .... the following plot.

AS sensor = AS55I-mich  --- SN level 2.4e-11 W/rtHz ------- MICH SN level 6e-17 m/rtHz

SRCL sensor = AS55 I-SRCL --- SN level 2e-11 W/rtHz ---  SRCL SN level 5e-14 m/rtHz

 The REFL165 RF output was not reaching the Demod board.  The RF cable was disconnected.  I fixed that and then I put in a RF signal at 165MHz , 1.66 mVrms at the test input  (100Hz off set from the 165MHz LO) and saw that the 100 Hz demodulated signal was visible in the dataviewer. 

Will complete the Optical RF power -> CDS counts calibration tomorrow morning. 

This is the simulated signals to compare with the original post #6403

Kiwamu and Koji

The target is to realize DRMI or PRMI + one arm with ALS.

The focus of the night is to achive stable lock of the PRMI (SB resonant) with 3f signals.
Particularly, REFL165 is back now, we are aiming to see if any of the 165 signals is useful.

We made a comparison between  REFL33Q/REFL165Q/AS55Q to find any good source of MICH.
However, none of them showed a reasonable shape of the spectra. They don't have reasonable coherence between them.

Nonetheless, we have tried to lock the IFO with those REFL signals. But any of them were useful to keep the PRMI (SB resonant).
The only kind of stable signal for MICH was AS55Q as we could keep the PRMI locked.

These are the measurements for estimating the amplitude of the signal recorded in the CDS when a known amount of modulated light is incident on the photodiode. 

I mounted the PD characterisation setup onto a small breadboard which could then be placed close AP table.  I then placed position markers for REFL165 on the AP table before moving it onto my small breadboard.  The AM laser was driven by an RF function generator (Fluke 6061A) at a frequency of 165.98866 MHz, which is 102 Hz offset from the 165MHz LO.  The power level was set at -45dBm.  This power level was chosen since anything higher would have saturated the AntiAliasing  Whitening Filters.  The counts in the CDS were converted to voltage using the ADC resolution = 20V per 2^16 counts.

 When the 166MHz power is decreased by a factor of 2 the amplitude of 102Hz wave recorded in CDS goes down by sqrt(2) as expected.   The RF AM power incident on the REFL165 was estimated to be 0.011mW(rms)  (case #1 in the above table)  using the DC power ratio and using the transimpedance of the 1611 BBPD to be 700 Ohms.  This produces a 171 mV amplitude wave at 102 Hz.  I then stepped down the power by factor of 2 and repeated the measurement. 

(These numbers however are not agreeing with the power incident on REFL165 if we assume its transimpedance to be 12500.  It will take a bit more effort to make all the numbers agree.  Will try again tomorrow)

Here is a picture of the small black breadboard on which I have put together the PD characterisation setup.  It would be great if we can retain this portable set up as it is, since we keep reusing it every couple of weeks.  It would be convenient if we can fiber couple the path to the PD under test with a 2m long fiber.  Then we will not have to remove the PD from the optical table while testing it.

 This is totally sweet Suresh!  I don't remember how much more fiber is coiled up under the plate that has the "Jenne Laser" label, but there's a reasonable amount.  It's not 2m, but maybe we can just extend the blue snakey thing some?

 To characterize the RF V to counts we need to know the state of the whitening filter board. Was the filter on or off ? What was the value of the whitening gain slider?

The MC alignment servo wasn't great in the last 1 hour or so as it kept disturbing the MC lock. It was found to be due to some offsets in the MC trans QPD signals.

I put some values to cancel the offsets and then the lock became stable.

This is a first aid. So we need to take a closer look at the QPD signals and also probably the spot position on the QPD.

The symptom was that every time the alignment servo was engaged, at the beginning the amount of the transmitted light went to 27000 counts, which is good.

However, then the amount of the transmitted light slowly decreased in a time scale of ~ 20 sec or so, ending up with destruction of the MC lock.

According to the time scale I suspected that the servos using the trans QPD signals were doing something bad because their control width had been designed to be slow and slower than the rest of the servo loops.

I switched off the servos, called C1:IOO-TRANS_PIT and C1:IOO-TRANS_YAW and found the MC stayed locked stably with 27000 counts of the transmitted light.

