40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  Mariner elog, Page 1 of 2  Not logged in ELOG logo
New entries since:Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969
ID Date Authorup Type Category Subject
  11   Fri Apr 23 10:41:22 2021 AidanGeneralDesign specs2 um photodiode requirements

MCT HgCdTe requirements: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lajp17yusbkacHEMSobChKepiqKYesHWIJ6L7fgr-yY/edit?usp=sharing

 

  35   Fri Oct 1 13:24:40 2021 AidanGeneralDesign specsTM Barrel coating emissivity

I have to question whether this passes a sanity test. Surely in the case of Stack 2, the 10um thick Ta2O5 will absorb the majority of the incident radiation before it reaches the SiO2 layer beneath. It should at least be similar to just absorption in Ta2O5 with some Fresnel reflection from the AIr-Ta2O5 interface.

For example, at around 18um, K~2, so the amplitude attenuation factor in a 10um thick layer is 160,000x or a gain of 6E-6. So whatever is under the Ta2O5 layer should be irrelevant - there is negligible reflection.

Quote:

[Paco, Nina, Aidan]

We ran our stack emissivity calculation on different AR stacks to try and make a decision for the TM barrel coatings. This code has yet to be validated by cross checking against tmm as suggested by Chris. The proposed layer structures by Aidan and Nina are:

  1. *| Air || SiO2 x 800 nm || Ta2O5 x 5 um || Silicon |*
  2. *| Air || Ta2O5 x 10 um || Sio2 x 20 nm || Silicon |*
  3. *| Air || SiO2 x 100 nm || TiO2 x 1 um || Silicon |*

Attachments # 1-3 show the emissivity curves for these simple dielectric stacks. Attachment #4 shows the extinction coefficient data used for the three different materials. The next step is to validate these results with tmm, but so far it looks like TiO2 might be a good absorbing film option.

 

  62   Mon Jul 11 16:24:31 2022 Jennifer HritzGeneralOptical ContactingBaselining the temperature output of the Oster hot plate

This was performed last Friday (7/8).

I secured a thermocouple perpendicular against the hotplate and recorded the maximum temperature the hotplate reached at Low, Medium, and High. It took about 5 minutes to reach a stable temperature, where stable means that the temperature stayed within +/- 0.5°C for a minute. The hotplate maintains a certain temperature by turning itself on and off, so the temperature would drop slightly (at most, a few °C) while the hotplate was off. The maximums were:
Low: 51°C
Medium: 185°C
High: 263°C
At the max temperature, I moved the perpendicular thermocouple around to roughly find the variation in tempearture at different locations on the hotplate. Facing the nob, the top right quadrant is about 10-20°C cooler than the other quadrants, which are within 5°C of eachother. Excluding the cooler quandrant, the center and the outer edge are within 5°C of eachother. The temperature increases as one approaches half the radius, with it being about 20-40°C greater than the center and outer edge. The highest recorded temparture was 289°C at half the radius in the bottom left quandrant. This was only meant to be a rough test to see how even the heating is.

Attachment 1: PXL_20220708_230038748.jpg
PXL_20220708_230038748.jpg
Attachment 2: PXL_20220708_230234841.MP.jpg
PXL_20220708_230234841.MP.jpg
  63   Mon Jul 11 17:27:39 2022 Jennifer HritzGeneralOptical ContactingFirst successful bond

Note that the slides have "GLOBE" printed on one side. I always bond the opposite using the opposite side without the text.

On Monday (7/11), I began experimenting with bonding, starting with "air-bonding," which is trying to make dry, gently cleaned slides stick. I achieved my first succesful optical contact with what I call "acidental water-assisted direct bonding" or "water-bonding," where I accidentally clasped two wet slides together while washing my dirty finger prints off them. After the accidental discovery, I repeated it by running water over the slides while there were clasped together and achieved the same result. After a few hours, I attempted partially sliding apart the second water-bonded sample. I could slowly push them apart by pressing my thumbs against the long edge, but it took quite a bit of force. I decided to let 4 samples sit overnight: 1 air-bonded, 1 air-bonded with the brass hunk on top of it, and 2 water-bonded. Neither time nor pressure improved the air-bonded samples as they still slid apart very easily. The first water-bonded sample slid apart easier, but one part remained stubornly attached until I began shaking it violently. The second water-bonded sample was much harder to slide apart than the last time I tested it. With all the force of my fingers, I could barely make it budge.

Attachment 1: PXL_20220712_223449788.MP.jpg
PXL_20220712_223449788.MP.jpg
  66   Thu Jul 14 14:55:01 2022 Jennifer HritzGeneralOptical ContactingTesting isopropanol and methanol

Note that I am just testing out different techniques, so I have not set up the thermocouples to precisely measure the temperatue.
On Tuesday, I developed a new method of putting water, isopropanol, or methanol on one slide then squishing the other slide on top of it to fill the gap with the afformentioned liquid. The slides are slippery at first, but as they dried, which took about 15 minutes, the bond forms. The bonds were strong enough that I could just barely push the slides appart by applying pressure to the side using my thumbs. I prepared 4 samples this way, 2 with iso and 2 with meth. I took one of each and heated them on Medium for 30 minutes under the brass hunk with the aluminum square on the bottom and copper foil on both sides of the samples. Earlier in the day, I tried heating them without the weight on top, but the heat just broke the bond. I took the remain two and set them aside as controls.
On Thursday, I returned to check the bonds. The heated samples had broken. I intented to check on Wednesday, but I was sick from food poisoning, so I do not know whether the bonds broke immediately after heating or due to sitting for an extra day. For the control samples, one also had a broken bond, but the other had become even stronger.
I noticed that, when the slides are successfully bonded, the shape and appearance of the Newton's rings change, which can be seen in the pictures. I speculate that the circles on the unbroken control are the bonded regions. Ideally, we want to see no Newton's rings.

