To check the demodulation boards for REFL33 and REFL165, a long cable from ETMY (SUS-ETMY-SDCOIL-EXT monitor) is pulled to the rack on Y side.

(1) A filter just after the RF input and (2) transfer function from the RF input to the demodulated signal will be checked for the two 3f demod boards to confirm that they are appropriate for 33 and 165 MHz.

There is a LP filter just after the RF input of an demodulation board (its schematic can be found as D990511-00-C on DCC). I have checked if the 3f freq, 33MHz, can pass  this filter. The filter TF from the RF input to RF monitor (the filter is between the input and monitor) on REFL33 demo-board was measured as shown in Fig. 1. At 33MHz, the magnitude is still flat and OK, but the phase is quite steep. I am going to consider if it is ok for the PDH method or not.

 Fig. 1 Transfer function from the RF input to RF monitor on the REFL33 demodulation board. At 33MHz, a very steep phase is applied on the input signal.

The phase delay due to the RF input filter on the demodulation board will not bother the resulting PDH signals.

I quickly calculated the below question (see the blue sentence in the quote below). I applied an arbitrary phase delay (theta) due to the filter I measured, on the detected RF signal by the photo detector. Then the filtered RF signal is multiplied by cos(omega_m) then filter the higher (2 omega_m) freqency as the usual mixing operation for the PDH signal. As a result, the I signal is delayed by cos(theta) and the Q signal is delayed by sin(theta). Therefore the resulting signals and its orthogonalitity is kept ok. From the sideband point of view, theta is applied on both upper and lower and seems to make the unbalance, however, as it is like a fixed phase offset on both SBs at the modulation frequency, the resulting signals is just multiplied by cos or sin theta for I and Q, respectively. It won't make any strange effect (it is difficult to explain by sentence not using equations!).

Filters at the RF inputs of REFL33 and REFL165 demodulation boards were measured again. The filters will be totally fine for 33MHz and 165MHz.

Last time I forgot to calibrate the cable lengths, therefore the phase delay of the measurement included the cable lengths. This time the measurements were done for REFL33 and REFL165 demod board with calibration. As the cable lengths were calibrated, the shown plots (Fig.1 and Fig.2) do not include the phase delay dues to measurement cables. Please note that the x-axis is in linear. The phase delays of both boards seems to be not too steep (it will not affect anyway, as Kiwamu pointed out in his comment on the previous post). You can see that the two filters do not filter 33MHz and 165MHz component out.

Fig.1 A response of a filter which is placed just after the RF input of the demodulation board for REFL33. X-axis is shown in linear (~50MHz).

Fig.2 A response of a filter which is placed just after the RF input of the demodulation board for REFL165.

I also quickly checked the orthogonality of the demodulation board for REFL33 and REFL165 using function generators and oscilloscope. I checked the frequencies at 1,10,100,1K,10KHz of the demodulated signals. They are fine and ready for 3f signal extraction.

Wait. I am checking the whitening filters of the 33 and 165 demodulation boards.

Also, LSC-REFL33-I-IN1(IN2, OUT) and LSC-REFL165-Q-IN1(IN2,OUT) channels may not be working??

LSC-REFL33-I-IN1(IN2, OUT) and LSC-REFL165-Q-IN1(IN2,OUT) channels are back!

We disconnected and connected again the AA filters then the channels are fixed. Apparently the AA filters just before the digital world were somhow charged and not working... Thank you Kiwamu!

Whitening filters for the REFL33 & 165 demodulated channels were measured and confirmed that they are working. They can be turned on and off by un-white filter switches on the MEDM screen because they are properly linked. The measured filter responses are showen below. (Sorry, apparentyl the thumbnails are not shown here. Please click the attachments.) 

Attachments: (top) Whitening filter for REFL33 demodulation board. (bottom) Whitening filter response for REFL 165 demodulation board.

Keiko, Jamie , Kiwamu

The I and Q orthogonalities of REFL33 and 165 demodulation board were measured by "orthogonality.py"  Python package scipy were addied on Pianosa to run this code. Please note that "orthogonality.py" can be run only on Pianosa.  