Leaving the trans QPD servos off, I zeroed the offsets and then switched them on. It worked.

The values below are the current offset that I put.

                C1:IOO-MC2_TRANS_PIT_OFFSET = -0.115203
                C1:IOO-MC2_TRANS_YAW_OFFSET = -0.0323576
 

I've turned off the power of the STS-2 readout box as it provides outputs with ~10 Volts DC offset! AA filter box works in the range -2 +2 Volts, so we do not have any useful information anyway. I'll adjust the mass positions in the seismometer.

 The filter was ON and the whiterning filter gain was 45dB

Today is janitor day. It still does not explain why the 2W Innolight tripped off about an hour ago. All back to normal.

.......................................................I asked Keven later, he admitted hitting the emergency shut off next to the chemical storage cabinet.

Fred Goodbar of Konecrane has completed the annual certified crane inspection and maintenance of our cranes as required in safety document.

They are in good working condition and safe to use.

There was something wrong with the Beam Scan PC.  The  mouse and screen were not responding and the PC was asking for drivers for any new hardware that we plugged in.  We called in the services of Junaid and co. since we do not have a Win98 Second Edition installation disk in the lab.   Junaid came with the disk, we changed the screen and the mouse and installed everything. 

We tried to get the network going on the PC so that we could update stuff easily over the net.  This didnt succeed. For now, we still have to depend on a Win98se CD to get drivers if any new hardware is connected to this machine. 

For future reference, some notes:

1)  We will get a copy of Win98SE for the lab from Junaid

2) We have to use a USB mouse from Dell. We have several spares of this. The drivers for these are present in the machine. 

The Beam Scan is working okay now.  We will proceed with the beam profile measurements.  

ETMY sus damping was disabled. Green locking laser and associated electronics turned off. Computers and power supplies turned off at rack 1Y4

The electricians picking up ac power from 1Y4 manual disconnect box and installing conduit line to ISCT-ETMY east end optical table.

There will be no more daisy chaining this way. 

 The power is back on at ETMY . c1iscey has not been restarted.

Now I'm turning ac power off at ETMX for the same job to be done.

 The power was turned back on at 4pm It took some time for Suresh to restart the computers. We have damping but things are not perfect yet. Auto BURTH did not work well.

 The Laseroptik quote is here.The 2 degrees wedge cost is $40 on each optics!  See wiki

It seems that neither c1scx nor c1scy is working properly as their ADC counts are showing digital-zeros.

However the IOPs, c1gcx and c1gcy look running fine, and also the IOPs seem successfully recognizing the ADCs according to dmesg.

Also there is one more confusing fact : c1scx and c1scy are synchronizing to the timing signal somehow.

I restarted the c1scx front end model to see if this helps, but unfortunately it didn't work.

As this is not the top priority concern for now, I am leaving them as they are now with the watchgods off.

(I may try hardware rebooting them in this evening)

I tried to measure the beam profiles at the POP and POX ports as Koji mentioned in his entry (#6421).

However it turned out that the beam powers were too small to be measured with our beam scan at those ports.

So I will move on to measurements at the REFL port as Rana suggested because the laser power is much larger than that of POP and POX.

(If the data of the POP and POX beam profiles turn out to be very necessary, we will do the razor blade technique with a more sensitive photo diode)

 When Steve and I restarted the c1iscex and c1iscey computers after the power shutdown, the models within them did not start-up automatically.  I had to start them manually from a terminal in the control room. 

I also tried rebooting the FB a couple of times.  Did not make any difference.

Manually starting the c1x05, c1scy and c1x01, c1scx models (with the Burt Restore button ON) did not resolve the issue of zeros in the epics screens.  though it did re-establish timing. 

Did you guys checked if the simplant switch is set to "REAL WORLD" mode?

Edit by KI:

Bingo ! The input signals were bypassed to the simplant. I switched the simplant settings to REAL WORLD and now both end suspensions are working fine.

[Suresh / Kiwamu]

Currently the REFL beam is bypassed by additional mirrors and blocked by a razor blade dump.

Therefore the signals associated with the REFL ports (e.g. REFL11, REFLDC and etc.) are unavailable.

Just be aware of it.