Attachment 1: PXL_20220714_220953206.MP_2.jpg
PXL_20220714_220953206.MP_2.jpg
Attachment 2: PXL_20220714_220940258.MP_2.jpg
PXL_20220714_220940258.MP_2.jpg
Attachment 3: PXL_20220714_222105409.jpg
PXL_20220714_222105409.jpg
Attachment 4: PXL_20220713_003923957.jpg
PXL_20220713_003923957.jpg
  71   Wed Jul 27 14:50:20 2022 Jennifer HritzGeneralOptical ContactingBonding without liquids and narrowing down heating issue

I have found that, after cleaning the glass with methanol (or even sometimes with just a dry lense-cleaning cloth), I can get glass slides to bond by rappidly rubbing them together until something sticks. This was inspired by watching "Wizard of Vaz" perform bonds on YoutTube. While cleaning, I now use enough strength to make the glass squeak, as advised by him.

Upon heating, I encountered the same issue as when I bonded them by putting a liquid (water, methanol, etc.) in the gap, which leads me to now believe that the broken bond is not due to the expansion of a liquid. Further, even at the low temperature of 60°C, placing the liquid-less sample on the hotplate breaks the bond in seconds, which I caught on video. In the attached video*, you can see that, before the heat, the bond is strong enough that I cannot push it appart with my fingers, but after the heat, it slides easily. Note that, outside of taking the video, I always lay the entire slide on the center of the metal so the sample is evenly heated.

*This is my first time attaching a video. If it didn't attach properly, I'll add it on to a later log. I also want to record myself performing the rubbing bonding technique.

Attachment 1: PXL_20220727_214658230.jpg
PXL_20220727_214658230.jpg
Attachment 2: PXL_20220727_214241668.mp4
  73   Thu Aug 4 13:44:56 2022 Jennifer HritzGeneralOptical ContactingSuccess with slowly heating

Yesterday, I did two rounds of slowly heating 4 samples to the maximum hot plate temperature. This was to formally test if my success with a single sample earlier in the week was a fluke. Note that the hot plate takes about 10-15 minutes to reach a stable temperature when it is turned up one notch.

First round:
I bonded 4 samples by putting methanol in the gap between the glass slides and letting it dry to create a gap.
Starting at room temperature, I heated the slides on each setting for roughly 15 minutes, then let them cool down naturally over the course of an hour. 3 broke broke at medium heat, and 1 survived the whole process. I belive these broke because the bonds were weaker and I heated them slightly too quickly. In previous tests, I would manually switch the hot plate on and off, but I wanted to see if the hot plate could heat up slow enough on its own.

Second round:
I bonded 4 samples by scrubbing the slides with methanol, using a compressed air duster to blow off the fibers, rubbing them together with the pressure of my fingers, and repeating this whole procedure until they stuck (it took 2-4 repeats).
Starting at room temperature, I heated the slides on each setting for exactly 20 minutes, then let them cool down naturally over the course of an hour. All of them survived to the maximum temperature (the pictures show them at the start and end of the heating, note the temperature). I credit this to the stronger bonding proceedure and the extra 5 minutes for them to adjust to the temperature. I did not turn the hot plate on or off at any point, I just let it heat up at its own rate.

I cannot tell if the bonds are stronger. The size and shape of the Newtons rings did not change.

Attachment 1: PXL_20220803_232203193.jpg
PXL_20220803_232203193.jpg
Attachment 2: PXL_20220804_002433906.jpg
PXL_20220804_002433906.jpg
  77   Tue Aug 16 19:54:29 2022 Jennifer HritzGeneralOptical ContactingRazor blade test

We succeeded in setting up an apparatus for quantifiying the razor blade test. After mounting the glass slides such that the razor edge rested against the gap, we slowly turned the knob to push the blade into the gap. We started with the knob at 0.111, and at 0.757, the bond between the glass slides failed. As we approached 0.757, the interference pattern in the glass shifted, foreshadowing the break.

(Edit by Koji. This 0.757 is 0.0757 I suppose...? And the unit is in inch)

Attachment 1: PXL_20220817_023737796.MP.jpg
PXL_20220817_023737796.MP.jpg
Attachment 2: PXL_20220817_023741865.MP.jpg
PXL_20220817_023741865.MP.jpg
  22   Tue Aug 24 08:15:37 2021 Jiri SmetanaGeneralGeneralActuation Feedback Model

I'm posting a summary of the work I've done on the Lagrangian analysis of the Mariner suspension design and a state space model of the actuator control loop. The whole feedback mechanism can be understood with reference to the block diagram in attachment 1.

The dynamics of the suspension are contained within the Plant block. To obtain these, I derived the system Lagrangian, solved the Euler-Lagrange equations for each generalised coordinate and solved the set of simultaneous equations to get the transfer functions from each input parameter to each generalised coordinate. From these, I can obtain the transfer functions from each input to each observable output. In this case, I inserted horizontal ground motion at the pivot point (top of suspension) and a generic horizontal force applied to at the intermediate mass. These two drives become the two inputs to the Plant block. The two observables are xi - the position of the intermediate mass, which is sensed and fed to the actuator servo, and xt - the test mass position that we are most interested in. I obtained the transfer functions from each input to each output using a symbolic solver in Python and then constructed a MIMO state space representation of these transfer functions in MATLAB. For this initial investigation, I've modelled the suspension in the Lagrangian as a lossless point-mass double pendulum with two degrees of freedom - the angle to the horizontal of the first mass and the angle to the horizontal of the second mass. The transfer functions are very similar to the more advanced treatment with elastic restoring forces and moments of inertia and the system can always be expanded in a later analysis.

