Zach and Koji,
MC1H = -0.12mm
MC1V = -0.13mm
MC2H = -0.15mm
MC2V = +0.14mm
MC3H = -0.14mm
MC3V = -0.11mm
MC1H = -0.12mm
MC2H = -0.15mm
MC2V = +0.14mm
MC3H = -0.14mm
MC3V = -0.11mm
The aperture right before the vacuum window has been adjusted to the beam position. This will ensure that any misalignment on the PSL table can have the correct angle to the mode cleaner as far as it does resonate to the cavity. (This is effectively true as the small angle change produces the large displacement on the PSL table.)
If we put an aperture at the reflection, it will be perfect.
Now we can remove the MZ setup and realign the beam to the mode cleaner!
- The beam axis rotation has been adjusted by the method that was used yesterday.
Differential: SM2Y and IM1Y
Common: SM2Y only
- We developped scripts to shift the MC2 spot without degrading the alignment.
These scripts must be upgraded to the slow servo by the SURF students.
- These are the record of the alignment and the actuator balances
C1:SUS-MC1_PIT_COMM = 2.4005
C1:SUS-MC1_YAW_COMM = -4.6246
C1:SUS-MC2_PIT_COMM = 3.4603
C1:SUS-MC2_YAW_COMM = -1.302
C1:SUS-MC3_PIT_COMM = -0.8094
C1:SUS-MC3_YAW_COMM = -6.7545
C1:SUS-MC1_ULPIT_GAIN = 0.989187
C1:SUS-MC1_ULYAW_GAIN = 0.987766
C1:SUS-MC2_ULPIT_GAIN = 0.985762
C1:SUS-MC2_ULYAW_GAIN = 1.01311
C1:SUS-MC3_ULPIT_GAIN = 0.986771
C1:SUS-MC3_ULYAW_GAIN = 0.990253
As per Steve's request I checked the MC incident power as a function of time.
The output is negative: the lower voltage, the higher power.
Before I put the attenuator the incident power was 1.1W. It appear as -5V.
Now the output is -0.1V. This corresponds to 22mW.
After the MZ-removal work:
- I found that the input steering (IM1) was right handed. This was different from the CAD layout. This was the main reason why the MC trans was kicked by the mount.
- Removed the mount from the post and converted it to a keft handed.
- Align IM1 so that we can get TEM00 lock. Align IM1 further.
- After the IM1 was optimized for the TEM00, move the periscope mirrors to have best alignment.
- Checked the beam spot positions. They looks quite good (MC2 is not the matter now).
C1:SUS-MC1_ULPIT_GAIN = 0.998053
C1:SUS-MC1_ULYAW_GAIN = 0.992942
C1:SUS-MC2_ULPIT_GAIN = 1.00856
C1:SUS-MC2_ULYAW_GAIN = 1.04443
C1:SUS-MC3_ULPIT_GAIN = 0.99868
C1:SUS-MC3_ULYAW_GAIN = 1.00041
This IPC stuff looks really a nice improvement of CDS.
Please just maintain the wiki updated so that we can keep the latest procedures and scripts to build the models.
So I finished writing a script which takes an .ipc file (the one which defines channel names and numbers for use with the RCG code generator), parses it, checks for duplicate channel names and ipcNums, and then parses and .mdl file looking for channel names, and outputs a new .ipc file with all the new channels added (without modifying existing channels).
The script is written in python, and for the moment can be found in /home/controls/advLigoRTS/src/epics/simLink/parse_mdl.py
I still need to add all the nice command line interface stuff, but the basic core works. And already found an error in my previous .ipc file, where I used the channel number 21 twice, apparently.
Right now its hard coded to read in C1.ipc and spy.mdl, and outputs to H1.ipc, but I should have that fixed tonight.
Hey, what a quick work!
1) The radius of the beam was measured by the razor blade.
2) The diameter of the beam (13.5% full-width) at each point was measured by Beam Scan. The one at z=~7cm was consistent with 1)
3) The data 2) was fitted by a function w = sqrt(w0^2+lambda^2*(x-x0)^2/(pi*w0)^2). This is defined for the radius, isn't it?
So the fitting must be recalculated with correct radius.
Make sure that you always use radius and write with a explicit word "radius" in the record.
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
Strange. I thought the new result became twice of the first result. i.e. w0=32um or so.