The results were:

REFL165

ABS = 1.070274, PHASE = -81.802479 [deg]

if you wanna change epics values according to this result, just copy and execute the following commands

ezcawrite C1:LSC-REFL165_Q_GAIN 0.934340 && ezcawrite C1:LSC-REFL165_PHASE_D -81.802479

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

REFL33

ABS = 1.016008 , PHASE = -89.618724 [deg]

if you wanna change epics values according to this result, just copy and execute the following commands

ezcawrite C1:LSC-REFL33_Q_GAIN 0.984244 && ezcawrite C1:LSC-REFL33_PHASE_D -89.618724

Fig.1 and 2  are the resulting plots for 33 and 165 MHz demod baoards, respectively.You should look at the 3Hz in x axis, as the demodulated signal frequency was set as 3 Hz.

Fig. 1 REFL33 I and Q orthogonality at 3 Hz.

Fig. 2 REFL165 I and Q orthogonality at 3 Hz.

In addition to REFL 33 ans 165, I checked the orthogonality for the other existing three channels.

AS11

ABS = 1.025035  PHASE = -93.124929 [deg]

REFL11]

ABS = 0.920984  PHASE = -88.824691 [deg]

REFL55

ABS = 1.029985 , PHASE = -90.901123 [deg]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The demodulated signal was set as 50 Hz (for example LO 11MHz and RF 11MHz+50Hz from function generators.) These AS11, REFL11, REL55, REFL33m REFL165 are the current available channels in terms of the connection to the data system from the demodulation board. I am going to estimate the error next.

 Anamaria, Keiko

- We aligned MICH and were successfully locked MICH using AS55Q. The other mirrors were misaligned so that the other degrees of freedom didn't exist. AS55 was fed back to BS. The f2a filters on BS suspension were required to lock, because the pos feedback was unbalanced to angle degrees of freedom.

- We tried to lock PRCL next, however, because we aligned the MICH and the REFL beam paths were changed, REFL PDs didn't have the light anymore. The REFL paths were modified now, so we will try the PRCL locking next.

- We couldn't confirm REFL55 signals although we alined the REFL paths to REFL55 PD.

The demodulation phases and gains for the all existing channels, AS11, REFL11,REFL55, REFL165, and REFL33, were adjusted by the command "ezcawrite" commands. 

Scripts are: 

REFL165 ezcawrite C1:LSC-REFL165_Q_GAIN 0.934340 && ezcawrite C1:LSC-REFL165_PHASE_D -81.802479

ezcawrite C1:LSC-REFL33_Q_GAIN 0.984244 && ezcawrite C1:LSC-REFL33_PHASE_D -89.618

 New channels, POP55 and POY11 are connected to the rack and now available on the data system.

POX11 I is not working. I didn't investigate what was wrong. Please make sure when you come to need POX11.

The orthogonalities of POY11 and POP55 were measured and already adjusted. The results are below:

POY11

ABS = 0.973633 

PHASE = 92.086483 [deg]

ezcawrite C1:LSC-POY11_Q_GAIN 1.027081 && ezcawrite C1:LSC-POY11_PHASE_D 92.086483

POP55

ABS =  1.02680579

PHASE =  88.5246 [deg]

ezcawrite C1:LSC-POP55_Q_GAIN 0.973894 && ezcawrite C1:LSC-POP55_PHASE_D 88.524609

 Keiko, Paul, Kiwamu

We found that POP beam is clipped by the steering mirrors inside the tank. POY beam is also likely to be clipped inside. Also the hight of POY beam is too high (about 5 cm higher than the normal paths) at the first lens. These imply the input pointing is bad.

 Here I note the procedure for the demodulation board orthogonality check for the future reference.

1. prepare two function generators and make sure I an Q demodulation signals go to the data acquisition system.

2. sync the two generators

3. drive the function generator at the modulation frequency and connect to the LO input on the demod board

4. drive the other function generator at the modulation frequency + 50Hz  the RF in

5. run "orthogonality.py"  from a control computer scripts/demphase directory. It returns the amplitude and phase information for I and Q signals. If necessary, compensate the amplitude and phase by the command that  "orthogonality.py" returns.