For the sensor block I assumed a very simple model given by

x_s = G_s(x_i - x_g) + n_s

where G_s is the conversion factor from the physical distance in metres to the electronic signal (in, for example, volts or ADC counts) and n_s is the added sensor noise. A more general sensor model can easily be added at a later date to account for, say, a diminishing sensor response over different frequency ranges.

The actuator block converts the measured displacement of the intermediate mass into an actuation force, with some added actuator noise. The servo transfer function can be tuned to whatever filter we find works best but for now I've made two quite basic suggestions: a simple servo that actuates on the velocity of the intermediate mass, given by

\frac{F(s)}{x_s(s)} = G_as

and an 'improved' servo, which includes a roll-off after the resonances, given by

\frac{F(s)}{x_s(s)} = \frac{G_as}{(s-p)^2}

where p is the pole frequency at which we want the roll-off to occur. Attachment 2 shows the two servo transfer functions for comparison.

The state space models can then be connected to close the loop and create a single state space model for the transfer functions of the ground and each noise source to the horizontal test mass displacement. Attachment 3 contains the transfer functions from xg to xt and shows the effect of closing the loop with the two servo choices compared to the transfer function through just the Plant alone. We can see that the closed loop system does damp away the resonances as we want for both servo choices. The basic servo, howerver, loses us a factor of 1/f^2 in suppression at high frequencies, as it approximates the effect of viscous damping. The improved servo gives us the damping but also recovers the original suppression at high frequencies due to the roll-off. I can now provide the ground and noise spectra and propagate them through to work out the fluctuations of the test mass position.

Attachment 1: actuator_feedback_diagram.png
actuator_feedback_diagram.png
Attachment 2: bode_servo.png
bode_servo.png
Attachment 3: bode_plant.png
bode_plant.png
  26   Wed Sep 15 09:15:21 2021 Jiri SmetanaGeneralGeneralActuation Feedback Model and Noise

I've implemented a more extensive feedback model that uses proper conversions between metres, volts, counts etc. and includes all the (inverse) (de)whitening filters, driver, servo and noise injections in the correct places. I then closed the loop to obtain the transfer function from horizontal ground motion and each noise source to test mass displacement. I tuned the servo gain to reduce the Q of both resonances to ~20.

Our idea was then to compensate servo gain with the output resistance of the coil driver to raise the RMS of the DAC output signal in order to raise SNR and thus suppress DAC noise coupling. I found that raising the output resistor by a factor of 10 above the nominal suggestion 2.4 kOhm gave me a DAC output RMS of 0.3 V, so in line with our safety factor of 10 requirements. This also coincidentally made all the noise sources intersect at approximately the same frequency when these noises begin to dominate over the seismic noise. All these initial tests are subject to change, particularly depending on the design of the servo transfer function. I'm attaching the relevant plots as well as the MATLAB script I used and the two files required for the script to run.

Attachment 1: displacement_asd.png
displacement_asd.png
Attachment 2: servo.png
servo.png
Attachment 3: system_loop.m
% Get piezo stack transfer function
PZT_f = fscanf(fopen('ground_freq.txt'), '%f');
PZT_tf = fscanf(fopen('ground_xx.txt'), '%f');

% Set frequency vector and ground motion
freq = logspace(-1, 2, 1e4);
grnd = ground(freq);
PZT = interp1(PZT_f, PZT_tf, freq);

% Set complex frequency variable
... 185 more lines ...
Attachment 4: ground_freq.txt
0.1
0.5
1
1.419178617
1.489659958
1.554545445
1.719720097
1.806748355
2.030363506
2.133112203
... 110 more lines ...
Attachment 5: ground_xx.txt
1
1.3
1.8
2.794167453
2.905480556
3.077890921
3.854210495
4.502922159
5.213856692
4.990356828
... 110 more lines ...
  27   Thu Sep 16 10:02:47 2021 Jiri SmetanaGeneralGeneralActuation Feedback Model and Noise

Here's the DAC voltage spectrum with its associated RMS.

Also, for clarity, this model is for a lossless point-mass double pendulum system with equal masses and equal lengths of 20 cm.

Quote:

I've implemented a more extensive feedback model that uses proper conversions between metres, volts, counts etc. and includes all the (inverse) (de)whitening filters, driver, servo and noise injections in the correct places. I then closed the loop to obtain the transfer function from horizontal ground motion and each noise source to test mass displacement. I tuned the servo gain to reduce the Q of both resonances to ~20.

Our idea was then to compensate servo gain with the output resistance of the coil driver to raise the RMS of the DAC output signal in order to raise SNR and thus suppress DAC noise coupling. I found that raising the output resistor by a factor of 10 above the nominal suggestion 2.4 kOhm gave me a DAC output RMS of 0.3 V, so in line with our safety factor of 10 requirements. This also coincidentally made all the noise sources intersect at approximately the same frequency when these noises begin to dominate over the seismic noise. All these initial tests are subject to change, particularly depending on the design of the servo transfer function. I'm attaching the relevant plots as well as the MATLAB script I used and the two files required for the script to run.

