40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  Cryo Lab eLog, Page 55 of 60  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Category Subjectup
  1016   Fri Feb 21 04:09:48 2014 ZachElectronicsSensorsomniPD

For our future experiments, I thought it would be good to create a new general-purpose workhorse photodetector. Presenting: the omniPD.

My intention is to design something with excellent performance as either a DC or RF receiver, perhaps simultaneously. To do this, I borrowed elements from several things, including:

  • The old RFPD V2.0 that Alastair and I made a few years back, which itself is essentially a less specialized aLIGO LSC RFPD.
  • The e/aLIGO OMC DCPDs
  • The mevans BBPD
  • The aLIGO PSL ISS electronics
  • Other general Rich/Daniel/etc. magic

See the attached schematic.

Description

Diode and bias

As usual, the diode is a reverse-biased 2-mm Perkin-Elmer InGaAs, though others could be substituted (e.g., 3-mm for larger area or a Si diode for lower capacitance). The bias is provided by an AD587 low-noise reference. It is trimmable before going through a 2-pole active lowpass at 0.1 Hz and a current buffer.

DC path

The DC signal goes through a large (RF-choking) inductor before being fed into a standard transimpedance amplifier. This is drawn as a low-noise FET chip (OPA140) with high impedance in the schematic, but could easily be a BJT part for brighter applications. There is a transimpedance switching option à la OMC DCPD, using a small-signal relay. The output then goes through two switchable generic filter stages (e.g., for whitening, etc.). The first of these stages has an optional offset injection for DC signal subtraction before further amplification, with the offset voltage derived in a similar way to the PD bias. I made sure to add pads on pin 5 of these stages in case we want to use AD829s for speed.

RF path

The RF path nearly identical to the aLIGO LSC RFPD design, but with only two rejection notches and a single readout for simplicity. As with that design, the components can be chosen so that it is a more traditional resonant circuit (rather than notch readout), and I have added a feature where the entire RF path is switchable via relay to a straight 50-ohm resistor for broadband readout. This, again, is using a typical small-signal relay (I know that "RF relays" exist, but I could find no reason this part wouldn't work up to the target of 100 MHz given things like insertion loss and through resistance---in any case, we can change it to an RF relay if we need to).

Switching

Since this is supposed to be a generic design, I have made most features optional. For example:

  • The DC Z switch relay can be omitted entirely and one can use a resistor hard-wired into the feedback path instead.
  • Likewise, the RF-path relay can be omitted and there are pads to short the anode to the notch/resonant group.
  • The offset generation and addition need not be stuffed either

I plan to have a 5x3 header array on the board, with one row all at +5V and the opposite row connected to a BIO connector (with the middle row connected to the individual switches), so that the user can choose---option by option---to have parameters hard-set or controlled externally (e.g., by CDS). A nice thing to add would be a threshold-based encoder board using an ADC chip (either external or perhaps as a daughterboard) so that we can control each PD's state with a single CDS DAC output.

Packaging

My dream is to fit this in the same housing as the BBPD, since it seems to be a nice design and someone already did it. That said, it's a lot to fit in such a small package, so we'll see. One thing I am very fond of is the ThorLabs-style 3-pin power connector.

Performance/Applications

Based on LISO modeling, it seems feasible to have an ultra-low-noise ~MHz DC path while simultaneously having excellent RF performance. We don't always require this, but there are at least a few examples I can think of where this would come in handy:

  • Combination input RIN/RAM monitor PD: Monitor input power fluctuations and RAM compactly.
  • Combination beat/TRANS RIN PD: Make the usual low-noise beat measurement and the transmitted light RIN compactly (and without sacrificing power). Also, one can use the ~100-MHz broadband function to locate a beat before pushing it into the sweet spot and engaging resonant detection.
  • Combination REFL intensity sensing and RF locking: This is something we need for the noise-suppressed dilution technique, since we will not want to have a beam splitter that will introduce vacuum fluctuations into the otherwise closed system.

Besides, apart from this nice dual-banding, the PD should be generic enough to be useful for all traditional purposes individually.

I would love it if anyone had any suggestions before I start making the PCB layout.

Attachment 1: omniPD.pdf
omniPD.pdf
  1017   Fri Feb 21 12:55:15 2014 nicolasElectronicsSensorsomniPD

Quote:

I would love it if anyone had any suggestions before I start making the PCB layout.

The switchable generic filters right now leave the inputs floating when the filter is disabled. Would it be better to ground the inputs or just leave the inputs connected and only switch the outputs?

  1019   Fri Feb 21 13:47:36 2014 ZachElectronicsSensorsomniPD

Right-o. This is the kind of switching that existed in, e.g., the eLIGO OMC whitening box, but grounded-input is definitely better. I modified it to use the switching that's used for the VGA in the common-mode servo board. This avoids both floating inputs and also the potential loading that would come from leaving the inputs connected.

Quote:

Quote:

I would love it if anyone had any suggestions before I start making the PCB layout.

The switchable generic filters right now leave the inputs floating when the filter is disabled. Would it be better to ground the inputs or just leave the inputs connected and only switch the outputs?

 

Attachment 1: omniPD.pdf
omniPD.pdf
  1021   Tue Feb 25 10:26:33 2014 ranaElectronicsSensorsomniPD

Quote:

For our future experiments, I thought it would be good to create a new general-purpose workhorse photodetector. Presenting: the omniPD.

1) I am suspicious of the DC part being truly low noise at low frequencies with the switching and extra components. Excess 1/f noise?

2) For the application of balanced ISS PDs, can we really make the package small enough so that they're close together?

3) I wonder about the low noise reference. Its good at DC, but don't we spoil it a little if we pass the DC signal through too many components before it gets to the PD?

4) Would it be possible to not stuff the RF parts and just use this as a DC PD?

  1022   Tue Feb 25 17:03:01 2014 ZachElectronicsSensorsomniPD

Quote:

 

1) I am suspicious of the DC part being truly low noise at low frequencies with the switching and extra components. Excess 1/f noise?

2) For the application of balanced ISS PDs, can we really make the package small enough so that they're close together?

3) I wonder about the low noise reference. Its good at DC, but don't we spoil it a little if we pass the DC signal through too many components before it gets to the PD?

4) Would it be possible to not stuff the RF parts and just use this as a DC PD?

1) I think the relays ought not be a problem, judging by their performance on the OMC Z switch. I was under the impression that the MAX333 was an acceptable switch for low-noise signals (it is used immediately after the unity-gain input of the common-mode board, so it is presumed to have a noise floor much lower than an AD829's). That said, the CMB does show anomalously high low-frequency noise. I can do some testing to measure this, but what is the way around it? Use relays for everything? That would be OK, but it takes up a lot more space.

2) From my interrogation by EKG, I imagined that the balanced ISS PD would be its own specialized thing in a custom box. So, I didn't plan for that to be within the scope of this workhorse. Since we already know almost exactly what we will want from a balanced ISS setup, shouldn't we just make another design that is compact and best suited for that purpose?

3) I'm a bit confused here. Do you mean for the bias or for the offset? In either case, all we're doing is adding some extra active low-passing, right? The AD587 has a floor of ~100 nV/rtHz, so the filter brings this (and any junk from the potentiometer) down to the OPA140's floor of 5 nV/rtHz. As for drift, the AD587 is rated to ~10 ppm/K = 100 uV/K, while the OPA140's drift is well under 1 uV/K.