If you want to check in the frequency domain (optional):

1. 2. 3 are the same as above.

4. drive the function generator at the LO frequency + sweep the frequency, for example from 1Hz to 1kHz, 50ms sweep time. You can do it by the function generator carrier frequency sweep option.

5. While sweeping the LO frequency, run "orthogonality.py"

6. The resulting plot from "orthogonality.py" will show the transfer function from the RF to demodulated signal. The data is saved in "dataout.txt" in the same directory.

 Keiko, Anamaria

We started to investigate the AM modulation mistery again. Checking just after the EOM, there are AM modulation about -45dBm. Even if we adjust the HWP just before the EOM, AM components grow up in 5 mins. This is the same situation as before. Only the difference from before is that we don't have PBS and HWP between the EOM and the monitor PD. So we have a simpler setup this time.

We will try to align the pockells cell alignment tomorrow daytime, as it may be a problem when the crystal and the beam are not well parallel. This adjustment has been done before and it didn't improve AM level at that time.

 Keiko, Anamaria, Koji

We were not able to establish the stable DRMI tonight. We could lock MICH and PRCL quite OK, and lock the three degrees of freedom at somewhere strange for several seconds quite easily, but the proper DRMI lock was not obtained.

When MICH and PRC are locked to the carrier, REFL DC PD reading dropps from ~3000 counts to 2600~2700 counts as REFL beam is absorbed to PRC. We'll try to lock PRC to sidebands - but flipping gain sign didn't work today, although it worked a few days ago. 

POP beam (monitor) is useful to align PRM.

 Modulation resonator box is removed and the modulation depth is small right now.

I have broke the BNC connector on the modulation resonator box. The connector was attached by the screw inside very loosely and when we connect and disconnect the BNC cables from outside, extra force was applied to the cable inside and it was broke. It is being fix by Kiwamu and will be back in a bit.

Resonator box and the modulations are back now. But the modulation depth seems to be a bit smaller than yesterday, looking at the optical spectrum analyser.

Keiko, Suresh

AM modulations are still there ... the mechanical design for the stages, RF cables, and connections are not good and affecting the alignment.

I write the activity in the time series this time - Because we suspect the slight EOM misalignment to the beam produces the unwanted AM sidebands, we tried to align the EOM as much as possible. First I aligned the EOM tilt aligner so that the maximum power goes through. I found that about 5% power was dumped by EOM. After adjusting the alignment, the AM modulation seemed be much better and stable, however, it came up after about 20 mins. They grew up up to about -40dBm, while the noise floor is -60 dBm (when AM is minimised, with DC power of 8V by PDA225 photodetector).

We changed the EOM stage (below the tilt aligner) from a small plate to a large plate, so that the EOM base can be more stable. The EOM stands on the pile of several black plate. There was a gap below the tilt aligner because of a small plate.  So we swapped the small plate to large plate to eliminate the springly gap. However it didn't make any difference - it is the current status and there is still AM modulations right now.

During above activities, we leaned that the main cause of the EOM misalignment may be the RF cables and the resonator box connected to the EOM. They are connected to the EOM by an SMA adaptor, not any soft cables. It is very likely applying some  torc force to the EOM box. The resonator box is almost hunging from the EOM case and just your slight touch changes EOM alinment quite a bit and AM mod becomes large. 

I will replace the SMA connector between the resonator box and EOM to be a soft cable, so that the box doesn't hung from EOM tomorrow. Also, I will measure the AM mod depth so that we compare with the PM mod depth.

I created 3 kinds of LSC matrices, PRMI condition with carrier resonant in PRC, PRMI condition with SB resonant in PRC, and DRMI with SB resonant in PRC. The matrices are with AS55 and REFL11 which are used for locking right now. The signal numbers are written in log10, and the dem phases are shown in degrees.

From CR reso PRMI to SB reso PRMI, demodulation phases change  ----

PRMI - Carrier resonant in PRC

            PRCL      MICH  SRCL

PRMI - SB resonant in PRC

DRMI - SB resonant in PRC

AM modulation depths are found to be 50 times smaller than PM modulation depths.

m(AM,f1) ~ m(AM, f2) = 0.003 while m(PM, f1)=0.17 and m(PM, f2)=0.19.