 

Attachment 1: DAC_voltage.png
DAC_voltage.png
  39   Tue Oct 12 12:44:44 2021 Jiri SmetanaGeneralGeneralNew Damping Loop Model

I've ironed out the issues with my MATLAB model so that it now shows correct phase behaviour. The problem seems to arise from infinite Q poles where there is an ambiguity in choosing a shift of +/- 180 deg in phase. I've changed my state space model to include finite but very high Q poles to aid with the phase behaviour. The model has been uploaded to the GitLab project under mariner40 -> mariner_sus -> models -> lagrangian.

  40   Tue Oct 12 12:49:42 2021 Jiri SmetanaGeneralGeneralDamping Loop (Point-Mass Pendulums)

Now that I have correct phase and amplitude behaviour for my MIMO state space model of the suspension and the system is being correctly evaluated as stable, I'm uploading the useful plots from my analysis. File names should be fairly self-explanatory. The noise plots are for a total height of 550 mm, or wire lengths of 100 mm per stage. I've also attached a model showing the ground motion for different lengths of the suspension.

Attachment 1: servo.png
servo.png
Attachment 2: open_loop.png
open_loop.png
Attachment 3: closed_loop.png
closed_loop.png
Attachment 4: noise.png
noise.png
Attachment 5: length_change.png
length_change.png
  41   Thu Oct 14 04:17:36 2021 Jiri SmetanaGeneralGeneralDamping Loop (Point-Mass Pendulums)

Here are the DAC and residual displacement spectra for different suspension heights ranging from 450 mm to 600 mm. I aimed to get the Q of the lower resonance close to 5 and the DAC output RMS close to 0.5 V but as this was just tweaking values by hand I didn't get to exactly these values so I'm adding the actual values for reference. The parameters are as follows:

Height [mm] Displacement RMS [nm] DAC Output RMS [V] Q Lower Resonance Q Higher Resonance Driver Resistor {Ohm]
600 560 0.51 5.3 1.5 175
550 580 0.54 5.1 1.4 175
500 610 0.49 5.0 1.4 150
450 630 0.54 5.0 1.4 150
Quote:

Now that I have correct phase and amplitude behaviour for my MIMO state space model of the suspension and the system is being correctly evaluated as stable, I'm uploading the useful plots from my analysis. File names should be fairly self-explanatory. The noise plots are for a total height of 550 mm, or wire lengths of 100 mm per stage. I've also attached a model showing the ground motion for different lengths of the suspension.

 

Attachment 1: disp_600.png
disp_600.png
Attachment 2: DAC_600.png
DAC_600.png
Attachment 3: disp_550.png
disp_550.png
Attachment 4: DAC_550.png
DAC_550.png
Attachment 5: disp_500.png
disp_500.png
Attachment 6: DAC_500.png
DAC_500.png
Attachment 7: disp_450.png
disp_450.png
Attachment 8: DAC_450.png
DAC_450.png
  44   Tue Oct 26 08:09:08 2021 Jiri SmetanaGeneralGeneralLagrangian Suspension Model - Extended Body

I've been testing out the extended body lagrangian models and I'm trying to understand the ground motion and force coupling to the test mass displacement. I've compared the two point-mass model to the extended model and, as expected, I get very similar results for the ground coupling. Attachment 1 shows the comparison and asside from more agressive damping of the point-mass model making a small difference at high frequency, the two models look the same. If I look at the force coupling, I get a significantly different result (see attachment 2). I think this makes sense because in the point-mass model I am driving purely horizontal displacement as there is no moment of inertia. However, for the extended body I drive the horizontal position of the centre of mass, which then results in an induced rotation as the change propagates through the dynamics of the system. To obtain a consistent result with the point-mass model, I would need to apply a force through the CoM as well as a counteracting torque to maintain a purely horizontal displacement of the mass. What I am wondering now is, what's the correct/more convenient way to consider the system? Do I want my lagrangian model to (a) couple in pure forces through the CoM and torques around the CoM and then find the correct actuation matrix for driving each degree of freedom in isolation or (b) incorporate the actuation matrix into the lagrangian model so that the inputs to the plant model are a pure drive of the test mass position or tilt?

Attachment 1: comparison_xg.png
comparison_xg.png
Attachment 2: comarison_F.png
comarison_F.png
  49   Wed Nov 17 09:27:04 2021 Jiri SmetanaGeneralGeneralLagrangian Model - Translation & Pitch

I've been having a look at the transfer functions for the translation and pitch of both masses. I'm attaching the plot of all input-to-output transfer functions of interest so far. Here I've identified the pitch resonances of the two masses (one each) as well as the two pendulum modes. I need to now investigate if they occur in the correct places. I have confirmed the DC response by directly solving the statics problem on paper.

Attachment 1: plant_all_tfs.png
plant_all_tfs.png
  50   Wed Dec 15 06:43:43 2021 Jiri SmetanaGeneralGeneralLagrangian Model - Translation & Pitch

I've checked the validity of my state space model in a couple of ways so that we have confidence in the results that it gives. I've checked the DC gain of the transfer functions where it is non-zero. I did this by solving the static balance of forces problem in the extended body model by hand to get the DC CoM position as well as the pitch angle of both masses. In the previous ELOG entry I didn't quite do this for all transfer functions so here I completed the check. My values agree with the model's values to within 10% at the worst end and to within 0.1% at the best end. I performed a second check to see if the frequencies occur in the correct places by considering the case of very low coupling between the different resonant modes. It's difficult to check this in the case where the modes are strongly coupled (for example length-pitch is strong or the two pitch modes are close together) but if I sufficiently separate them, I get very good agreement between my analytic approximation and the state space model.