Can you explain why the waist raidus is estimated to be three times of the last one?
Can you explain why the measured radius @~70mm is not 0.8mm, which you told us last time,
but is 0.6mm?
The measurements have been done at the outside of the Rayleigh range.
This means that the waist size is derived from the divergence angle
theta = lambda / (pi w0)
At the beginning you used diameter instead of radius. This means you used twice larger theta to determine w0.
So if that mistake is corrected, the result for w0 should be just twice of the previous wrong fit.
reduced chi^2 = 3.25
x0 = (-86 ± 1)mm
w0 = (46.01 ± 0.38)µm
reduced chi^2 = 2.05
x0 = (-81 ± 1)mm
w0 = (45.50 ± 0.28)µm
I could not understand this operation. Can you explain this a bit more?
It sounds different from the standard procedure to adjust the Faraday:
1) Get Max transmittion by rotating PBS_in and PBS_out.
2) Flip the Faraday 180 deg i.e. put the beam from the output port.
3) Rotate PBS_in to have the best isolation.
* To get a good isolation with the Faraday we at first rotated the polarization of the incident beam so to have a minimum transmission. And then we rotated the output polarizer until the transmission reaches a minimum. Eventually we got the transmission of less than 1mW, so now the Faraday should be working regardless of the polarization angle of the incident beam. As we predicted, the output polaerizer seems to be rotated 45 deg from that of the input.
Zach and Koji
The old small MMT was removed and wrapped by Al foils.
The steering mirror IM2-IM4 were displaced and aligned.
The Faraday isolator block is moved and aligned.
The MC is realigned and resonatng TEM-00.
Now the MC has slightly miscentered beam on the mirrors owing to change of the stack leveling.
OSEMs are also in a strange state. We should check this later.
??? I still don't understand. What principle are you rely on?
I could not understand why you rotated the HWP to the "minimum" transmission
and then minimized the transmission by rotating the output PBS. What is optimized by this action?
Probably there is some hidden assumption which I still don't understand.
Something like: Better transmission gives best isolation, PBS has some leakage transmission
of the S-pol light, and so on.
Tell me what is the principle otherwise I don't accept that this adjustment is "to get a good isolation with the Faraday".
P.S. you could flip the faraday without removing it from the V-shaped mount. This does not roll the Faraday.
The procedure you wrote down as a standard is right. I explain reasons why we didn't do such way.
For our situation, we can rotate the polarization angle of the incident beam by using a HWP in front of the Faraday.
This means we don't have to pay attention about the PBS_in because the rotation of either PBS_in or the HWP causes the same effect (i.e. variable transmission ). This is why we didn't carefully check the PBS_in, but did carefully with the HWP.
Normally we should take a maximum transmission according to a instruction paper from OFR, but we figured out it was difficult to find a maximum point. In fact looking at the change of the power with such big incident (~1W) was too hard to track, it only can change 4th significant digit ( corresponds to 1mW accuracy for high power incident ) in the monitor of the Ophir power meter. So we decided to go to a minimum point instead a maximum point, and around a minmum point we could resolve the power with accuracy of less than 1mW.
After obtaining the minimum by rotating the HWP, we adjusted the angle of PBS_out to have a minimum transmission.
And then we was going to flip the Faraday 180 deg for fine tuning, but we didn't. We found that once we remove the Faraday from the mount, the role angle of the Faraday is going to be screwed up because the mount can not control the role angle of the Faraday. This is why we didn't flip it.
Thanks Zach.This was a great job.
It was not mentioned but: was the Faraday clamped down on the table?
Fixing at the next time is absolutely OK.
Ah... no, I didn't. That explains why there were loose dogclamps on the table. I wrapped them in foil and put them on the clean cart. Can this wait until the next time we open the tank (i.e. to measure the beam profile), or should I go over there and clamp it down today?
Don't make a short cut. The beam size at a single place does not tell you anything.
Measure the mode of of the beam at multiple points. Calculate the mode matching ratio.
Align the mirrors precisely. Try to see the DC fringe. Predict the size of the DC fringe.
Test the demodulation system with a function generator. Find the 200kHz signal using the spectrum analyzer to find the signal and the optimal alignment.
Put the DC signal and the AC signal to the oscilloscope as X&Y.