4) Yes.

  2319   Thu Apr 4 14:46:52 2019 ranaSummaryVacuumon o-rings

Seal Man

https://www.physics.harvard.edu/uploads/files/machineshop/epm_oring_handbook.pdf

  1721   Thu Sep 7 22:17:50 2017 johannesUpdateGeneralon swapping optics

The first package with some replacement optics came in today (8 lenses, 6 mirrors, 2 beamsplitters). First contact has been applied to the optical surfaces of all parts that will go into the setup immediately. When I previously peeled off the FC I did so without an ion gun, which tends to leave charge behind on the cleaned surface no. I received the Top Gun unit that was destined for Bridge from Koji (OMC Lab) and made it into a mobile unit like the one at the 40m. Once the gas cylinder comes in ( tomorrow) I can start peeling the FC off and swapping optics.

  1738   Sun Sep 24 20:05:21 2017 johannesUpdateGeneralon swapping optics

The gas cylinder eventually made it to the lab and we now have a mobile top gun assembly for the bridge labs. I followed Steve's and Calum's suggestion and triple-rinsed the tube that delivers the nitrogen from the cylinder to the top gun unit with acetone. I set the pressure regulator to 40 psi and let gas stream through the tube before connecting it for ~2 minutes. I did the same with the top gun all hooked up, ~2min at 40psi.

I proceeded to take the first contact off all optics that I put (back) in the experiment and re-aligned the beams to the cavities. I also made some changes to the set-up, swapping some polarization-dependent (but not polarizing) beams splitters to actual polarizing beamsplitters, and replacing some mirrors. which failed the visual inspection even after cleaning. Only criterium was the presence of visible (to the bare eye) point scatter in the central mirror region under 1000 lumen illumination.

Finally, I re-arranged the transmission beat readout to improve the contrast on the Trans Beat PD (currently a New Focus 1811-FS-AC). This PD has split paths for DC and AC, with datasheet-reported transimpedance gains of 10kOhm and 40kOhm, respectively. Using these, the best contrast I calculated was around 50%, which seemed off to me, as it should be much better, since the two cavities are identical, I did not place any lenses in the paths before joining the transmitted beams, and I matched the macroscopic paths traveled by both beams after their cavities.

I instead placed a Thorlabs PDA10CF with DC-125MHz output with 5kOhm transimpedance gain into 50 Ohm. After maximizing the beat amplitude, the contrast I calculated using this PD is 92%, which fits my expectation much better. I'm not sure why it's so different for the 1811. Beam size could be an issue, although I did make sure by calculation that the beam is small enough.

I swapped in the 1811 again for a beat note measurement and found that it still looks like we're limited by scattering below ~50 Hz. On the positive side, the 'noise floor' we're seeing near 1kHz seems to have improved slightly from 50mHz/rtHz to 30mHz/rtHz. I also measured the frontal beat and found that it is nominally identical to the trans beat. After trying to identify scatter-culprits with the PZT buzzer, I had the idea to completely block the transmitted beams, which I did with a pair of black glass multi-bounce dumps. Curtesy of the frontal beat I can still measure the beat note. To my surprise the scatter-hump decreased quite significantly, by about a factor of 10.

This means that

  1. The most dramatic scattering currently occurs in the transmitted setup and
  2. It scatters back into the cavity and affects the PDH loops, and it's not scattering on the TransPD.

The shelf-shape of the residual noise at low frequencies could mean it's still scatter, just on the input side. Getting closer...

Attachment 2: comp_beat.pdf
comp_beat.pdf
  2059   Fri Jun 8 00:11:27 2018 johannesUpdateLab Workoptical setup reloaded

I have been rebuilding the entire optical setup over the past two weeks to make some fundamental changes and fix some things.

  1. The beams in the AOMs are now much smaller than before, on the order of 250 um waists. This allows for faster fall times for ringdown measurements, and higher bandwidth for the eventual amplitude stabilization.
  2. All mirrors are now Coastline super mirrors, between free-space faradays and cavities there are no more economy lenses, only special order optics. Only exception: one half-waveplate each.
  3. The frontal beat is no longer formed between the rejection ports of the polarizers but rather with a small portion of pickoff light.Visibility of the frontal beat is ~70%
  4. Alignment into the EOMs seems to be better, and the RFAM is not so strongly dependent on temperature anymore. I measured 8e-6 in the west and 1.2e-5 in the east.
  5. Mode-matching has been improved to >92% on both paths, which is the dip in reflected light on resonance.

Still have to modify the transmission path, I found that the beam is much too large on the beat PD, which causes a lot of scattering off the shiny rim.

Attachment 1 is an overview of the new layout and attachment 2 shows the west AOM transfer function from commercial driver modulation input to laser intensity, measured by a PDA10CF. I aligned the AOMs to give maximum deflection while minimizing RFAM at 35 MHz, their mod frequency. The East path ended up with a lot more phase delay this way because i had to move it further from the transducer. Deflection efficiency is in both cases about 80% at AOM saturation.

Attachment 1: CRYO_SETUP.pdf
CRYO_SETUP.pdf
Attachment 2: aom_response_20180605.pdf
aom_response_20180605.pdf
  2561   Tue Aug 25 13:42:40 2020 aaronUpdateLab Workoptics setup

setting up PSOMA beam path

I took some photos of the existing layout. I'll just take apart the E beam path, and leave the W path unchanged for now as reference.

I moved the E fiber output coupler closer to the edge of the table, to make this path easier to reach.

Hopped around on the laser hysterisis curve for a minute. To optimize the temperature,

  1. Started with TEC on near room temperature, then turned on the laser driver with the current set to maximize power on the meter (S122C)
  2. increased the temperature setpoint (decrease resistance setpoint) slowly until the laser power starts to decrease.
  3. Turn off the laser driver. Decrease temperature setpoint to just below the maximum power setpoint.
  4. Turn on the laser driver. Total power is now 4.6mW, compared to ~2mW with TEC off.
  2562   Wed Aug 26 12:12:22 2020 aaronUpdateLab Workoptics setup
  • aligned beam along the NS axis using two irises and the existing 2x f=100 lenses from the E path.
    • HWP->steering mirror-> 90-10 BS -> iris -> lens -> lens -> iris -> PD
    • all transmitted beams dumped
  • Mounted a 1'' x 1m FL Si mirror in a polaris mount. Made a ring cavity with that and 2x mirrors coated for 45 deg.

optics

Can anyone tell me the specs / history of some of the custom optics in cryo? I'm mounting the 1m Coastline mirror and will start with that in the PSOMA cavity.

  • Laseroptik 1'' mirrors. Batch # 19028Kel. Part(?) numbers L-13997, L-13998. (these are in red boxes cases w clear lid)
  • Coastline Optics 1.0''x0.25'' FS substrates. Coated for 1550nm at 45 degrees. (these are in stacks cylindrical clear cases, and include some witness and rejected samples)
  • Coastline optics 1'' silicon substrate, 1 meter focal length. SN 1.0-Si-1.0M
  • Photon Laseroptik 1'' FS substrates (~50), labeled 75S308926. Also labeled with a wedge angle or what looks like a focal length (no unit)
  • Two stacks from Gooch & Housego, taped in bubble wrap with the data sheet. These are coated for 1550nm, transmission ~1% S and ~5% P at 45 deg.
  2564   Fri Aug 28 16:59:59 2020 aaronUpdateLab Workoptics setup

I measured the transmission of the Coastline 1m mirror at 180. ppm (S122C).