The model can easily be converted from one that gives motion in X and RY into one that gives motion in Y and RX. Running the model for both directions gives the following list of resonances (note pendulum modes in X and Y direction are identical):

Resonance Type Frequency [Hz]
Pendulum 1 0.85
Pendulum 2 2.10
Pitch 1 0.46
Pitch 2 2.37
Roll 1 17.13
Roll 2 46.09

Given that I think the model seems to give sensible values, I've pushed the updated model to the GitLab repository. It is now possible to quickly change the parameters of the suspension and very quickly see the corresponding shift in the resonances. To change the parameters, open the plain text file called 'params' and change the values to the new ones. Afterwards, run the file 'ss_extended.py', which will solve the state space model, save the resulting ABCD matrices to a folder and print out the values of the resonances to terminal.

Quote:

I've been having a look at the transfer functions for the translation and pitch of both masses. I'm attaching the plot of all input-to-output transfer functions of interest so far. Here I've identified the pitch resonances of the two masses (one each) as well as the two pendulum modes. I need to now investigate if they occur in the correct places. I have confirmed the DC response by directly solving the statics problem on paper.

 

  53   Thu Jun 16 14:04:30 2022 JuanGeneralSuspensionTable for Mariner Suspension Cryo

Today we looked at possible locations for where we will be setting up Mariner Suspension and Cryo chamber. The first option was the far left table in the CAML lab but it seems that there is going to be an issue with height clearance, so we have come up with another solution which takes a table from Koji's lab which is 3'x4' ft and moving it into CAML lab in the back right of the lab. To move the table we may need to call facilities to help us because we will most likely need to take the table apart to get it out of the lab. The aisle space in Koji's lab is about 43 inches, but the doorway, which is the tightest space, is 35 inches.

After we have set up the table in CAML we are planning on moving the Chamber in DOPO-lab to CAML. We plan to use skyhook with has a load limit of 500lbs/227kg this should be more than enough to move the chamber. We still need to get the wheeled base for skyhook we are in the works in doing so. 

Also, We want to remove the previous setup from the chamber and leave it at DOPO-lab. Stephen is going to figure out how to keep it clean (sort of). Besides these transportation logistics, I am also working on the electronics as an immediate task and the electrical arrangement in the chamber.

to do list
        - Check the table height
        - Check the chamber height (base/cap)
        - Check how much the chamber cap needs to be lifted (so that we can remove it)
        - Is the weight capacity sufficient?

 

  56   Mon Jun 27 08:22:22 2022 JuanGeneralGeneralGeneral Update/ Need to do task

I've managed to cut and crimp wires for the power board for coil driver. I will begin adding components to the coil driver board.

- Add Components to Coil Driver board 

 - Replace some Sat Amp Componetns

- Still working on moving optical table to CAML

- Unsure if cryochamber has been cleaned and moved

Attachment 1: coildrive.jpg
coildrive.jpg
  58   Tue Jul 5 21:06:47 2022 JuanGeneralGeneralWork Update

Update of my current work I have finished one coil driver board and started on the last two that I need here is the progress and Ideally, I'll finish by tomorrow. 

Attachment 1: IMG-5362.jpg
IMG-5362.jpg
Attachment 2: IMG-5361.jpg
IMG-5361.jpg
  59   Thu Jul 7 10:23:04 2022 JuanGeneralGeneralUpdate

Almost done with coil driver boards 

Attachment 1: IMG-5378.jpg
IMG-5378.jpg
Attachment 2: IMG-5379.jpg
IMG-5379.jpg
  61   Fri Jul 8 17:09:10 2022 JuanGeneralGeneralCoil Driver and Sat Amp

All three coil driver boards are complete and have been tested. Modification for all 4 sat amp have been completed. Ideally, I would like to finish all the chassis on Monday I have one just about done. 
 

Attachment 1: IMG-5434.jpg
IMG-5434.jpg
Attachment 2: IMG-5421.jpg
IMG-5421.jpg
Attachment 3: IMG-5420.jpg
IMG-5420.jpg
  64   Mon Jul 11 17:39:17 2022 JuanGeneralGeneralCoil driver chassis

Finished all 3 Coil Drover chassis and power lines still need to install the rear cables will do that after I finish Sat Amp chassis tomorrow. 

Attachment 1: IMG-5493.jpg
IMG-5493.jpg
Attachment 2: IMG-5494.jpg
IMG-5494.jpg
  65   Wed Jul 13 13:16:33 2022 JuanGeneralGeneralFinished coil driver and sat amp

I have finished all coil driver and sat amp chassis they all seem to be functioning properly.
 

Attachment 1: IMG-5553.jpg
IMG-5553.jpg
  69   Fri Jul 22 13:47:47 2022 JuanGeneralGeneralUpdate

Just a general update of what I have been up to deriving Lagrange for double pendulum system and also been looking at code that koji gave to me I've add comment to some of the code also working on my report.

  70   Tue Jul 26 14:17:44 2022 JuanGeneralGeneralOSEMS actuators

we have 23 OSEMS they look all full built and I will try and test them this week and or next week.

Attachment 1: IMG-6050.jpg
IMG-6050.jpg
Attachment 2: IMG-6045.jpg
IMG-6045.jpg
Attachment 3: IMG-6044.jpg
IMG-6044.jpg
Attachment 4: IMG-6051.jpg
IMG-6051.jpg
Attachment 5: IMG-6049.jpg
IMG-6049.jpg
Attachment 6: IMG-6046.jpg
IMG-6046.jpg
Attachment 7: IMG-6048.jpg
IMG-6048.jpg
Attachment 8: IMG-6047.jpg
IMG-6047.jpg
  72   Thu Aug 4 11:26:55 2022 JuanGeneralGeneralSat Amp

Sat amp seems to be working just fine. There does seem to be a saturation issue with one of the outputs we may need to change a resistor on the board.