Let me remind you how to lock and align the IMC
1. Open the doors for the IMC/OMC chambers. Open the manual shutter of the PSL just in front of the optical window
2. Run scripts/MC/mcloopson
3. Set the MC length path gain 0.3 / Set the MC total gain "+20"
4. If you want to avoid excitation of the mirrors by air turbulence, put a big plastic film and put three posters on the top and both the sides on the floor to block the wind go into the chamber.
To shut down
1. Run scripts/MC/mcloopsoff
2. Close the manual shutter, Remove the wind blockers, and the light door of the chambers
To align the MC
1. Tweak MC2 and MC3 to get maximum transmittion and/or minimum reflection.
OK. Don't worry. This is just an initial confusion which we also had for the suspensions a while ago.
The faraday must be clamped. It shakes the table terribly but it is fine. The leveling may change a bit but should be small enough. Otherwise, just tweak the weights. In fact, the faraday has enough large apertures and we hope we don't need to move it again, as far as the MC incident beam is not moved. But if necessary, we don't move the mirrors but move the faraday itself.
Usually the alignment of the MC is taken by MC2/MC3 such that we don't move the refl. But if you think what have moved is the MC1/MC3 (i.e. activity in the IMC chamber), take the alignment of the MC1/MC3.
It is just a matter of time to get TEM00. If you get TEM11, it is already close. If you align for TEM11, it is enough aligned to lock TEM10 or TEM01. Once you got better mode, align for it again. Eventually you will get TEM00.
The leveling may change by moving the optics and the weight again. But once the leveling is recovered by arranging the weights somewhere else,
the pointing must be fine again. If necessary, You can remove two optics for squeezing injection (strange motorized rotating mirror and a mount sticking out from the table to south.)
Yes, we need to move the PZT mirror. For the connection, only Steve can give us the right way to do it. If it is too much hussle, just move only the mirror and ignore the wiring for now.
I will update how the mirrors should be migrated from the table to the table.
Here is the upadted list http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu:8000/40m/Upgrade_09/Optics
I will update how the mirrors should be migrated from the table to the table.
Good! What was the key?
The MC2 spot looks very high, but don't believe the TV image. Believe the result of script/A2L/A2L_MC2. What you are looking at is the comparison of the spot at the front surface and the OSEMs behind the mirror.
We opened up the MC chambers again, and successfully got the MC locked today! Hooray! This meant that we could start doing other stuff....
First, we clamped the Faraday. I used the dog clamps that Zach left wrapped in foil on the clean cart. I checked with a card, and we were still getting the 00 mode through, and I couldn't see any clipping. 2 thumbs up to that.
Then we removed the weight that was on the OMC table, in the way of where MMT2 needs to go. We checked the alignment of the MC, and it still locks on TEM00, but the spot looks pretty high on MC2 (looking at the TV view). We're going to have to relevel the table when we've got the MMT2 optic in the correct place.
We were going to start moving the PZT steering mirror from the BS table to the IOO table, place MMT2 on the OMC table, and put in a flat mirror on the BS table to get the beam out to the BS oplev table, but Steve kicked us out of the chambers because the particle count got crazy high. It was ~25,000 which is way too high to be working in the chambers (according to Steve). So we closed up for the day, and we'll carry on tomorrow.
Photos of the weight before we removed it from the OMC table, and a few pictures of the PZT connectors are on Picasa.
1. Give us the designed arm length. What is the criteria?
2. The arm lengths got shorter as the ITMs had to shift to the end. To make them longer is difficult. Try possible shorter length.
Very nice as usual. Can you add the curve to show the ideal mode of the MC on the profile plot?
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
z0 = (1
w0 = (1.51 ± 0.01) mm
w0 = (1.51
For the vertical profile:
reduced chi^2 = 0.94
z0 = (673 ± 28) mm
z0 = (
w0 = (1.59 ± 0.01) mm
w0 = (1.59
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.
That's true. But I thought that you measured the mode after those optics and the effect of them is already included.
Rana pointed out that the anticipated mode calculation should be modified to include the index of refraction of the crystals in the Faraday, and the polarizers in the Faraday. This may affect where we should put MMT1, and so this should be completed before round 2 measurements are taken, so that we can move MMT1.
Congratulation! Probably you are right, but I could not get this is a real lock or something else.
1) How much was the fringe amplitude (DC) of the reflected beam? (Vref_max=XXX [V] and Vref_min=YYY [V])
Does this agree with the expectation?