Alignment procedure while setting location of optics:

  1. use 2x irises to constrain a beam path at the locations of the eventual MZ input BS and the cavity BS.
  2. Place the first (R~1) flat mirror at 45 degrees centered on the beam line. Use this mirror to steer into an iris at the location of the cavity's curved mirror.
  3. Use steering optics to direct the eventual transmission beam into the trans mon PD (PDA 20CS)
  4. Place the curved mirror at near normal incidence. Use this mirror to steer the beam through irises at the location of the MZ output BS and cavity BS.
  5. Use steering mirrors to send the beam to the refl PD (PDA255).
  6. Place the cavity BS and steer the reflected beam to the refl PD.

Alignment procedure subsequently:

  1. Misalign the cavity BS
  2. Use the cavity mirrors to steer the circulated reflection into refl PD.
  3. Use cavity BS to align prompt reflection into refl PD.

 

  2565   Mon Aug 31 10:00:25 2020 aaronUpdateLab Workoptics setup

Here's the layout.

Some easy things that should be changed:

  • Transmission through the cavity end mirror should go to a steering mirror before PDA20CS
  • Should clamp the cables (eg power to PDA255) with something soft so they stay in place and aren't strained
  • Need to dump the reflection from transmon PD. Do we really need to dump transmission through mirrors with frosted backs?
Attachment 1: 200828_layout.jpg
200828_layout.jpg
  2149   Fri Aug 24 16:01:08 2018 aaronNotesCryo Qoptimal op lev configuration

I found this document that has good information on the how to choose the correct gain settings on our QPD.

Note: need to update model to normalize pitch/yaw outputs.

I also found some parameters from the laser spec sheet here.

 

  2152   Mon Aug 27 23:56:29 2018 aaronNotesCryo Qoptimal op lev configuration

This took me a bit longer than expected. I wanted to optimize our op lev configuration. I ended up starting to make a kind of pedagogical note on ray transfer matrices, abandoned that halfway and wrote the better part of a python script to optimize an arbitrary configuration with telescopes before and/or after the oscillator, and ended up realizing I was reproducing existing ray tracing software so I went back to the analytic calculation just to get a sense for how things go so I can swap up the op lev.

Here's the sketch:

  • Assume the beam entering the cryostat is about the same size as leaving the laser (it is if we go directly to the cryo). We can get it close enough that the beam can't really be focused down anymore easily.
  • More length at the output is good for sensing disk motion. This is kind of obvious, the disk creates some angular fluctuations of the beam, and those become radial fluctuations as it propagates.
  • Assuming we can make the beam travel about 3m total (that's about three times along the table, give or take), to optimize the beam size on the QPD we want about a 5:1 telescope at the output. The beam as it leaves the laser is about the size we want to put on the QPD.
  • I assume no noise from optics shaking and just maximize the signal. I made some contour plots showing what happens if you change the lens focal lengths (keeping magnification constant) and the fraction of total op lev distance before vs after the telescope.

Main Takeaways:

  • There is a large region of parameter space where having the telescope results in greater radial motion on the QPD than sending the beam through the same distance of free space with no telescope (including the length of the telescope itself)
  • The optimal region is to have a short telescope as far upstream of the QPD as possible. The limit to how short or how close to the cryostat is only practical or the highly unlikely case that we get sufficient signal to move the beam nearly off the QPD...
  • Around a total length of 1.5m, it looks like there is a tradeoff where it becomes advantageous to have a long telescope as close to the QPD as possible. I haven't totally confirmed this, but I think it's a lie; in the plot, I don't require that all distances be >0. This is like saying if you have a lot of distance after the telescope, but a negative distance before the telescope, you can get a bunch of sensitivity for free.

What I propose to do is:

  • Move the laser as close to the cryostat as possible (so switch it to the other side of the electronics
  • Move the periscope closer to the cryostat (added bonus of having a wider range of available ingoing angles)
  • Pick some shorter focal length lenses, keeping about the same ratio of lengths
  • Move the steering mirror after the op lev to very near the op lev (subject to allowing the ingoing beam to still enter), which will let us steer into the telescope sooner
  • Move the op lev to directly after the first steering mirror
  • Let the beam travel until it's about the right size for the QPD again; try to keep the QPD in the same spot though because it's convenient.

Let me know if you'd like the .nb from me, or I can put it in Qryo.

Attachment 1: 180824_optimalOpLev.pdf
180824_optimalOpLev.pdf 180824_optimalOpLev.pdf 180824_optimalOpLev.pdf 180824_optimalOpLev.pdf 180824_optimalOpLev.pdf 180824_optimalOpLev.pdf 180824_optimalOpLev.pdf 180824_optimalOpLev.pdf
  2154   Tue Aug 28 10:19:26 2018 aaronNotesCryo Qoptimal op lev configuration

Pressure was around 2.5e-5torr when I turned the pump off, 10:15am.

I went to put together the new dewar, but the struts are not quite in the right places and the torque from the tightened struts overcame two of the epoxy sites. I didn't trust the last one on its own, and pulled it off. I'll need to go back to the 40m to bake this again, and apply a thicker layer of epoxy.

I found some new lenses for the telescope:

  • KPX106AR.14 532/F:200
  • PLCX-25.4-25.8-UV-1064/532
  • KPX100AR.14 532/F:150

I'll set up the 1:4 telescope first. I needed to swap out the lens into a better mount, then good to go. QUESTION: Is there a tool for turning the fasteners for the lens mounts? This small flathead feels really precarious... I had quite a bit of trouble getting the beam out of the cryo, so I'm going to go to atmosphere and try again after lunch.

Quote:
 

What I propose to do is:

  • Move the laser as close to the cryostat as possible (so switch it to the other side of the electronics
  • Move the periscope closer to the cryostat (added bonus of having a wider range of available ingoing angles)
  • Pick some shorter focal length lenses, keeping about the same ratio of lengths
  • Move the steering mirror after the op lev to very near the op lev (subject to allowing the ingoing beam to still enter), which will let us steer into the telescope sooner
  • Move the op lev to directly after the first steering mirror
  • Let the beam travel until it's about the right size for the QPD again; try to keep the QPD in the same spot though because it's convenient.

 

  2156   Tue Aug 28 16:43:25 2018 aaronNotesCryo Qoptimal op lev configuration

I realized that last plot was kind of misleading, because I shouldn't have been assuming a fixed magnification telescope. Instead, I've just chosen the focal lengths of the lenses we have in the lab and plotted the distances from oscillator to telescope, and telescope to QPD. 

It confirms the basic picture, that I should keep the telescope as close to the QPD as possible, and make the distance from the telescope to the QPD as long as possible while keeping the beam the right size. In practice, this means that more magnification in the telescope is more effective. It also confirms the picture that having the telescope much closer to the QPD than the oscillator probably suppressed our signal.