 

 

Attachment 1: IMG-6153.jpg
IMG-6153.jpg
  74   Mon Aug 8 13:00:56 2022 JuanGeneralGeneralSat Amp testing of OSEMS

In the following test, a single Sat Amp chassis that holds Sat Amp Board S1106078 and S1106077

Verification of Sat Amp

First, as the test of the LED driver circuits in the chassis, 8 of various color LEDs were inserted to the appropriate output pins of the chassis. This resulted in all the LED lit and the LED mon TP was confirmed to have voltage outputs of 5V. (See my previous ELOG)

OSEM tests

Connected OSEMs to the sat amp to test the OSEM LED/PD pairs. With the first test, the PD out gave us 15V. We wondered if this was just the problem of the OSEM or circuit, or just there are too much light for the transimpedance gain of 121K Ohm.

By blocking the OSEM light by a random heat shrink tube found on the table, we saw the number got reduced. This indicates that the OSEM/Satamp outputs are working and there are just too much light.

We decided to reduce the gain: The transimpedance gain R18 was reduced to 16k, which gave us a voltage range from 5V~7V  with some outlier OSEMS at 1V (See the attached table)

There are 24 total OSEMs:

  • one apparently not functional
  • 20 fell in the range of 5~7V
  • 3 fell in the range of  ~1V

(These numbers given after the change of R18 to 16k Ohm)

Note: We originally aimed for 8~9V. However, from a previous study of OSEM at cryogenic temperature, we learned that there was about an about 30% increase in the response.
Therefore, we decided to leave a sufficient margin from 10V considering this expected increase in the response.

Attachment 1: OSEMs.xlsx
  57   Sat Jul 2 09:22:39 2022 Juan GeneralGeneralProgress update

I've completed one coil driver board. 
Hopefully next week I can finish the other 2 boards and make the modifications to the sat amp baords. 
 

Attachment 1: IMG-5220.jpg
IMG-5220.jpg
  75   Mon Aug 15 16:37:51 2022 Juan GeneralGeneralUpdate on Sat Amp and OSEMs

Sat Amp 

- Changes to sat amp 15.8 k ohm resistors instead of 16k The change has been made on Sat Amp - S1103733 & S1103732 ONLY Channel 4 and 2 have been changed on both boards.

OSEM

- I developed a test bed for our OSEM to measure force 

I will attach images of the setup and some of the results from 3 different OSEMs.

Future Work

- For the current test bed, we are using a clear plastic bin although not ideal it manages to get the job done and works for now there could be a better solution for this,
- Next step for OSEM we want to use 40 m single pendulum to test OSEM and measure the transfer function.

Attachment 1: IMG-6458.jpg
IMG-6458.jpg
Attachment 2: IMG-6355.jpg
IMG-6355.jpg
Attachment 3: IMG-6459.jpg
IMG-6459.jpg
Attachment 4: IMG-6460.jpg
IMG-6460.jpg
Attachment 5: OSEMdata.png
OSEMdata.png
  1   Thu May 21 11:51:44 2020 KojiGeneralGeneralMariner Elog Test

The first entry of the Mariner elog post

  16   Tue Jun 22 22:28:09 2021 KojiGeneralDesign specsTest Mass wedge design

The ETM wedge of 0.5deg will allow us to separate the AR reflections. We will be OK with the ITM wedge of 0.5deg too. 0.36 deg for ITM is also OK, but not for the ETM.


- Attachment 1 shows the deflection of the 2128mn and 1418nm beams by the test mass wedge. Here, the wedge angle of 1deg was assumed as a reference. For the other wedge angle, simply multiply the new number (in deg) to the indicated values for the displacement and angle.

- Attachment 2 shows the simplified layout of the test masses for the calculation of the wedge angle. Here the ITM and ETM are supposed to be placed at the center of the in-vacuum tables. Considering the presence of the cryo baffles, we need to isolate the pick-off beam on the BS table. There we can place a black glass (or similar) beam dump to kill the AR reflection. For the ETM trans, the propagation length will be too short for in-vacuum dumping of the AR reflection. We will need to place a beam baffle on the transmon table.

- I've assumed the cavity parameter of L=38m and RoC(ETM)=57m (This yields the Rayleigh range zR=27m). The waist radii (i.e. beam radii at the ITM) for the 2128nm and 1418nm beams are 4.3mm and 3.5mm, while the beam radii at the ETM are 7.4mm and 6.0mm, respectively,

- Attachment 3: Our requirement is that the AR reflection of the ALS (1418nm) beam can be dumped without clipping the main beam.
If we assume the wedge angle of 0.5deg, the opening of the main and AR beams will be (2.462+4.462)*0.5 = 3.46 deg. Assuming the distance from the ETM to the in-air trans baffle is 45" (=1.14m), the separation of the beams will become 69mm. The attached figure shows how big the separation is compared with the beam sizes. I declare that the separation is quite comfortable. As the main and AR beams are distributed on both sides of the optic (i.e. left and right), I suppose that the beams are not clipped by the optical window of the chamber. But this should be checked.
Note that the 6w size for the 2128nm beam is 44mm. Therefore, the first lens for the beam shrinkage needs to be 3" in dia, and even 3" 45deg BS/mirrors are to be used after some amount of beam shrinkage.