Measured values;

* DC power = 5.2V which is assumed to be 0.74mW according to the PDA255 manual.

*AM_f1 and AM_f2 power = -55.9 dBm = 2.5 * 10^(-9) W.

AM f2 power is assumed to be the similar value of f1. I can't measure f2 (55MHz) level properly because the PD (PDA255) is 50MHz bandwidth. From the (P_SB/P_CR) = (m/2) ^2 relation where P_SB and P_CR are the sideband and carrier power, respectively, I estimated the rough the AM modulation depths. Although DC power include the AM SB powers, I assumed that SB powers are enough small and the DC power can be considered as the carrier power, P_CR. The resulting modulation depth is about 0.003.

On the other hand, from the OSA, today's PM mod depths are 0.17 and 0.19 for f1 and f2, respectively. Please note that these numbers contains (small) AM sidebands components too. Comparing with the PM and AM sideband depths, AM sidebands seems to be enough small.

The signal offset due to the AM modulation is estimated by a simulation for PRCL for now. Please see the result below.

Too see how bad or good the AM modulation with 1/50 modulation depths of PM, I ran a simulation. For example I looked at PRCL sweep signal for each channel. I tried the three AM modulation depths, (1) m_AM=0 & m_PM = 0.17 (2) m_AM = 0.003 & m_PM = 0.17 which is the current modulation situation (3) m_AM = 0.17 & m_PM = 0.17 in which AM is the same modulation depth as PM.  For the current status of (2), there are offsets on signals up to 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15. I can't tell how bad it is.... Any suggestions?

(1) m_AM=0 & m_PM = 0.17. There is no offset in the signals.

(2) m_AM = 0.003 & m_PM = 0.17. There are offsets on signals up to 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15.

(3) m_AM = 0.17 & m_PM = 0.17. There are offsets on signals up to 0.1 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.2.

I will look at MICH and SRCL in the same way. 

Keiko, Anamaria

Tonight we want to measure the LSC matrix for PRMI and compare the simulation posted last night (#5495).

First. we locked MICH and PRCL, and measured the OLT to see how good the locking is. The following rough swept sine plots are the OLTs for MICH and PRCL. The gain setting was -10 and 0.5 for MICH and PRCL, respectively. Integrators were off. Looking at the measured plots, MICH has about 300 Hz UGF, when the gain is -20, and PRCL has about 300 HZ UGF, too, when the gain is 0.8.

As these lokings seemed good, so we tried the LSC matrix code written by Anamaria. However it is not working well at this point. When the script add excitations to the exc channels, they kick the optics too much and the lockings are too much disturbed...

Also, we have been trying to lock PRC with the SB resonant, it doesn't work. Looking at the simulated REFL11I (PRCL) signal (you can see it in #5495 too), the CR and SB resonances have the opposite signs... But minus gain never works for PRCL. It only excites the mirror rather than locking.

AM modulation will add offset on SRCL signal as well as PRCL signal. About 2% of the signal amplitude with the current AM level. MICH will not be affected very much.

From #5504, as for the AM modulation I checked the MICH and SRCL signals in addition to the last post for PRCL, to see the AM modulation effect on those signals. On the last post, PRCL (REFL11I) was found to have 0.002 while the maximum signal amplitude is 0.15 we use . Here, I did the same simulation for MICH and SRCL.

As a result, MICH signals are not affected very much. The AM modulation slightly changes signal slopes, but doesn't add offsets apparently. SRCL is affected more, for REFL signals. All the REFL channels get about 0.0015 offsets while the signal ampliture varies up to 0.002. AS55I (currently used for SRCL) has 1e-7 offset for 6e-6 amplitude signal (in the last figure) - which is the same offset ratio comparing with the amplitude in the PRCL case -

(1) MICH signals at AS port with AM m=0

(2) MICH signals at AS port with AM m=0.003

(3) SRCL signals at AS/REFL port with AM m=0

(3) SRCL signals at AS/REFL port with AM m=0.003

From the night day before yesterday (Sep 22nd, Thursday night. Sorry for my late update), there are more AM modulations than I measured in the previous post. It is changing a lot, indeed! Looking at the REFL11 I and Q signals on the dataviewer, the signal offset were huge, even after "LSCoffset" script. Probably the modulation index of AM was same order of PM at that time. The level of AM mod index is changing a lot depending on the EOM alingment which is not very stable, and also on the environment such as temperature .