Attachment 1: 180824_optimalOpLev.pdf
180824_optimalOpLev.pdf 180824_optimalOpLev.pdf 180824_optimalOpLev.pdf 180824_optimalOpLev.pdf 180824_optimalOpLev.pdf 180824_optimalOpLev.pdf 180824_optimalOpLev.pdf 180824_optimalOpLev.pdf
  2604   Wed Dec 23 11:13:57 2020 aaronThings to BuyPurchasesoptomechanics arrived

Entered lab around Wed Dec 23 11:14:29 2020 to bring in optomechanics from Newport, step stool from McMaster, and a few other items for around the lab.

  1763   Thu Oct 12 18:01:28 2017 aaronUpdateCryo Qordered some RTD mounts

I requested a quote for five RTD mounts from Millitnow so we can have some easy-to-swap RTDs in the can. Picture attached.

 

Attachment 1: RTD_mount.PNG
RTD_mount.PNG
  315   Sat Oct 22 21:53:03 2011 FrankNotesmaterial propertiesoutgassing rate for Stycast 2850

from "PRE-AMPLIFIER IMPEDANCE MATCHING FOR CRYOGENIC BPMs" (http://adweb.desy.de/mpy/DIPAC2011/posters/tupd20_poster.pdf)

outgassing_Stycast2850.jpg

outgassing_spectrum_Stycast2850.jpg

  2009   Wed Apr 11 15:58:34 2018 aaronDailyProgressVacuumoverpressure test

We managed to kluge together some hosing to go from the cryostat ln2 dewars to the pressurized helium, but needed one more yorlok adapter to make it work. I ordered it from McMaster so we should be able to do the overpressure test as soon as it arrives.

  2027   Wed Apr 25 15:38:09 2018 aaron and brittanyCryostatVacuumoverpressure test

We overpressed two of the nitrogen tanks with kinked pipes--one going to the single tank dewar and the other going to the bottom tank of one of the He dewars.

We hooked up the new swagelok connectors to get pressurized helium into a tube of the proper size to connect to our tank. We are connecting to the dewar with one of the lN2 fill adapters that has both a nitrogen in and an air outlet port; we pressurized the air outlet and put a KF25 blank on the nitrogen fill port (since the pipe on that port is threaded we were able to find an adapter to KF connectors).

We filled both tanks with soapy water (~10 drops of Down to ~2L tank) and pressurized the tanks initially to 1atm above atmosphere. We did not observe any bubbling from the tanks themselves, and though we sometimes observed leaks elsewhere in the system (before the hosing reaches the cryostat), we were generally able to fill these leaks. We eventually pressurized the tanks up to 300kPa, but did not go further because the dewars are only ever overpressured by ~100kPa under normal operation.

On the single tank dewar, we dropped some soap around the kink in the pipe to see if there were bubbles that were not visible to us due to low soap concentration, but still did not observe any leak.

We next emptied the dewars of water and submerged them in a bucket of water (no soap) so that now the air is on the inside of the dewar, the water is on the outside, and no soap is in the system. We first submerged the single tank dewar, which also has an integrated metal heat shield above the tank. The heat shield prevented us from fully emptying the system of air, but we shook the dewar at an angle underwater until we felt confident that no more bubbles emerged when we shook the dewar. We then overpressured the tank, and waited some time. After ~10 minutes, we shook the dewar and released many bubbles, which we take to mean there could be a leak--if the quantity of trapped air remained the same over the 10 minutes, a similarly vigorous shaking should not have released additional bubbles. However, we would feel better if we could see the bubbles forming, so should repeat the test either in a larger clear bucket so we could fully release the trapped bubbles (Johannes has found an appropriate bin) or remove the heat shield (Brittany has wanted to do this for some time).

We also submerged the two-tank dewar in the bucket of water, and observed no leaks. Finally, we removed the two-tank dewar and added some drops of soap to the kink in the pipe to see if we could observe bubbles forming there, but did not find any evidence of a leak.

Attachment 1: IMG_3866.jpg
IMG_3866.jpg
Attachment 2: IMG_3865.jpg
IMG_3865.jpg
Attachment 3: IMG_3864.jpg
IMG_3864.jpg
Attachment 4: IMG_3863.jpg
IMG_3863.jpg
  2992   Wed Sep 7 09:27:35 2022 aaronLab InfrastructureHVACparticle count

quick particle trend, goes back 21 days to cover the time since the last trend was posted.

Attachment 1: Screenshot_from_2022-09-07_09-31-33.png
Screenshot_from_2022-09-07_09-31-33.png
  60   Mon Jan 24 16:40:35 2011 FrankUpdateHVACparticle count - updated graph for the last week

CryoLab_data_plot_detail2.png

  2972   Tue Aug 16 08:55:24 2022 aaronLab InfrastructureLab Workparticle count debug

So what's going on with this leap second error?

I found some entries from the 40m with suggested steps on fixing the annual 0x4000 error for realtime models. Looking in the referenced file, I see some lines commented out that look like Anchal's reference elog, followed by a call to some ligo function that might (or might not) take care of the leap second offset issue.

# pHardware->gpsOffset += #######;
pHardware->gpsOffset = ligo_get_gps_driver_offset( );

Since I'm unfamiliar with the functions, I'm letting Chris know so I don't break anything.

  575   Mon Sep 10 15:30:31 2012 DmassLab InfrastructureCleanlinessparticle counter

The particle counter has stopped working.

It is a GT-526 from Met One instrumentals, and they run around 2.5k from the resellers (source: http://www.metone.com/meteorology.php)

I have contacted the company inquiring about how to get it serviced (here: http://www.metone.com/documents/service_and_maintenance/2012/Service_GT-526_NP_2012.pdf)

The above pdf quotes a ~5 day turnaround.

 

In the meantime, I have picked up the 227A from the ATF since it was sitting on a workbench and not logging any data. I am unsure if it works.

 

This lab is too dirty. I have Q on board for some serious cleaning, and in this vein, we need to have a better metric of cleanliness. Once we get the standards up, and have the particle count trended and monitored again, we can "do whatever is necessary" if people start to make it dirty again.

To this end, I have purchased some swiffer brooms and swiffer dusters. I bought some extra for the other sub-basement labs since we have 1 crappy mop between 3 of them.

  576   Tue Sep 11 13:51:56 2012 DmassLab InfrastructureCleanlinessparticle counter

I have talked to Tara and worked out some space on the PSL flow bench for a couple days to do the measurements on the windows in a clean(er) environment. The window cleaning / measuring / etc will take place over the next couple days.

  309   Thu Oct 13 12:45:22 2011 Rana, FrankLab InfrastructureCleanlinessparticle counter data for last 30 days

plot showing data taken the last 30 days (max values, minute trend) showing 0.3, 0.5 and 0.7um particle size. Units are counts/ft^3.

Untitled.png

  296   Sat Sep 10 04:42:57 2011 FrankComputingDAQparticle counter data now available

wrote a small python script which reads the last measured data from the particle counter every 20s and writes them into epics channels. The script is not controlling the particle counter, the particle counter is still running on it's own with the parameters set in the device itself. The script is only sending a command to get the last measured values. This is only to demonstrate that it the serial port and epics modules are working and it uses fixed parameters. There is only little check for errors like opening the serial port or is there data at all. I will update it in the near future with command line options etc. Will then do the same for the vacuum gauges.

Script can be found in /caltech/scripts/python/

  2734   Mon May 10 15:48:12 2021 aaronLab InfrastructureDAQparticle counter is logging

In preparation for some HVAC work in cryo lab, here are the most recent 30 days of hour trends from the particle counter. 