- Attachment 4 (Lower): If we assume the same ITM wedge angle of 0.5deg as the ETM, both the POX/POY and the AR beams will have a separation of ~100mm. This is about the maximum acceptable separation to place the POX/POY optics without taking too much space on the BS chamber.

- Attachment 4 (Upper): Just as a trial, the minimum ITM wedge angle of 0.36deg was checked, this gives us the PO beam ~3" separated from the main beam. This is still comfortable to deal with these multiple beams from the ITM/

Attachment 1: wedge.pdf
wedge.pdf
Attachment 2: Layout.pdf
Layout.pdf
Attachment 3: ETM.pdf
ETM.pdf
Attachment 4: ITM.pdf
ITM.pdf
  20   Fri Aug 6 04:34:43 2021 KojiGeneralGeneralTheoretical Cooling Time Limit

I was thinking about how fast we can cool the test mass. No matter how we improve the emissivity of the test mass and the cryostat, there is a theoretical limitation. I wanted to calculate it as a reference to know how good the cooling is in an experiment.

We have a Si test mass of 300K in a blackbody cryostat with a 0K shield. How fast can we cool the test mass?

m\,C_p(t)\,T'(t) = -\epsilon\,\sigma A\,[T(t)^4 - 0^4]

T(0) = T_0

Then assume the specific heat is linear as

C_p(t) = c_{p0} T(t)

The actual Cp follows a nonlinear function (cf Debye model), but this is not a too bad assumption down to ~100K.

Then the differential equation can be analytically solved:

T(t) = T_0 \left( 1 + t/t_0 \right )^{-1/2},

where the characteristic time of t0 is

t_0 = \frac{m c_{p0}}{2\,\epsilon\,\sigma A\,T_0^2 }.

Here T_0 is the initial temperature, cp0 is the slope of the specific heat (Cp(T_0) = c_p0 T_0). epsilon is the emissivity of the test mass, sigma is Stefan Boltzmann constant, A is the radiating surface area, and m is the mass of the test mass.

Up to the characteristic time, the cooling is slow. Then the temperature falls sqrt(t) after that.

As the surface-volume ratio m/A becomes bigger for a larger mass, in general, the cooling of the bigger mass requires more time.

For the QIL 4" mass, Mariner 150mm mass, and the Voyager 450mm mass, t0 is 3.8hr, 5.6hr, and 33.7hr respectively.

  • If the emissivity is not 1, just the cooling time is expanded by that factor. (i.e. The emissivity of 0.5 takes x2 more time to cool)
  • And if the shields are not cooled fast or have a finite temperature in the end, of course, the cooling will require more time.
  • 1.25 t0 and 8 t0 tell us how long it takes to reach 200K and 100K.

This is the fundamental limit for radiation cooling. Thus, we have to use conductive cooling if we want to accelerate the cooling further more than this curve.

Attachment 1: cooling_curves.pdf
cooling_curves.pdf
  21   Tue Aug 17 17:48:57 2021 KojiGeneralEquipmentCrackle SW model

As a kickoff of the mariner sus cryostat design, I made a tentative crackle chamber model in SW.

Stephen pointed out that the mass for each part is ~100kg and will likely be ~150kg with the flanges. We believe this is with in the capacity of the yellow Skyhook crane as long as we can find its wheeled base.

Attachment 1: Screen_Shot_2021-08-17_at_17.44.32.png
Screen_Shot_2021-08-17_at_17.44.32.png
  29   Fri Sep 24 11:02:41 2021 KojiGeneralGeneralActuation Feedback Model and Noise

We had a meeting with the code open in ZOOM. Here are some points we discussed:

  • The code requires another file ground.m. It is attached here.
     
  • The phase of the bode plots were not wrapped. This can be fixed by applying the "PhaseWrapping" options as
    opts=bodeoptions('cstprefs');
    opts.PhaseWrapping = 'on';
    bode(A,opts)

     
  • We evaluated the open-loop transfer function of the system. For this purpose, we added the monitor point ('F') at the actuator and cut the loop there like:
    sys = connect(P, S, W, ADC, Winv, A2, DWinv, Dinv, DAC, DW, D, R, C, {'xg' 'nADC', 'nDAC', 'nd', 'nth'}, 'xt', {'F','VDAC'});
    OLTF=getLoopTransfer(sys(1),'F');
    figure(2)
    clf
    bode(OLTF,opts);
     
  • We played with the loopgain (Ga2). When Ga2 is a positive number, the loop was stable. We had to shift the low pass cut-off frequency from 10Hz to 12Hz to make the damping of the 2nd peak stable.
Attachment 1: ground.m
function [grnd] = ground(freq)
    grnd = 1e-7*(freq<1)+1e-7*(1-(freq<1))./(freq.^2+1e-50);
end
  45   Wed Nov 3 02:52:49 2021 KojiGeneralSuspensionMariner Sus Design

All parameters are temporary:

Test mass size: D150mm x L140mm
Intermediate mass size W152.4mm x D152.4mm x H101.6mm
TM Magnets: 70mm from the center

Height from the bottom of the base plate
- Test mass: 5.0" (127mm) ==> 0.5" margin for the thermal insulation etc (for optical height of 5.5")
- Suspension Top: 488.95mm
- Top suspension block bottom: 17.75" (450.85mm)
- Intermediate Mass: 287.0mm (Upper pendulum length 163.85mm / Lower pendulum length 160mm)

OSEMs
- IM OSEMs: Top x2 (V/P)<-This is a mistake (Nov 3 fixed), Face x3 (L/Y/P), Side x 1 (S)
- TM OSEMs: Face x4
- OSEM insertion can be adjusted with 4-40 screws