[Kiwamu, Suresh]

   Today we attempted to measure the beam profile of the REFL beam under two conditions:

              (a) with PRM aligned and ITMs misaligned 

              (b) with PRM misaligned and ITMs aligned

The raw data is shown below.  In each of the above conditions we measured in both the vertical (v) and horizontal (h) directions.   The measurements in the vertical direction were better than the ones in the horizontal direction because the optics had a horizontal oscillation which gave larger errors in measurement.

Looking at the general trend of these lines it is clear that modes are not matched since the beam reflected by the PRM has a different divergence than that reflected from ITMs.  The beam is also astigmatic as the vertical and horizontal directions have different divergences.

I could find beam parameters only for the Blue line above (Profile in the vertical direction while PRM was aligned).   The fit is quite sensitive to the data points close to the waist, so we need to make better (lower St.Dev.) measurements near the AP table closer to the beam waist.  The intensity with only one ITM aligned is too low and also contributes to the errors.   The beam size is close to 6mm in the horizontal direction, this coupled with yaw oscillations give large errors in this measurement.

Here is the only reliable fit that could be obtained, which is for the prompt reflection from the PRM in the vertical direction

The fit function I used is  Beam Dia = Waist { Sqrt [ 1+  ((z + z0)/zr)^2). The fit parameters we get for this data are

z0 = 7.7 m 

Waist = 2.4 mm

zr = 6.9 m

Will make another attempt later today...

On the plus side, it was the first time I've had to do it in a while..

I have estimated how the mode profile of the PRM reflection should be, as shown in the plot blow.

A conclusion here is :

   we should be able to constrain the PRM curvature situation if measurements are precise and accurate enough with a level of less than ~ 100 um

In the calculation two cases are considered :

      (1) PRM has the correct curvature of  +122 m. This is shown as solid curves in the plot.

      (2) PRM has a wrong curvature of - 122 m (mirror is flipped) This is shown as dashed curves in the plot. 

Note:

 I have omitted the effect from the PRM thickness. Therefore PRM is dealt as just a curved reflector with RoC of +/- 122 m in the calculation.

[Suresh / Kiwamu]

 We did the 2nd round of the PRM reflection mode scan on Friday.

It seems that the PRM curvature maybe correct if we look at the vertical mode, however but the horizontal mode doesn't seem to agree with any of the expected lines.

In order to increase the reliability of the measurement, we need to confirm the beam profile of the incident beam by looking at the IP-POS beam.

Right now Suresh and Keiko are mode-scanning the IP-POS beam.

The plot below shows both the expected beam profiles (see the detail in #6444) and the actual data. 

(Discussion)

• Clipping at some optics. (Since the beam shape looked very Gaussian, the amount of the clipping could be very slight ?)
• Astigmatism at some optics. (Possibly in the telescope ?)

(Some distances)

(Some notes)

We did the following things prior to the measurement.

• Put a boost filter in the PRM_OLYAW to suppress the beam jitter below 1 Hz.
• Checked the MC WFS servo loop although it looked healthy.

For those who are interested in the actual data, I attache the actual data in zip file together with a python plot code.

The distance was set such that the 1st steering mirror (the one at the very left in the previous cartoon diagram #6445 ) in the REFL path is positioned at zero.

- - - Fitting results (chi-square fitting done by gnuplot):

All values are in unit of meter

# PRM (v) (Last tree points are excluded as the beam were clipped at the aperture of the beam scan)


w0          = 0.0015114        +/- 2.192e-05    (1.451%)
z0           = -4.46073         +/- 0.05605      (1.256%)

# PRM (h)

w0           = 0.00212796       +/- 1.287e-05    (0.6049%)
z0           = -2.53079         +/- 0.1688       (6.668%)

# ITM (v) (Last two points are excluded as the beam were clipped at the aperture of the beam scan)

w0           = 0.00190696       +/- 4.964e-05    (2.603%)
z0           = -8.09908         +/- 0.1525       (1.882%)

# ITM (h)

w0           = 0.0032539        +/- 4.602e-05    (1.414%)
z0           = -1.89484         +/- 1.524        (80.42%)

[Keiko, Suresh]

   Keiko and I measured the IPPOS beam profile.  The fit parameters  are :

The data files are attached. 