I'm guessing the humidity is reported as relative humidity. The channel X1:AUX-LAB_TEMP_F should be reporting the temperature as measured by our AD590 sensor in the cryo cavs electronics rack as an independent check, but something along the way is apparently broken.

Attachment 1: Screen_Shot_2021-05-10_at_16.03.21.png
Screen_Shot_2021-05-10_at_16.03.21.png
  297   Sun Sep 11 01:32:44 2011 FrankComputingDAQparticle counter script updated

i've done some updates to the particle counter script. The current version is 0.3 (particle-0.3.py).
New features are:

  • parsing of parameters for port (-p or --port), baudrate (-b or --baudrate) and delay (-d or --delay) between measurements. Help is provided using -h or --help.
    Parameters are optional. Current hardware configuration is used by default.
  • Error and data logging implemented. A log file with current date and time will be created containing debug information and all data received from the device including timestamps
  1974   Tue Mar 13 21:31:06 2018 johannesMiscSensorsparticle counter temperature channel

i inspected /home/controls/services/particle-0.5.py on cryoaux, which is the readout script for the CryoLab's GT-526 particle counter, which has the optional attachment for humidity and temperature. EPICS channels for temperature and humidity do already exist:

  • C5:PEM-COUNT_TEMP
  • C5:PEM-COUNT_HUM

Something is amiss in the python script though. For some reason the 0.7 micrometer particle channel does not appear in the (ordered) list of EPICS channels to be written to. But it is part of the string that is transmitted via serial connection. As a result, the channels are not recording what they're supposed to. C5:PEM-COUNT_HUM was actually recording the temperature all along. I dug around in the logfile and found that the transmitted string looks like this:

'13-MAR-2018  14:35:17,     73410,      9520,       820,       230,       100,        60, 27, 36,  2\r\n'

This gets parsed to the epics channels for the different particle size counts, temperature, and humidity.

DATE TIME 0.3 μm 0.5 μm 0.7 μm 1 μm 2 μm 5 μm Temperature [C] Humidity [%] End Characters
13-MAR-2018 14:35:17 73410 9520 820 230 100 60 27 36 2\r\n

Since the 0.7 μm channel was omitted from the target list for the parsing, the readings shifted channels. I haven't fixed this yet, but it should be fairly straight forward.

On the other hand, there is no fractional precision for the temperature readout. It is possible to change the units to Fahrenheit, so we get a factor 2 in precision, but we really want something more precise than integer degrees for the lab temperature monitor.

  2973   Wed Aug 17 10:43:05 2022 aaronLab InfrastructureLab Workparticle counts, uncovering experiments.

Not sure what happened between yesterday and today, but dataviewer is now reporting particle counts data that vary with time, including trends. The data only start at around 5pm on Tuesday, so don't capture the time when the work was being done.

The particle counter recorded a large spike in dust around 11 pm last night -- not sure what that would be associated with, since the lab was empty. When was the hard drive bay "Rocket Lake" installed into Aux rack? If it was last night, it's plausible the fans would have directed dust towards the particle counter.

The last spike in dust is from my mopping with a pre-wetted cloth this morning. Here were my uncovering steps:

  1. Uncover cryo cantilevers experiment, and throw away its cover in the hallways. A large amount of dust had accumulated on top of the plastic.
  2. mop the floors
  3. wipe down large horizontal surfaces like desks, tops of spectrum analyzers
  4. Unwrap the PSOMA table, folding up the plastic from bottom to top so the plastic above the enclosure is covered before being moved
  5. Turn on the PSOMA table HEPA FFU, set to high
Attachment 1: Screenshot_from_2022-08-17_10-57-02.png
Screenshot_from_2022-08-17_10-57-02.png
  2974   Wed Aug 17 17:39:05 2022 ChrisLab InfrastructureLab Workparticle counts, uncovering experiments.

The timeline so far as I’m aware:

  • Around 5pm yesterday, the cymac was restarted to restore the DAQ.
  • The Rocket Lake machine has been in the rack since last Friday. It’s a short-term loan to us from LDAS for testing purposes. Nothing was happening with it last night around 11pm.
  2975   Thu Aug 18 15:27:09 2022 aaronLab InfrastructureLab Workparticle counts, uncovering experiments.

Great, thanks Chris for resetting the DAQ!

Here's one more trend plot for completion... the y-axis is log(counts), though I can't seem to change the axis label in ndscope.

Attachment 1: 220818_particleCounts.png
220818_particleCounts.png
  709   Fri Mar 15 12:19:05 2013 nicolasElectronicsControl Systempdh2 gain control knob

With all the modifications we've been doing, it seemed to me that the gain control knob may have been wrongly accused for bad behavior of pdh2 at high frequencies. It has been bypassed recently, but after other problems have been fixed, I decided to put it back in and see if it works as intended.

I moved R58 back to R70 so that the gain knob is in the feedback path. Fortunately this does not modify the TF at all when the gain knob is in the lowest setting. That's good.

When you turn the knob to high gain, it doesn't work exactly as intended, the gain is not frequency dependent and it seems to act more like a boost then an overall gain stage. The gain increase starts to fall off at about 100kHz.

pdh2gainpot.pdf

This is no big deal, we'll take it as it is.

  712   Fri Mar 15 15:46:03 2013 ZachElectronicsControl Systempdh2 gain control knob

How much gain is "high gain"? The GBW product of the AD829 is 120 MHz, so if it's something huge like G = 1000 then you would expect the pole that low. I'd guess it's not that high...

Quote:

When you turn the knob to high gain, it doesn't work exactly as intended, the gain is not frequency dependent and it seems to act more like a boost then an overall gain stage. The gain increase starts to fall off at about 100kHz.

 

  710   Fri Mar 15 12:51:21 2013 nicolasElectronicsControl Systempdh2 modified to have high frequency bypass path

To get some more phase at the high frequency end of the pdh2 board, I used Rana's advice and added a bypass path for a low-delay, high frequency path.

Previously, the PDH2 board had a pole-zero pair in the U5 stage. There was a pole at around 200Hz, followed by a ~20kHz zero which cancels the cavity pole. This filter is part of a total of 7 AD829s in series with each other, each with some phase delay, totaling about 43 degrees of phase delay at 1MHz.

Instead, I modified the board such that the zero in the U5 stage is moved up to about 150kHz, and there is a parallel path with flat response, which crosses the main path at about 20kHz. This makes the overall transfer function about the same as before, however the response at high frequency is provided by a low delay path.

I achieved this by simply putting a 2.5MOhm resistor which goes from the output of U1 (the input buffer) to the inverting input of U6 (the output buffer). So now there are only 2 op amps in this path, not 7. When I first did this, the two paths were actually subtracting, so I bypassed the U2 stage which was a simple inverting unity gain stage. The new total transfer function only has 15 degrees of delay at 1MHz. An improvement indeed!

pdh2bypass.pdf

 The plot shows the old TF (red), the new slow path (green) which is summed with a flat TF (not shown) to produce the total new TF (blue).

Some notes:

* The gain pot on the front panel does not modify the high frequency path, though this was already sort of true before (see previous log).
* The overall gain can still be modified by changing the gain in the U1 input buffer stage.