To reduce AM modulations, here I note some suggestions you may want to try :

* Change the SAM connectors between RF resonator and EOM to be a soft but short connector, so that the resonator box doesn't hung from the EOM.

* Change the RF resonator base to be stable posts. Now several black plates are piled to make one base.

* Install a temperature shield

* Also probably you want to change the BNC connector on the RF resonator to be SMA.

* Be careful of the EOM yaw alignment. Pitch seemed to be less sensitive in producing AM than yaw alignment.

 I wrote an RAM simulation script ... it calculates the LSC signal offset and the operation point offset depending on the RAM modulation index.

Configuration : RAM is added on optC1, by the additional Mach-Zehnder ifo before the PRM.

 Both are for PRCL sweep result. Note that REFL33I is always almost zero. Next step: Check the LSC matrix with matrix at the offset operation point.

 On the right figure, you see the non-zero operation points even when RAM mod index = 0. Apparently they come from non-zero loss of the model.  (Each mirror of 50ppm loss was assumed).

GOAL : To lock the central part of ifo

Here is the plan:

Mon - assemble all the cables from PDs and mixers, and check the CDS channels. Prepare the beamsplitters.

Tue - The current paths to REFL11 and REFL55 will be modified to the four paths to REFL11, 33, 55, 165. And the PDs will be placed.
Wed, Thu - during waiting for the ifo available with vacuum, help aligning the POP, POX, POY. In parallel, a simulation to find the PRC length SRC 
length tolerance will be proceeded.

Fri - When the ifo becomes available with vacuum, the sensing signals by 3-f scheme will be obtained with proper demodulation phases.

Sat - Try to lock the central part of the ifo with the new 3-f signals.

Koji and Kevin

We unpacked the Innolight 2W laser, took an inventory, and scanned the operations manual.

[Edit by KA]

The scanned PDFs are placed on the following wiki page

http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Upgrade_09/PSL

We will measure the P-I curve, the mode profile, frequency actuator responses, and so on.

Koji and Kevin measured the output power vs injection current for the Innolight 2W laser.

The threshold current is 0.75 A.

The following data was taken with the laser crystal temperature at 25.04ºC (dial setting: 0.12).

Koji and Kevin measured the vertical beam profile of the Innolight 2W laser at one point.

This data was taken with the laser crystal temperature at 25.04°C and the injection current at 2.092A.

The distance from the razor blade to the flat black face on the front of the laser was 13.2cm.

The data was fit to the function y(x)=a*erf(sqrt(x)*(x-x0)/w)+b with the following results.

Reduced chi squared = 14.07

x0 = (1.964 +- 0.002) mm

w  = (0.216 +- 0.004) mm

a  = (3.39  +- 0.03) V

b  = (3.46  +- 0.03) V

The vertical beam profile of the Innolight 2W laser was measured at eight points along the axis of the laser.

These measurements were made with the laser crystal temperature at 25.04°C and the injection current at 2.091A. z is the distance from the razor blade to the flat black face of the front of the laser.

The voltage from a photodiode was measured for the razor at a number of heights. Except for the first two points, one scan was made with the razor moving down and a second scan was made with the razor moving up. This data was fit to

y = a*erf(sqrt(2)*(x-x₀)/w) + b with the following results:

The values for w and its uncertainty were estimated with a weighted average between the two scans for the last six points and all eight points were fit to

w = w₀*sqrt(1+(z-z₀)²/z_R²) with the following results:

chi^2/ndf = 17.88

w₀ = (0.07 ± 0.13) mm

z₀ = (-27 ± 121) mm

z_R = (65 ± 93) mm

It looks like all of the data points were made in the linear region so it is hard to estimate these parameters with reasonable uncertainty.

I tried Koji's suggestions for improving the fit to the vertical beam profile; however, I could not improve the uncertainties in the fit parameters.