If we assume the nominal wavelength of the IR light to be 1064nm and constrain the Rayleigh length to be zr = (pi w0^2)/lambda we obtain the following fit parameters: (these are compared with the beam profile measurements of June/18/2010 available in the wiki )

* I updated the waist waist location coz because I missed-out the distance in air from the vacuum port to the optic on the IPPOS table.

Keiko, Rana, Suresh

Related to the beam profile of IPPOS today, we tried to measure the beam size at the ETMY point in order to estimate the input beam mode. We measured the beam size hitting at the suspension frame by a camera image, with two situations to see two "z" for beam profile.

(1) Input beam is slightly misaligned and the injected beam hits the end mirror frame. Assuming z=0 at the input mirror, this should be z=40m.

(2) Input beam hits the centre of the end mirror, and ITMY is slightly misaligned and the beam hits the end mirror frame after the one-round trip. Assuming z=0 at the ITM, this position should be z=120m.

The injected beam at the end point and the one round trip ligt at the end point should be the same size, if the input mode matches to the cavity mode. You can see if your injected light is good for the cavity or not. We compared and assumed the above two beam sizes by looking at the photo of the beam spot.

(1)  (2) 

 Assuming the zoom factor difference by the part below the beam (shown with allow in the photos. Arbitrary unit.), the beam in (2) is smaller than expected (roughly 40%?).

However this is a very rough estimation of the beam sizes! It is difficult to assume the beam size shown on the photos! It looks smaller only because the power of (2) is smaller than of (1). I don't think we can say anything from this rough estimation. One may be able to estimate better with CCD camera instead of this normal camera. 

The dump and some temporary mirrors were removed and now the REFL beam is available again.

I locked PRMI with REFL signals, it locked as usual.

I'd like to know what we expect for these numbers.  I've added to Kiwamu's drawing some more distances, so I can calculate the expected beam size at the IPPOS port.

I changed the ETMY CCD camera angle so that we can see the suspension frame in order to repeat the same thing as yesterday. The ETMY camera is not looking at the beam or mirror right now.

The mode looks quite terrible in the plot, but in reality it is an illusion of the plot.

The actual TEM00 content in this beam is ~99.7%

mode_coupling.pdf

Based on the above document, you can calculate power coupling between two elliptic gaussian modes.

Give the parameters of one beam as

zRy1 = pi*(2.77e-3)^2 / 1064e-9
z1y = 3.37
zRx1 = pi*(2.47e-3)^2 / 1064e-9
z1x = 4.15

Then, assume a round beam for the other.

zRx2 = zRy2 = zR
z2x = z2y = z0

Then run the optimizer to find the maximum for the quantity |C|^2

|C|^2 max: 0.9967
zR = 20.19
z0 = 3.804

I'm meditating over the mode matching from the mode cleaner to the ITMs, and I had another thought:

Have we changed the pointing of the MC significantly enough that we are no longer on the center of the MMT mirrors?  To be this significant, we would probably also have had to scoot the Faraday a bit too, since it's skinny like a straw.  It looks like our measurements of the input beam have been the following:

MC waist, 21 May 2010

After MMT2, 18 June 2010 (a few days before this, we flipped the MMT2 mount to 'perfect' the mode matching up to 99.3%, so I don't think the MMT has moved since then.)

After MMT2, 26 March 2012

There's a big o' ~2 year gap between our measurements, and we've been in and out of the vacuum a few times since then.  I'll flip through the elog, but does anyone have any memory of us moving the Faraday after June 2010?  When was the last time we made sure that we were at least close to the center of the MMT mirrors? 

It is quite likely that we touched the Faraday in Nov 2010.

In this entry http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/3874 I wrote that I removed the MCT optics in the chamber.
This is the pickoff between the IMC and the Faraday. This causes the beam shift. Therefore, the Faraday had
to be moved.

There were intensive in-chamber activities from Nov to Dec 2010. I am sure that almost everytime we went into
the chamber, we checked the spot position on the MMT mirrors as well as the TT and PZT mirrors.

Does the miscentering of the spots on the MMT mirrors cause the mode matching significantly changed?

This is wrong!  See following elog for corrected plot (and explanation)

I'm not done meditating on what's going on, but here's what I've got right now:

This is a beam profile, using the distances from the combined Kiwamu / Jenne sketch earlier today. 