 

  2689   Sun Mar 21 12:52:43 2021 ranaHowToNoise Budgetphase noise

Youtube on phase noise in osc (https://youtu.be/wByzymJ0Ppc)

  2768   Mon Jun 28 13:54:46 2021 aaronNotesLaserphase noise in diode lasers

Now that we are generating noise budgets, we'd like to compare our observed phase noise with that expected from the physical noise sources. Chris pointed us to some useful papers a while back, and I'm going to start documenting my further reading on the PSOMA wiki's noise budget page.

  2718   Wed Apr 28 12:09:28 2021 aaronNoise HuntingLaserphasemeter drift

Diagnosing the phasemeter

I took these diagnostic steps:

  1. Drive moku spectrum analyzer and phasemeter with a bandpassed (SBP-30+) -30 dBm sine at 29 MHz from a DS345 function generator
    • Spectrum analyzer shows rock solid beat note, as expected (attachment 1)
    • The moku phasemeter frequency estimate shows no drift at the level of the ~3-4 Hz rms noise. Phasemeter settings for attachment 2:
      • Auto frequency
      • 10 kHz BW
      • AC coupled, 50 Ohm input impedance
      • 10 Vpp range
      • 488 Hz acquisition speed
    • With 1 Vpp range selected, still no drift above the noise
    • With 1 Vpp and a 10 Hz bandwidth, there is at most a few 100 mHz drift over 4 minutes (attachment 3)
    • With 1 Vpp and 600 mHz bandwidth, the phasemeter at first has trouble acquiring lock, but then shows the same at most couple 100 mHz drift over a couple minutes (attachment 4)
  2. Drive moku phasemeter with an unfiltered -10 dBm sine at 29 MHz from a DS345
    • The spectrum is full of features. 29 MHz is close to the limit of the DS345. (attachment 5)
    • The phasemter settings for attachment 6 show no drift over several minutes
      • Auto frequency, AC coupled, 50 Ohm input impedance, 1 Vpp range, 488 Hz acquisition speed
      • 10 kHz BW
  3. Drive moku spectrum analyzer and phasemeter with a bandpassed (SBP-30+) -25 dBm sine at 29 MHz, with a 143 Hz triangle wave FM of 1 MHz deviation
    • Spectrum is attachment 6
    • At 10 kHz bandwidth, the phasemeter has no trouble tracking the true drive frequency (attachment 7) and does not exhibit drift above the 1 MHz modulation.
      • Settings other than bandwidth are still Auto frequency, AC coupled, 50 Ohm input impedance, 1 Vpp range, 488 Hz acquisition speed
    • At 600 Hz BW, the phasemeter estimates the frequency a bit low (28.8 MHz) and with only about 40 Hz deviations
    • At 10 Hz BW, the behavior is inconsistent. Sometimes, the phasemeter exhibits a 20 Hz/min drift (attachment 8). Reacquiring lock sometimes results instead in some few Hz noise around a fixed frequency (attachment 9).
  4. Drive moku with a bandpassed (SBP-30+), -25 dBm sine at 27.5 MHz, with a 143 Hz triangle wave FM of 2 MHz deviation
    1. At 10 kHz BW (other settings same as before), the phasemeter initially drifts rapidly (MHz over seconds), then stops below the center frequency (attachment 10)
    2. At 40 Hz BW, the same behavior is visible over a somewhat smaller frequency range and longer timescale (10s Hz drift over 10s seconds, before stopping at a fixed frequency) (attachment 11)
    3. At 600 Hz BW, there is not drift and the frequency is steady at but underestimated by 0.5-1 MHz.

 

I didn't replicate 'MHz drift over several minutes' exactly, but I suspect our beat note is pushing the BW limit of the phasemeter.

Attachment 1: 2C1C6969-F592-4F39-B3DD-2F760AE48987.png
2C1C6969-F592-4F39-B3DD-2F760AE48987.png
Attachment 2: 9574A1B6-26DD-4857-8D46-BD9354E3633A.png
9574A1B6-26DD-4857-8D46-BD9354E3633A.png
Attachment 3: 1DD7D653-DEB8-4A85-986F-497B99EBA5F1.png
1DD7D653-DEB8-4A85-986F-497B99EBA5F1.png
Attachment 4: 443D279D-CD8A-4DD1-8528-2F7BF6EE12EB.png
443D279D-CD8A-4DD1-8528-2F7BF6EE12EB.png
Attachment 5: 0DF322B6-E79F-453E-AB21-42990F630A2C.png
0DF322B6-E79F-453E-AB21-42990F630A2C.png
Attachment 6: 68744D35-3BA3-42EF-9C50-B1B437435CCD.png
68744D35-3BA3-42EF-9C50-B1B437435CCD.png
Attachment 7: 30FA9089-03E5-4099-B3D5-58EA48184996.png
30FA9089-03E5-4099-B3D5-58EA48184996.png
Attachment 8: 4B41E92F-B576-4190-A6C3-307430361CED.png
4B41E92F-B576-4190-A6C3-307430361CED.png
Attachment 9: 6C72BAEF-08D6-4882-A4D5-BAD9361AA35B.png
6C72BAEF-08D6-4882-A4D5-BAD9361AA35B.png
Attachment 10: B00E163E-DDFD-4A92-89A5-A5F99C4E5E31.png
B00E163E-DDFD-4A92-89A5-A5F99C4E5E31.png
Attachment 11: ED931CBA-D088-41F3-A3BB-09D641766FE9.png
ED931CBA-D088-41F3-A3BB-09D641766FE9.png
  2719   Wed Apr 28 15:26:10 2021 ranaNoise HuntingLaserphasemeter drift

my guess exactly. I will ask Moku people about it, but my guess is that we need to do a traditional phase lock using some mixers, etc like what Shruti had working at the 40m. I suggest scrounging some parts from somewhere in WB / 40 for this week, but fill up our purchase spreadsheet with some RF shopping list that we ran go over in our meeting tomorrow (Thurs)

Quote:
 

I didn't replicate 'MHz drift over several minutes' exactly, but I suspect our beat note is pushing the BW limit of the phasemeter.

nice idea with the triangle wave. I was thinking of putting some white noise into the FM dev input of the Marconi, but your way is easier. Will definitely need Marconi for the PLL setup.

  2721   Thu Apr 29 17:25:55 2021 aaronNoise HuntingLaserphasemeter drift

Continuing this, I measured the spectrum of the NS beat note over 20 min (10 min x 2) with persistance on to see how much the note drifts. I observed about 1 MHz/min drift on moku spectrum analyzer (attachment 1).

Afterwards, I measured the same beat note on the phasemeter over 5 minutes. Indeed, it appears the phasemeter loses lock after several minutes (attachment 2), whereupon it drifts by again 1 MHz/min. (attachment 2). I did notice this behavior on some of the data I took last week, but couldn't explain it and attriubuted it to the phasemeter settling in (which in retrospect doesn't make sense, because the BW is kHz while the 'settling' would have been for tens of seconds).

 

Rana and I measured the current noise of the ITC510 using SR560 + moku, both driving the laser diode and a 20 Ohm dummy load. We noticed some unusual-looking noise on the moku display, and I'll post some details when I've had a chance to plot the data.