2) Do you have the time series? (V_ref and V_error)
I guess I succeeded in locking of the cavity with the green beam
Strictly speaking, the laser frequency of the end NPRO is locked to the 40 meter arm cavity.
Pictures, some more quantitative numbers and some plots are going to be posted later.
After the alignment of the cavity I could see DC fringes in its reflection. Also I could see the cavity flashing on the monitor of ETMY_CCD.
I drove the pzt of the NPRO with f=200kHz, and then the spectrum analyzer showed 200kHz beat note in the reflection signal. This means it's ready to PDH technique.
And then I made a servo loop with two SR560s, one for a filter and the other for a sum amp.
After playing with the value of the gain and the sign of the feedback signal, the laser successfully got lock.
To make sure it is really locked, I measured the open loop transfer function of the PDH servo while it stayed locked. The result is shown in the attached figure.
The measured data almost agrees with the expected curve below 1kHz, so I conclude it is really locked.
However the plot looks very noisy because I could not inject a big excitation signal into the loop. If I put a big excitation, the servo was unlocked.
The current servo is obviously too naive and it only has f-1 shape, so the filter should be replaced by a dedicated PDH box as we planed.
Hm... You touched the optics between the MC and the Faraday... This will lead us to the painful work.
I am afraid that the beam is already walking off from the center of MC1/MC3 after the work on the PSL table.
This may result in the shift of the spot on those MC mirrors. So I recommend that:
- Lock the cavity
- Check the A2L for MC1/3
- Adjust it by the periscope
- If it is fine, adjust the optics after the MC (steering, Faraday, etc)
Off-centering of the MC2 spot is no problem. We can move it easily using Zach's scripts.
Tell me when the work is planed on Sunday as I might be able to join the work if it is in the evening.
[Alberto, Kiwamu, Kevin, Rana]
Today we tried to measured the beam shape after the MC MMT1 that Jenne installed on the BS table.
The beam scan showed a clipped spot. We tracked it down to the Farady and the MCT pickoff mirror.
The beam was getting clipped at the exit of the Faraday. But it was also clipping the edge of the MCT pick-off mirror. I moved the mirror.
Also the beam looked off-center on MC2.
We're coming back on Sunday to keep working on this.
Now things are bad.
Remember that you only can introduce the axis translations from the PSL table.
It is quite difficult to adjust the axis rotation.
The calibration factor from A2L results to the beam position is dx = (A2L_result - 1) *10.8mm
If I believer the result below, the spot positions on the mirrors are
MC1 Pitch -1.1mm
MC1 Yaw -0.20mm
MC3 Pitch -1.5mm
MC3 Yaw +0.35mm
This means that the beam is 1.3mm too high and 0.28mm too much in north
This corresponds to tilting SM2 by
0.33mrad in pitch (23deg in CW)
0.10mrad in yaw (7deg in CW).
C1:SUS-MC1_ULPIT_GAIN = 0.900445
C1:SUS-MC1_ULYAW_GAIN = 0.981212
C1:SUS-MC3_ULPIT_GAIN = 0.86398
C1:SUS-MC3_ULYAW_GAIN = 1.03221
C1:SUS-MC1_ULPIT_GAIN = 0.900445
C1:SUS-MC1_ULYAW_GAIN = 0.981212
C1:SUS-MC3_ULPIT_GAIN = 0.86398
C1:SUS-MC3_ULYAW_GAIN = 1.03221
I checked the effect of the arm length to the reflectance of the f2(=5*f1) sidebands.
Conclusion: If we choose L_arm = 38.4 [m], it looks sufficiently being away from the resonance
We may want to incorporate small change of the recycling cavity lengths so that we can compensate the phase deviation from -180deg.
f1 of 11.065399MHz is assumed. The carrier is assumed to be locked at the resonance.
Attachment 1: (Left) Amplitude reflectance of the arm cavity at f2 a a function of L_arm. (Right) Phase
Horizontal axis: Arm length in meter, Vertical Magnitude and Phase of the reflectance
At L=37.93 [m], f2 sidebands become resonant to the arm cavity. Otherwise, the beam will not be resonant.
Attachment 2: close-up at around 5 f1 frequency.
The phase deviation from the true anti resonance is ~0.7deg. This can be compensated by both PRC and SRC lengths.