0 meters along the horizontal axis is meters from the Mode Cleaner waist. (Yes, I was bad and forgot to label it.  Get over it.)

The pink and green dots to the left of the plot are the MC fitted waist measurements that we made in May 2010.

The pink and green dots in the ~center of the plot are the fitted waist measurements that Suresh and Keiko took yesterday, of the IPPOS path, so after the MMT.

The black dot is where we would like our non-astigmatic beam to be.  This is the calculated waist size of the cavity mode, using the new ~37.76m distance, after we moved the ETMs to their current positions.  The black dot indicates 3.036 mm at the ITM (averaged between the BS-ITMX and BS-ITMY distances).

The moral of the story that I'm getting from this plot:  something funny is going on.

The distances Kiwamu quoted on the sketch are very close to the ones that I used for designing and checking the MMT in the first place, which were based off of measurements using rulers etc to measure distances.  Steve said he looked at photos today, and agreed that Kiwamu's numbers looked reasonable also.

Something that we haven't done lately is measure the position of each optic from every other optic, along the beam path.  I propose we come up with a clever way to put a target on top of / next to mirrors, and then a way to hold the laser distance measure-er at an optic, so that we can go thorough systematically and measure the actual path that our beam is seeing.  Maybe this is too much work, and not worth it, but it would make me happier.  In my head, these 'fixtures' are just small pieces of cleaned aluminum, one that can sit on a mirror mount, and one which we can use to align the laser ruler to approximately the front of an optic.  Nothing fancy.

 Yup, something funny was going on.  Nic's MM code that I used, "a la mode", calls for the focal length of the optics, whereas the code that I wrote and used for ages called for the radius of curvature.  f = R/2.  Fixing that factor of 2 I get something more like:

This is obviously much better, in that the beam profile goes through (within some error) both of the measured sets of points - the MC waist measured in May 2010, and after the MMT measured yesterday.

So, what does it all mean?  That I'm not sure of yet.

 In an attempt to estimate the errors on the fit parameters I upgraded my Mathematica code to use the function 'NonlinearModelFit', which allows us to define weights and also reports the errors on the fit parameters.   The plots have been upgraded to show the error bars and residuals.

The parameters determined are given below and compared to the earlier measurements of 06/18/2010

Vertical Profile:

Horizontal Profile:

There is a significant change in the beam waist location (as compared to previous report) because I corrected a mistake in the sign convention that I was using in measuring the distances to the waist from the zero-reference.
 

As I was a little dissatisfied with the inaccuracy in the distance numbers in Kiwamu's sketch, I went back to the 18 Dec 2010 table layout drawing for more accurate numbers.  These are now included in this round of plots.

Also, I include astigmatism due to the incident angles on MMT1 (~3.5 deg) and MMT2 (~1 deg).

First plot, IPPOS path, using the recent (fixed) measurements from Suresh to fix the beam width.  Note that the old 2010 measurements of the MC waist are consistent with this measurement.

Second plot, Main IFO path all the way to the ITM (average) position, using the 2010 MC waist measurements to fix the beam width.

Third plot, Main IFO path all the way to the ITM position, but with PRM flipped (negative RoC), using the 2010 MC measurement to fix beam width.

With the PRM correctly oriented (2nd plot), I get beam waists of (x = 2.529 mm, y = 2.646 mm), which corresponds to a mode matching to the arm cavity of (eta = 97.43%, PRM correct).

With the PRM flipped (3rd plot), I get beam waists of (x = 3.176 mm, y = 3.3 mm), which corresponds to a mode matching to the arm cavity of (eta = 99.55%, PRM flipped).

First plot:

Second plot (this is how the MMT was designed to be, before the ETMs were moved, which made the ideal waist larger):

Third plot:

For both the 2nd and 3rd plot, we can't look at the post-MMT waist measurements, since that distance on the plots is after the PRM, which is a curved optic.  So the fact that the post-MMT measurements match the correct-PRM plot better than the flipped-PRM plot can't be taken to be meaningful.