Update:

Attachment 1 shows the measurement setup. In the upper diagram, we've connected the ITC502 to the N RIo laser using the usual DB9 cable, but with a breakout board at the driver and clips sent to a high impedance voltmeter on moku.  In the lower diagram, we've replaced the DB9 cable with two wirebound resistors stuck in the DB9 connector of the breakout board (50 Ohm across pins 1,5 for the interlock; 20 Ohm across pins 3 and 7 to simulate the diode).

Update:

The current noise as measured by the Moku spectrum analyzer while driving the N laser is in attachment 2. Obviously it's high... I'll start adding this curve to future beat note measurements involving the ITC510. To get the current amplitude spectral density from the Moku's reported power in dBV, I divided by the sensing resistance (which I took to be 20 Ohm) and resolution bandwidth of the spectrum analyzer. I'm not sure this is the correct sensing resistance -- the laser datasheet shows 20 Ohm parallel, not in series, with the current drive. x-axis in Hz.

I_\mathrm{ASD} = \frac{10^{V_\mathrm{dBV}/20}}{R_\mathrm{sensing}*\sqrt{RBW}}

Attachment 1: D520B366-A9B5-4E80-BE34-40A5D790AD8D.jpeg
D520B366-A9B5-4E80-BE34-40A5D790AD8D.jpeg
Attachment 2: ITC510.pdf
ITC510.pdf
  2874   Tue Apr 19 14:50:00 2022 aaronNoise HuntingNoise Budgetphotodiode dark noise measurement

Things still look pretty weird. Today I'll measure the photodiode dark noise (the previous curve was theoretical, based on the known transimpedance of the 1811 and properties of the PDH electronics).

Measurement steps:

  1. Measure the PDH error signal with beam blocked, sending the output of the PDH box directly to SR785.
    • blocked beam with a razor blade dump
    • Disconnected the IF output from the PDH mixer/lowpass from the LB box input, and instead connected it to the SR785 input (1 MOhm)
    • Removed the RF power splitter and second PDH mixer from the system. These electronics are for locking both lasers to the cavity, but we want to understand the noise for a single laser locked to the cavity first. The electronics are still on the table and straightforward to set up.
    • I then recorded the power spectrum using labutils/netgpibdata/SRmeasureWideSP.py. The parameters .yml file is in cryo_lab/data/PD_dark (along with the measurement results).
      • The noise has a 1/f corner near 40 Hz, then is flat until about 20 kHz when it increases in a series of peaks. Since it's uncalibrated, I'll say no more on the overall noise level than that there is a discontinuity in the spectrum as recorded (possibly indicating a range issue for part of the measurement?).
      • When I went to turn off the lab electronics (below), I found that the OCXO preamplifier box was already off from when Shruti and I were rearranging some cables last time... so, today's measurement was a complete waste of time crying
  2. Calibrate the PDH error signal -- did not complete today
    1. Drive the laser current above 1 kHz and just enough frequency deviation that the full PDH error signal and both sideband resonances are visible on an oscilloscope trace
    2. Use [calibratePDH.ipynb?] to determine the slope of the PDH error signal near the DC resonance. The x-axis is converted from 'seconds' to 'Hz' by assuming the distance between the sideband resonances is twice the sideband frequency.

Misc

There will be a planned electrical outage tomorrow morning at 6 am. I turned off the following electronics before leaving the lab:

  • All laser diodes (2 Rio lasers on the PSOMA table)
  • All laser current and TEC drivers (2 Thorlabs drivers on the PSOMA rack, 2 custom drivers on the cryo cavs rack)
  • cominaux, spirous, gaston, and cymac1
  • moku pro
  • RF amplifier used for delay line measurement
  • both Sorensen DC supplies (after turning off the electronics they power)
  • Acromag chassis, and AA and AI chassis for the fast DAQ
  • Marconi, spectrum analyzers, SR560s, function generators, oscilloscopes, LB servo box
  • CCTV
  2594   Mon Nov 30 11:28:30 2020 aaronNoise HuntingLaserpll

Entered lab about Mon Nov 30 10:21:35 2020, after taking a COVID test through Caltech's new surveillance testing program.

I'll pick up where Shruti left off on the beat note. The comb of sidebands becomes a single line  remains a comb when the PID is offKoji suggests maybe the (PLL) PID is oscillating at 10Mhz.

  • Turned on both laser drivers, TEC, 15V PD power supply, HP 8560E spectrum analyzer.
    • E laser TEC was set to 8.301 kOhm
    • W laser TEC was set to 8.992 kOhm
  • Located the thermistor resistance on the RIO data sheets
    • Diode #104978 (E path) has thermistor resistance 10.050 kOhm at the nominal setpoint (25 C)
    • Diode #104987 (W path) has thermistor resistance 10.940 kOhm at the nominal setpoint (23 C)
    • Oddly, Dmass' elog on unboxing these lasers lists a different operating temperature than the datasheets
  • Adjusted the PID on both TEC
    • First, turned down I and D to 0. Next, increased P until there was oscillation. Added back a little D and turned down P until no oscillation. Increase I until it moves to the setpoint.
    • Checked 'step response' when the laser is turned on, and adjusted PID until no overshoot or oscillating on the way to setpoint, and equilibrium reached within seconds. This did not affect the sidebands.
    • Adjusting P while moni
    • toring the beat spectrum results in no change in the sidebands, until the temperature starts to oscillate and the beat is lost.
  • Checking out the HF current mon on a 200MHz oscilloscope to see if something's going on there. The HF drive input is open, so there should be no peaks.
    • W laser has a line at 9.75 MHz, 20 dB above the noise floor.
    • E laser has a line at 22.5 MHz, 20 dB above the noise floor (on second look, this peak is not present. Lots of adjustment between the two measurements though, and I'm not sure what did the trick)
  • I'm seeing the forest of sidebands hopping side-to-side (~38 MHz hops). Modehopping? [no, it was a triggering issue] I adjust the TEC setpoint to the nominal values on the datasheet.
    • The hops are always by exactly 4 times the sideband spacing (~40MHz, so the second to the right sideband frequency at +20 MHz coincides with the second to the left sideband frequency at -20 MHz after the hop)
    • Hm... turning off both lasers, I see several noise peaks in the dark spectrum that 'turn on and off' every other refresh of the spectrum video...
      • This is present even when I take single spectra manually (not continuous). Every other spectrum has some noise forest around 20MHz. Is this an artifact of the SA settings? No reason something at MHz should exhibit such repeatable on/off behavior for my random-near-Hz button presses.
        Indeed, when I turn on the 'frequency counter' on the spectrum analyzer, the hopping goes away... why?
      • With frequency counter on, I now see two sets of sideband peaks. What's the spectrum analyzer doing for demodulation, this looks like some artifact. Perhaps some saturated stage of the spectrum analyzer is causing sidebands. Here's a nice technical note from HP on spectrum analyzers.
  • Larger changes of temperature and current moves the forest of peaks out to higher frequency (after being lost for intermediate values of T and I).
  • The forest of modes is still there even with both PID off.