The alarm had kept crying. I reduced the LOW to be 0.90 and the LOLO to be 0.85 both in psl.db and with ezcawrite.
We changed the HIGH/LOW values of the PMC_TRANS.
The edited file was updated on the svn.
Since the PMC_TRANSPD was replaced behind the pzt mirror (see the entry), its nominal value were reduced to something like ~1V from the previous value of ~2V.
In the medm screen C1PSL_PMC.adl the PMC_TRAN always indicated red because the value were low compared with the previous one.
We went to /cvs/cds/caltech/target/c1psl, then edited psl.db
- Here are the new parameters we set up in the file.
- - - -
These values are based on ~4days trend of the PMC_TRAN.
Then we manually updated those numbers by using ezcawrite in order not to reboot C1PSL.
So now it nicely indicates green in the medm screen.
Just note that MMT1 has RoC of -5m (negative!). This means that it is a lens with f=-2.5 m,
This is what I already told to Kevin and Rana:
A direct output beam is one of the most difficult measurements for the mode profiling.
I worried about the thermal lensing.
Since most of the laser power goes through the substrate (BK7) of the W2 window, it may induce thermal deformation on the mirror surface.
An UV fused silica window may save the effect as the thermal expansion coefficient is 0.55e-6/K while BK7 has 7.5e-6.
In addition to the thermal deformation issue, the pick-off setup disables us to measure the beam widths near the laser aperture.
I rather prefer to persist on the razor blade then use the pick off between the blade and the PD.
I also confess that the description above came only from my knowledge, and not from any scientific confirmation including any calculation.
If we can confirm the evidence (or no evidence) of the lensing, it is a great addition to my experience.
[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
reduced chi^2 = 4.0
x0 = (-138 ± 3) mm
w0 = (113.0 ± 0.7) µm
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.
Last night we stopped the air conditioning. It made HDTEMP increase.
Later we restored them and the temperature slowly recovered. I don't know why the recovery was so slow.
Is the cooling line clogged? The chiller temp is 21C See 1 and 20 days plots
I could not dare to share my google doc with this site...
BTW, latex launched this new thing for writing pdfs. doesnot require any installations. check http://docs.latexlab.org
A thermal feedback was installed to the end PDH locking and it works well. There are no saturations
As I said the feedback signal was sometimes saturated at the sum-amp because the drive signal going to the laser PZT was large at low frequency (below 1Hz).
So I made a passive low pass filter which filters the signal controlling the temperature of the laser crystal, and put it before the temperature drive input.
Now the amount of the feedback signal got reduced when it is locked, and there are no saturations. It's very good.
All SURFs (and all others as always) are supposed to post the update of your status on the elog.
In fact, I already heard that Sharmila had been working on the serial connection to TC-200 and made some results. All of us like to hear the story.
You should have been in my lecture yesterday!
Power in the cavity is not a good index (=error signal) to judge the optimal length.
You should look at the phases of the length signals. (i.e. demodulation phase which gives you the maximum amplitude for CARM, PRC, SRC, etc)
You must move the SRC and PRC lengths at the same time.
The resonance of f1 (mostly) depends on the PRC length, but that of f2 depends on both the PRC and SRC lengths.
Kiwamu and Koji
We have visited GariLynn's lab to make a calibration of the metrology interferometer.
The newly calibrated value is
RoC(SRMU01) = 153.3+/- 1.6 [m]
This is to be compared with the specification of 142m +/- 5m
Although the calibration deviation from the previous value was found to be 1.3%, it is far from explaining the curvature difference between the spec (142m) and the measured value.
The previous measurements of the SRM curvatures showed larger RoCs by ~10% compared with the spec.
It can be caused by the mis-calibration of the pixel size of the CCD in the metrology interferometer.
In order to confirm the calibration value, an object with known dimension should be measured by the instrument.
We've got a flat blank optic from "Advanced Thin Film" together with a metalic ring.
The ring has been attached on the blank optic with 3 fragments of a double sided tape.
The RoC of SRMU1 was also measured in order to obtain "the radius of curvature of the day".
The calibration process is as follows:
Because of the calibration error, we measured too long RoC. The same day, we measured the curvature of SRMU01 as 155.26 m.
The newly calibrated value is
RoC(SRMU01) = 153.3+/- 1.6 [m]
This is the value to be compared with the specification of 142m +/- 5m
Were these magnets chipped before the Ni plating?