Moral of the story:  I'm not sure how to interpret any of this to tell us if the PRM is flipped or not, since the measurements are all of the beam profile before the beam sees the PRM.  We'd have to measure the profile after the PRM somehow in order to get that information.  We have okay but not great mode matching to the arm if the PRM is correct, but I don't know that we readjusted the MMT after we moved the ETMs.  I don't remember recalculating any optimal telescope lengths after the arm length change.  If we need better mode matching, I can do that calculation, although given how much space we don't have, it would be hard in practice to move the MMT mirrors by much at all.

More calculations....

Game Plan:  Using MC waist measured beam as the starting point of beam propagation, move MMT mirrors around until the beam profile fits with the IPPOS measurements from Monday.

Plot 1:  Allow MMT mirrors to move as much as they want to.  Note that the Y-beam goes through the IPPOS measured point. (This implies we put the MMT in the wrong place by ~half a meter.  Unlikely)

Plot 2: Using MMT locations from plot 1, what does the beam look like at the ITMs? 

Plot 3:  Allow MMT mirrors to move as much as 2cm.  Note that the Y-beam doesn't quite go through IPPOS measured point.

Plot 4: Using MMT locations from plot 3, what does the beam look like at the ITMs?

For all of the above, I was optimizing the propagation of the Y-beam profile.  Since the X-beam profile measurement is so different, if I want to optimize to X and let the MMT mirrors move as much as they want, MMT1 ends up inside the MC.  Unlikely.  So I'm just looking at Y for now, and maybe Suresh or someone needs to rethink the error bars on their measurements or just remeasure.

Plot 1:

Plot 2:

Plot 3:

Plot 4:

I fitzed by hand with the numbers for the incident angles on MMT1 and MMT2, and then let the code optimize the position of MMT1 and MMT2.

Here I have set the incident angle for MMT1 = 25deg, and MMT2 = 12deg (should be 3.5deg, 1deg by design).  The length of the telescope doesn't want to change by more than 7mm, but the position of the telescope wants to change by 1.3meters.  Is it possible that the distances on the Monday IPPOS measurements aren't actually correct?

Yesterday I and Kiwamu connected two amplifiers (mini-circuit, ZFL-1000LNB+) for POP22/110. Dataviewer can see some signals. I'll test the signal levels and freq components before the rack just in case. [Kiwamu, Keiko]

Adding two amplifiers on POP22/110, I checked the signals going to the dmod board of 22 and 110.

The signal flows: Photodetector of POP --> Amp1 --> Amp2 --> RF splotter --> bandpass filter for 22MHz / 110MHz --> 22MHz / 110MHz demod board.

 Here is the picture of RF spectrum just after the bandpass filter of 22MHz going to the 22MHz demod board. The signal peak at 22MHz is about -40dBm. There is a structure slightly lower than 22MHz.

The below is the RF spectrum for 110MHz branch. The peak at 110MHz is about -15dBm. The peak on the left of 110MHz is 66MHz peak.

Bob cleaned all safety glasses in 10 % Liquinox soap in water solution first.  The  transmittance of glasses were checked at 100 mW 1064 nm S polarization, beam diameter  0.5 mm at 0-20 deg incident.

Coherent FieldMate power meter measured T= < 1 mW of all glasses.

 Completed with the exception of d and g

I was trying to make the DRMI lock more robust.

Increasing the gains of the oplev on SRM helped a lot, but the lock is still not solid enough for measurements.

According to some line injection tests, the SRCL and MICH signals show up in AS55Q with almost the same amplitudes.

I tried to diagonalize the input matrix (particularly MICH-SRCL in AS55) based on the result of the line injection tests, but I ran out the time.

Work continues.

 Conclusion: There is no need to silver plate the SS plunger at the torque level we hold the OSEMs

Mike Gerfen will be done with 50 pieces by April 4 and he will give them to Bob for cleaning. They should be cleaned and baked in a jig so the springs would be compressed for better venting.

 The CIT Chemistry Glass Shop cuts turned out to be sloppy using diamond disc blade  cutter.

East coast Precision Glass & Optics  offered scribed cut and polished side. Their quote price was high and time consuming.

The GLASS HOUSE  shop in Pasadena 626 / 796-9151 on Walnut did a good and cheap job. Oscar the cutter will finish the rest of the cutting by next Friday, April 6

He used scribed cutting technic and his 1" x  0.5"  pieces are good. Bob will pick up them up.