I started retaking the data today with the same laser settings used last time and noticed that the photodiode was saturating. We were using an ND 4.0 neutral density filter on the photodiode. Koji and I noticed that the coating on the filter was reduced in the center and added an additional ND 0.6 filter to the photodiode. This seemed to fix the photodiode saturation.

I think that the photodiode was also saturating to a lesser extent when I took the last set of data. I will take another vertical beam profile tomorrow.

[Edit by KA: Metallic coating started being evaporated and the ND filters reduced their attenuation. We decided to use absorptive one as the first incident filter, and put a thinner one behind. This looked fine.]

I thought that the micrometer I was using to move the razor through the laser beam was metric; however, it is actually english.

After discovering this mistake, I converted my previous measurements to centimeters and fit the data to

w = sqrt(w0^2+lambda^2*(z-z0)^2/(pi*w0)^2) with the following results:

reduced chi squared = 14.94

z0 = (-4.2 ± 1.9) cm

w0 = (0.013 ± 0.001) cm

I used the Mathematica CurveFit package that we use in Ph6/7 to make the fits for the beam profile data. I wrote two functions that use CurveFit shown in the attachment to make the fits to the error function and square root.

Koji, Steve, and Kevin looked into calibrating the Wilcoxon accelerometers. Once calibrated, the accelerometers will be used to monitor the motion of the PSL table.

We want to use the shaker to shake each accelerometer and monitor the motion with an OSEM. We will make a plate to attach an accelerometer to the shaker. A flag will also be mounted on this plate.The OSEM will be mounted on the table next to the shaker and positioned so that the flag can block the LED light as the plate moves up and down. We will then measure the motion of the accelerometer as it is shaken from the OSEM signal. The OSEM signal will be calibrated by keeping the plate and the flag still and moving the OSEM down along the flag a known distance with a micrometer.

Kiwamu and Kevin measured the beam profile of the green laser by the south arm ETM.

The following measurements were made with 1.984A injection current and 39.65°C laser crystal temperature.

Two vertical scans (one up and one down) were taken with a razor blocking light entering a photodiode with the razor 7.2cm from the center of the lens. This data was fit to

b + a*erf(sqrt(2)*(x-x0)/w) with the following results:

scan down: w = (0.908 ± 0.030)mm  chi^2 = 3.8

scan up:      w = (0.853 ± 0.025)mm   chi^2 = 2.9

giving a weighted value of w = (0.876 ± 0.019)mm at this distance.

The beam widths for the profile fits were measured with the beam scanner. The widths are measured as the full width at 13.5% of the maximum. Each measurement was averaged over 100 samples. The distance is measured from the back of the lens mount to the front face of the beam scanner.

This data was fit to w = sqrt(w0^2+lambda^2*(x-x0)^2/(pi*w0)^2) with lambda = 532nm with the following results:

For the vertical beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 3.29

x0 = (-87   ± 1)    mm

w0 = (16.30 ± 0.14) µm

For the horizontal beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 2.01

x0 = (-82   ± 1)    mm

w0 = (16.12 ± 0.10) µm

Note: These fits were done with the beam diameter instead of the beam radius. The correct fits to the beam radius are here: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/2912

For the vertical beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 3.25

x0 = (-86 ± 1)mm

w0 = (46.01 ± 0.38)µm

For the horizontal beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 2.05

x0 = (-81 ± 1)mm

w0 = (45.50 ± 0.28)µm

for the vertical beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 3.28

x0 = (-87 ± 1) mm

w0 = (32.59 ± 27) µm

for the horizontal beam profile

reduced chi^2 = 2.02

x0 = (-82 ± 1) mm

w0 = (32.23 ± 20) µm

In the following plots * denotes vertical data points and + denotes horizontal data points. The blue curve is the fit to the vertical data and the purple curve is the fit to the horizontal data.