RA: Yes, it looks like this is the case. We also smashed some of the magnets against a metal surface and saw that a black grime was left. We should hold the magnets with a clean teflon clamp to measure the Gauss. Then we have to wipe the magnets before installing. I share Jenne's concern about the press-fit damaging the plating and so we need to consider using using glue or the ole magnetic attachment method. We should not rely on the structural integrity of the magnets at all.
1. In terms of the AOM:
How much beam power is incident on the AOM? How much is the deflection efficiency?
i.e. How much is the power lost by the crystal, deflected in the 1st order, and remaining in the oth order?
I am curious because I assume the AOM (which vender?) is designed for 1064nm and the setup uses 632nm.
2. In terms of the EOM:
How much sidebands do you expect to have?
I assume the EOM is designed for 1064nm, the only difference is the coating at the end. Is this right?
How much beating strength do you expect?
Is your beating level as expected?
How much is the contrast between the PM sideband and the frequency shifted carrier?
This must include the consideration on the presence of the carrier and the other sidebands.
We've set up a preliminary test bed for the phase camera. It simply uses a HeNe that is split into two beams. One is frequency shifted by an AOM by -40 MHz - df, where df is some acoustic frequency. The second beam is transmitted through a 40MHz EOM to get sidebands. The two beams are recombined and are, currently, incident on a photodetector, but this can be replaced by the phasecamera.
We turned everything on with df = 1kHz and confirmed that a 1kHz signal is visible on the output from the photodetector (PD). The signal looks to be about 1:300 of the DC level from the PD.
FSS SLOWDC slider is at around 0.
Please someone relock this at ~-4.0 to exploit some last juice of the fruit.
See this entry for the details of the operating point.
The insects and the laser trouble... Strange coincidences with LHO surprised me, but now I have been relieved.
[Steve, Kiwamu, Jenne]
The 40m is now back in Laser Hazard mode. Safety glasses are required for entry into the LVEA / IFO room.
How do you calibrate this to Hz/rtHz?
I measured the RC transmitted light signals here at the 40m. I made all connections through the PSL patch panel. No optics/PD were touched.
I measured the spectral density of the signal of the transmitted beam behind RefCav in both time and frequency domain.
This will be compared with the result from PSL lab later, so I can see how stable the signal should be.
We re-aligned the beam into the cavity (the DC level increased from 2 V to 3.83V)
and the reflected beam to the center of the RFPD.
Hmm. I expect that you will put more details of the work tomorrow.
i.e. motivation, method, result (the previous entry is only this),
and some discussiona with how to do next.
Nancy and Koji:
This is what I and Koji measured after aligning the MC in the afternoon.
MC_Trans 4.595 (avg)
MC_Refl 0.203 (avg)
power = 1.34mW
13.5% width : x=6747.8 +- 20.7 um , y = 6699.4+- 20.7 um
I have resurrected the MC WFS on Friday night.
I have uncommented the WFS part of the MC autolocker.
The WFS total gain was empirically set to 0.1 such that the loops have no instability.
The loops somewhat worked through the weekend although they seemed to have the drift of the operating points
in accordance with the WFS spot.
Jenne and Koji
We tweaked the alignment of the TT mirror.
First we put a G&H mirror, but the mirror was misaligned and touching the ECD as the magnet was too heavy. We tried to move the wires towards the magnet by 1mm.
It was not enough but once we moved the clamps towards the magnet, we got the range to adjust the pitching back and forth.
We tried to align it by the feaher touch to the clamp, we could not get close to the precision of 10mrad as the final tightening of the clamp screws did change the alignment.
We will try to adjust the fine alignment tomorrow again.
The damping in pitch, yaw and longitudinal looks quite good. We will also try to characterize the damping of the suspension using a simple oplev setup.
Tell me whether it is correct or not. Otherwise I won't be able to sleep tonight.
According to these results, these would be the proposed adjustements to the cavity lengths:
dl(PRC) = -0.0266 m; dl(SRC) = 0.612 m
- The vacuum chambers have been vented.
- The north heavy door of the BS chamber has been opened by Genie (not by the crane).
It was replaced by the light door. The door is currently closed.
- The MC has been locked with 20mW incident and aligned. MC REFL was left unchanged but lock was able to be achieved.
- The optics before MCT CCD and MCT QPD have been adjusted for the low power operation.