 

exit Mon Nov 30 16:12:04 2020

Attachment 1: IMG_0195.jpg
IMG_0195.jpg
  2595   Tue Dec 1 10:59:49 2020 aaronNoise HuntingLaserpll

Entered Tue Dec 1 10:59:48 2020

Turning on the lasers in a more controlled way today, trying to reach datasheet nominal setpoint

  1. turn down current driver to 0mA
  2. Turn on TEC (P and D at 0, only I => definitely no oscillating).
  3. Ramp up the current to the datasheet's I_bias, while monitoring the DC current mon and laser power. According to the schematic, the total current mon is 1 V / 10 mA.
    • Zach mentioned some modifications to this board in an elog. Hm, I've been using the schematic's current mon mapping (max 100mA), so maybe I've already damaged one of the diodes and that's why we're having issues. I don't see a record of the second (W) laser drive being modified, so perhaps this is why we are only seeing the 10MHz line on the E laser HF current mon.

I'm getting turned around, so I'll summarize the state of the drivers and lasers. Yellow highlight indicates this is a best guess based on things like dates on the DCC, but I haven't verified by eye (by opening the driver chassis or making a measurement).

Laser Driver serial number Driver part number known Modifications Voltage limit DC current mon Measurements
East S1600246 D1200719-v4 none no 1V / 10mA (this must be wrong) Zach 2017
West S1500267 D1200719-v3 current doubled no 100 V/A Zach 2017

Something seems wrong with the W laser path. At the nominal laser setpoint, the E path puts out a steady 5.33 mW; the W path puts out up to 1.9ish mW, but the power is fluctuating between 1 and 2 mW.

 

Spent some time changing the W/E mixing BS into a michelson BS for the W path (uneven arms). The AS beam from one leg was substantially brighter (by eye and ~10x on the PD) than the other. I confirmed that the mirror is HR for 1550. Probably just clipping, I had the plate BS kinematic mount in the wrong handedness to avoid remounting it; this was misguided anyway, I return it to original state. When I realigned the PLL path (identical to before this Michelson excursion), the forest of modes returned to the gaussian envelope state (not the bessel 2 looking envelope from yesterday). Could this be alignment / path length dependent? I returned the lasers to nominal T and I, and the gaussian envelope remains, so optical path is my best guess.

A little later, I lowered the TEC setpoint for W laser, and the Bessel envelope returned. However, whereas yesterday the 2nd sideband had a maximum now the 1st sideband is maximized.

Another feature that's been puzzling me -- when I sweep the temperature or current monotonically in a direction that moves the beat to 0Hz, the forest moves towards 0 until about 50 MHz. Below 50MHz, the modes are suppressed nearly to the noise floor; I think the carrier is just visible above the floor, but above 50Mhz the carrier is 50 dB above the floor. The cutoff is sharp, and if I continue sweeping temperature or current in the same direction the modes eventually reappear above 50 MHz moving up. My guess is it's another 'feature' of the analog spectrum analyzer that I haven't worked out (maybe secretly normalizing out the 1/f? but it's faster than 1/f rolloff), and that something cuts off low frequency sensitivity. Seeing as I'm well within 200MHz, I'm switching to the moku to check.

While the ipad charges, made this table of the modes I'm seeing at the nominal T_set of 23 C (10.940 kOhm) for W laser, 25 C (10.050 kOhm) for E laser. The marker tells me sideband spacing is 9.6 MHz; the W current drive HF mon has a line at 9.7 MHz, so it does seem these are related. I've attached the oscilloscope trace, where you can see that the W laser drive HF mon (chan 4) has RMS noise at least 100x the noise on E laser HF mon. The oscillation is dominated by the peak at 9.7 MHz, though there are a few others. Maybe the solution is just to swap in another laser driver -- this driver is a modified version an out of date revision of the circuit. Tomorrow I will swap in the combi controller for the W current driver and see if that helps.

E laser current (mA / 2) W laser current (mA / 2) Envelope order carrier frequency (MHz) # of sidebands (100kHz RBW)
77.41 69.50 0 155 3
75.54 69.5 0 177 3
53.6   0 995 3

 

exit Tue Dec 1 18:08:59 2020

  2597   Thu Dec 3 10:18:07 2020 aaronNoise HuntingLaserpll

Entered somewhat before Thu Dec 3 10:18:07 2020

finishing up the PLL. I still need to set an appropriate gain for the LO, but in the meantime I'll try to use the Moku's laser lock feature

Moku

This is pretty straightforward. Moku has an internal oscillator and lets you control the LP (corner frequency) and controller filter (proportional gain, integrator frequency, differentiator frequency, integrator saturation level, differentiator saturation level). I'm driving the E laser HF and LF inputs from the Moku outputs. Quickly acquire a lock and play around with filter settings for a while.

exit Thu Dec 3 12:30:47 2020

  2599   Fri Dec 4 10:36:18 2020 aaronNoise HuntingLaserpll

Entered lab, then grabbed a spool of cable from EE, started elog Fri Dec 4 10:37:52 2020

thought about filters. The narrowest line I managed (yes really) is in the attached screenshot. I amplified +40 dB with Agilent 8447A before the splitter.

exit Fri Dec 4 16:14:19 2020

Attachment 1: IMG_0015.PNG
IMG_0015.PNG
  2600   Sun Dec 6 19:22:10 2020 ranaNoise HuntingLaserpll

Doesn't the phase meter just read out the noise even with no locking? I thought that was going to be the magic.

For locking, the mixer readout is in units of phase and the laser current modulation gives a proportional frequency modulation with no frequency wiggles until > 1 MHz. So it should phase lock with no integrator, but I'm not sure if the free running noise will drive it out of the phase lock or not. I wonder if its possible to use the phase meter as an error signal. It would be much easier to lock frequency instead of phase via a mixer.

 

  2601   Thu Dec 10 10:05:03 2020 aaronNoise HuntingLaserpll

enter Thu Dec 10 10:04:54 2020

Quote:

Doesn't the phase meter just read out the noise even with no locking? I thought that was going to be the magic.

For locking, the mixer readout is in units of phase and the laser current modulation gives a proportional frequency modulation with no frequency wiggles until > 1 MHz. So it should phase lock with no integrator, but I'm not sure if the free running noise will drive it out of the phase lock or not. I wonder if its possible to use the phase meter as an error signal. It would be much easier to lock frequency instead of phase via a mixer.

Hm, hadn't tried the phasemeter application. I'll check it out now... if I understand your second comment, you're saying because

f = \frac{d\phi}{dt} \\ \implies \int f dt = \Delta \phi

an error signal proportional to phase is already integrating the frequency error. Makes sense, but does 'easier to lock frequency instead of phase via a mixer' follow, or is that unrelated? 

The Moku phasemeter does produce a nice power spectrum. Here it is up to 200 Hz, I'm working with Anchal's ctn-scripts and pymoku to get the higher frequencies. 

Still odd that the beat amplitude is so small. Let's check:

quantity Power of E beam @ 1611 (power meter) Power of W laser @ 1611 (power meter) 1611 DC voltage from E beam 1611 DC voltage from W beam DC voltage gain responsivity @ 1550 (approx) Expected DC voltage due to E beam Expected DC voltage due to W beam
value 307.8 uW 65.7 uW  -1.55 V  -400 mV 10 V/mA 1 A/W -3.08 V -660 mV

Looks like neither beam is producing the expected photocurrent, but because the error is not the same factor for both beams I suspect alignment / beam size. I'm aligning with some apertures to avoid smearing the beam on lenses. Aligning each beam led to more power, but my procedure doesn't simultaneously align both beams. 

exit Thu Dec 10 15:11:30 2020

Attachment 1: IMG_0016.PNG
IMG_0016.PNG
ELOG V3.1.3-