I tried to measure the beam profile of the 2W laser today but ran into problems with the ND filters. With the measurements I made a few weeks ago, I used a reflective ND 4.0 filter on the PD. The PD started to saturate and Koji and I noticed that a lot of the metallic coating on the filter had been burnt off. Koji told me to use an absorptive ND 4.0 filter in front of a reflective ND 0.6 filter. I tried this today but noticed that a few holes were being burned into the absorptive filter and that the coating on the reflective filter behind it was also being burned off in spots. I don't think we wanted to use a polarizing beam splitter to reduce the power before the PD but I didn't want to ruin any more filters.

I fit the data from the beam profile that Jenne measured on 5/21/2010. The distances are measured from halfway between MC1 and MC3 to the beam scanner. The fits give the following where w0 is the waist size and z0 is the distance from the waist to halfway between MC1 and MC3.

For the horizontal profile:

reduced chi^2 = 0.88

z0 = (1 ± 29) mm

w0 = (1.51 ± 0.01) mm

For the vertical profile:

reduced chi^2 = 0.94

z0 = (673 ± 28) mm

w0 = (1.59 ± 0.01) mm

I calculated the radius of curvature of MC2 using these values of w0:

horizontal: (16.89 ± 0.06) m

vertical:   (17.66 ± 0.07) m

For this calculation, I used the value of (13.546 ± .0005) m for the length of the mode cleaner measured on 6/10/2009. The specification for the radius of curvature of MC2 is (18.4 ± 0.1) m.

In the following plots, the blue curve is the fit to the vertical beam radius, the purple curve is the fit to the horizontal beam radius, * denotes a data point from the vertical data, and + denotes a data point from the horizontal data.

[Rana, Kiwamu, Kevin]

The Innolight 2W beam profile was measured with the beam scan. A W2-IF-1025-C-1064-45P window was used to reflect a small amount of the main beam. A 5101 VIS mirror was used to direct just the beam reflected from the front surface of the W2 down the table (the beam reflected from the back surface of the W2 hit the optic mount for the mirror). A razor blade beam dump was used to stop the main transmitted beam from the W2. The distance from the laser was measured from the front black face of the laser to the front face of the beam scan (this distance is not the beam path length but was the easiest and most accurate distance to measure). The vertical and horizontal beam widths were measured at 13.5% of the maximum intensity (each measurement was averaged over 100 samples). These widths were divided by 2 to get the vertical and horizontal radii.

The mirror was tilted so that the beam was close to parallel to the table. (The center of the beam fell by approximately 2.1 mm over the 474 mm that the measurement was made in).

The measurement was taken with an injection current of 2.004 A and a laser crystal temperature of 25.04°C.

This data was fit to w = sqrt(w0^2+lambda^2*(x-x0)^2/(pi*w0)^2) with lambda = 1064nm with the following results

For the horizontal beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 4.0

x0 = (-138 ± 3) mm


w0 = (113.0 ± 0.7) µm

For the vertical beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 14.9

x0 = (-125 ± 4) mm


w0 = (124.0 ± 1.0) µm

In the following plots, the blue curve is the fit to the vertical beam radius, the purple curve is the fit to the horizontal beam radius, * denotes a data point from the vertical data, and + denotes a data point from the horizontal data.

Koji is worried about thermal lensing introducing errors to the measurement of the 2W beam profile so I measured the profile at a lower power.

I used the same setup and methods used to measure the profile at 2W (see entry). This measurement was taken with an injection current of 1.202 A and a laser crystal temperature of 25.05° C. This corresponds to approximately 600 mW (see power measurement).

The data was fit to  w = sqrt(w0^2+lambda^2*(x-x0)^2/(pi*w0)^2) with the following results

For the horizontal beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 2.7

x0 = (-203 ± 3) mm

w0 = (151.3 ± 1.0) µm

For the vertical beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 6.8

x0 = (-223 ± 6) mm

w0 = (167.5 ± 2.2) µm

In the following plots, the blue curve is the fit to the vertical beam radius, the purple curve is the fit to the horizontal beam radius, * denotes a data point from the vertical data, and + denotes a data point from the horizontal data.