- The first HWP for the variable optical attanuator (HWP/PBS/HWP pair) was set to be 86deg from the maximum transmission at 126deg.
The incident power of 19mW has been measured.
- The PSL mechanical shutter has been manually opened. Two other beam blocks has been removed.
- I found the MC was totaly misaligned with no resonance.- I tried to align it based on the previous OSEM values but in vain.
• How to align the MC mirrors from the scratch
- MC1 has been aligned so as to maximize REFL PD and DC signal of WFS QPDs.
- MC3 has been aligned by looking at the scattered light on the MC2 frames. The spot is centered on the MC2 approximately.
- MC2 has been aligned so that any resonance is seen in MC_F.
• Modification of the MCT optics
- The ND filter before the MCT was removed.
- The Y1-45S mirror before the MCT CCD, which is also used to steer the beam to the MCT QPD path, was replaced to BS1-50-45P.
The reason I used 45P is to obtain higher reflectivity. Because S has higher reflectivity than P in the each layer, I expected to have higher reflectivity for S than 50%.
- The MC REFL path has not been untouched.
• Modification of the servo
- The lock was attempted after alignment of the mirrors. Here how to lock the MC is described below.
1. Run script/MC/mcloopson
2. Open the MC Servo screen in MEDM
3. Change the input gain from 6dB to 22dB.
Change offset from 0.78 to -0.464 (such that the length output has no offset).
Change VCO Gain from 3dB to 21dB
Change MC Length path Gain from 0.3 to 1.6
Jenne made the 40m tour for the annual visit of 30-40 students.
Tour 2009 http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/1717
Tour 2008 http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/737
29 Thu BS chamber work: Move cable towers / green steering mirrors / (2 TTs with TT charactrization) / Put the heavy door by 5PM.
30 Fri Pumping down
31 Sat WFS work by Nancy
1 Sun - 5 Thu WFS work by Nancy
5 Thu PSL Table prep
6 Fri PSL Table prep / Likely to shut down the PSL
9 Mon PSL Table prep / shutting down of the PSL (optional)
10 Tue PSL box Frame lifting
12 Thu PSL table tapping
16 Mon - 17 Tue concrete pouring preparation
19 Thu - 23 Fri Tripod placement
24 Tue - 26 Thu concrete pouring
July 29 Thu [Steve, Alberto, Kiwamu, Koji]
We placed some optics in the BS chamber.
The chambers are ready to be pumped down on Friday once the heavy door is placed.
- Clean room work
- In the chamber
- After closing the chamber
[Koji, Steve, Kiwamu, Alberto]
- This afternoon we installed a few new optics on the BS table: GR_PBS, GRY_SM2, GRY_SM1.
- We pulled up the cables so that we had more freedom to move one of the cable towers farther South.
- Then we re-leveled the table. PRM OSEMs were adjusted to be nominal insertions.
- Koji released the earthquake stops on BS but the readout of the OSEMs was apparently frozen on the MEDM screens.
Initially we thought it was a software problem. a nuclear reboot didn't solve it. We spent the following three hours investigating the cause.
Eventually it turned out that the earthquake stops on BS weren't actually fully released.
We opened the tank and accessed to BS. Releasing the earthquake stops in full solved the issue. The OSEMs readout went back to normal.
The rough pumping was stopped at 230mmTorr. We are going to resume the pumping tomorrow morning.
How to stop: 1, close RV1 by torque wheel 2, close V3 from MEDM screen 3, turn off RP3 roughing from MEDM screen 4, disconnect metal hose to oily pump
after butterfly valve. This KF-45 O-ring seal should be kept clean 5, place/close 45 mm cover blanks at the end of the hose and and on the 5" nipple.
How to start: 1, remove blanks from hose and nipple 2, reconnect roughing pump hose to RV1 nipple 3, turn on PR3 4, open V3 5, open RV1 by wrench to ~3/8
6, fine tune RV1 opening to 1 Torr/min
ESSENTIAL: one operator has to be present when oilly roughing pump is connected to the vac. envelope
I resumed the pumping from 19:00.
Now the valve RV1 is full open. But the pumping is really slow as we are using only one RP.
After 3hrs of pumping, P1 reached 1.2mmtorr but still we need 2hrs of pumping...
I stopped pumping at 22:30.
I resumed the pumping today. Now the pressure is 0.48 torr. The pump was stopped.