The differences between the beam radii for the low power and high power measurements are

Δw0_horizontal = (38.3 ± 1.2) µm

Δw0_vertical = (43.5 ± 2.4) µm

Thus, the two measurements are not consistent. To determine if the thermal lensing is in the laser itself or due to reflection from the W2 and mirror, we should measure the beam profile again at 2W with a razor blade just before the W2 and a photodiode to measure the intensity of the reflection off of the front surface. If this measurement is consistent with the measurement made with the beam scan, this would suggest that the thermal lensing is in the laser itself and that there are no effects due to reflection from the W2 and mirror. If the measurement is not consistent, we should do the same measurement at low power to compare with the measurement described in this entry.

[Koji, Kevin]

The profile of the Innolight 2W was previously measured by measuring the reflected beam from the front surface of a W2 window (see entry). To investigate thermal effects, Rana suggested also measuring the profile of the beam reflected from the back surface of the W2.

I used the same setup and methods as were used in the first measurement. The mirror was moved so that only the beam reflected from the back surface of the W2 was reflected from the mirror. This beam was reflected from both the front of the mirror and the back of the mirror. An extra beam dump was positioned to block the reflection from the back of the mirror.

This measurement was made with 2.004 A injection current and 25.04°C laser crystal temperature.

The data was fit to w = sqrt(w0^2+lambda^2*(x-x0)^2/(pi*w0)^2) with the following results

For the horizontal beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 5.1

x0 = (-186 ± 6) mm


w0 = (125.8 ± 1.4) µm

For the vertical beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 14.4

x0 = (-202 ± 11) mm


w0 = (132.5 ± 2.7) µm

In the following plots, the blue curve is the fit to the vertical beam radius, the purple curve is the fit to the horizontal beam radius, * denotes a data point from the vertical data, and + denotes a data point from the horizontal data.

The differences between the beam radii for the beam reflected from the front surface and the beam reflected from the back surface are

Δw0_horizontal = (12.8 ± 1.6) µm

Δw0_vertical = (8.5 ± 2.9) µm

So the two measurements are not consistent. This suggests that the passage through the W2 altered the profile of the beam.

[Koji, Kevin]

The profile of the Innolight 2W was previously measured by measuring the reflected beam from the front surface of a W2 window (see entry). To investigate thermal effects, Rana suggested also measuring the profile of the beam reflected from the back surface of the W2.

I used the same setup and methods as were used in the first measurement. The mirror was moved so that only the beam reflected from the back surface of the W2 was reflected from the mirror. This beam was reflected from both the front of the mirror and the back of the mirror. An extra beam dump was positioned to block the reflection from the back of the mirror.

This measurement was made with 2.004 A injection current and 25.04°C laser crystal temperature.

The data was fit to w = sqrt(w0^2+lambda^2*(x-x0)^2/(pi*w0)^2) with the following results

For the horizontal beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 5.1

x0 = (-186 ± 6) mm

w0 = (125.8 ± 1.4) µm

For the vertical beam profile:

reduced chi^2 = 14.4

x0 = (-202 ± 11) mm

w0 = (132.5 ± 2.7) µm

In the following plots, the blue curve is the fit to the vertical beam radius, the purple curve is the fit to the horizontal beam radius, * denotes a data point from the vertical data, and + denotes a data point from the horizontal data.

I removed some old equipment from the rack outside the control room and stacked them next to the filing cabinets in the control room. I also mounted the new Netgear switch in the rack.

[Suresh and Kevin]

We placed the quarter wave plate in front of the 2W laser and moved the half wave plate forward. To make both wave plates fit, we had to rotate one of the clamps for the laser. We optimized the angles of both wave plates so that the power in the reflection from the PBS was minimized and the transmitted power through the faraday isolator was maximized. This was done with 2.1 A injection current and 38°C crystal temperature.

Next, I will make plots of the reflected power as a function of half wave plate angle for a few different quarter wave plate rotations.

[Koji and Kevin]

We measured the reflection from the PBS as a function of half wave plate rotation for five different quarter wave plate rotations. Before the measurement we reduced the laser current to 1 A, locked the PMC, and recorded 1.1 V transmitted through the PMC. During the measurements, the beam was blocked after the faraday isolator. After the measurements, we again locked the PMC and recorded 1.2 V transmitted. The current is now 2.1 A and both the PMC and reference cavities are locked.

I will post the details of the measurement tomorrow.