To Do:
- EQ Stops / Cradle
(Nov 3 50% done)
- Space Consideration: Is it too tight?
- Top Clamp: We are supposed to have just two wires
(Nov 3 50% done)
- Lower / Middle / Upper Clamps & Consider installation procedure
- Fine alignment adjustment
- Pendulum resonant frequencies & tuning of the parameters
- Utility holes: other sensors / RTDs / Cabling / etc

- Top clamp options: rigid mount vs blade springs
- Top plate utility holes
- IM EQ stops

Discussion with Rana

- Hoe do we decide the clear aperture size for the TM faces?
- OSEM cable stays
- Thread holes for baffles

- Light Machinery can do Si machining
- Thermal conductivity/expansion

- The bottom base should be SUS... maybe others Al except for the clamps

- Suspension eigenmodes separation and temperature dependence

 

# Deleted the images because they are obsolete.

  46   Thu Nov 4 00:42:05 2021 KojiGeneralSuspensionMariner Sus Design

Some more progress:

- Shaved the height of the top clamp blocks. We can extend the suspension height a bit more, but this has not been done.

- The IM OSEM arrangement was fixed.

- Some EQ stops were implemented. Not complete yet.

Attachment 1: Screen_Shot_2021-11-04_at_12.38.46_AM.png
Screen_Shot_2021-11-04_at_12.38.46_AM.png
Attachment 2: Screen_Shot_2021-11-04_at_12.39.53_AM.png
Screen_Shot_2021-11-04_at_12.39.53_AM.png
  51   Thu May 5 19:56:25 2022 KojiGeneralSuspensionMariner Suspension Cryo shield Install / Removal steps

Does this work? Is this insane?

Attachment 1: 40m_Mariner_Suspension-0062.png
40m_Mariner_Suspension-0062.png
Attachment 2: 40m_Mariner_Suspension.mp4
  54   Thu Jun 16 19:43:36 2022 KojiGeneralSuspensionTable for Mariner Suspension Cryo

- B246/QIL Skyhook

  • Find the base of Skyhook. It should be in the storage room (B246). Stephen contacted Chub for lab access. Done
  • Assemble Skyhook with the base and check the stability/safety/capacity/height/etc

- DOPO

  • Ask Paco to move the delicate instruments from the table. Done
  • Bring Skyhook to DOPO. The chamber seems already vented.
  • Find the way to place the cap on the floor safely and cleanly. => Stephen
     
  • Open the cap and then remove the crackle interferometer. Wrap it with something and place it somewhere in the room. How? => Stephen
     
  • Move the base to a dolly or something. Then put a cap on the base. => It'd be better to ask Caltech Transp for the chamber transportation.
  • Do we have to temporarily remove the laser safety curtain?

- OMC Lab

  • We probably need to separate the optical table and the base. Ask Caltech Transp to check how the work should be done.
  • Do we have to temporarily move anything on the way?
  • The table can be rolled out to the corridor and then rolled in to the CAML.

- CAML

  • Remove the grey rack and push the desk to the East.
  • Place the optical table.
  • Place the rack close to the table.
  55   Thu Jun 23 21:11:03 2022 KojiGeneralSuspensionTable for Mariner Suspension Cryo

Table moving effort in the OMC lab: See https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/OMC_Lab/412

 

  12   Tue Apr 27 12:28:43 2021 Nina Vaidya & Shruti MaliakalGeneralDesign specsArm Cavity Design 2021

Rana’s code: R_c = 57.3

-->New code with optimization: sweeping through a range of R_c, using a cost function that puts value on peak height, distance of the peaks from the zero order, and mode number. This cost function can be edited further to adapt to more aims (Slides attached).  Currently (code attached) gives --> R_c = 58.4 with very slightly different peaks and  energy distribution in the modes

1) Range of R_c is 57 to 60, for some reason lower values of R_c in the range are giving error --> debug this 

2) Find how sensitive the model is for 1% change in R_c value

3) Make sure the side bands are not resonating

Attachment 1: Arm_Cavity_Design_04232021.pptx
Attachment 2: Arm_HOM_optimization.ipynb
{
 "cells": [
  {
   "cell_type": "markdown",
   "metadata": {},
   "source": [
    "# Mariner: Higher Order Mode Analysis of Arm Cavities for Phase-I trial\n",
    "\n",
    "This notebook contains a study of mode-matching for optical Fabry-Perot cavities using Finesse\n",
    "\n",
... 943 more lines ...
  14   Fri May 7 17:50:31 2021 Nina Vaidya & Shruti MaliakalGeneralDesign specsArm Cavity Design 2021 update

Here are the final slides with all the results on the Arm Cavity Design, please review. 

For RoC of 56.2 +/- 1% things are working well. Tolerance of 0.5% will be better however, 1% is still working; as long as we do not want any peaks ~50kHz away.

For length, 38+0.5% = 38.19 (with RoC 56.2) not ideal, peak is close (48.8kHz) but maybe ok? @Rana thoughts? and 38-0.5% = 37.81 (with RoC 56.2) works well.

To summarise the design:

RoC = 56.2 +/- 1%

L = 38 +/- 0.5%

Attachment 1: Arm_Cavity_Design_05072021_with_tolerances.pptx
Attachment 2: HOMhelper.py
def add_cavmodel(kat, T=0.001, Loss=5e-6, theta=60, L_rt = 2*12.240, R_c = 20, f1 = 11e6, gamma1 = 0, f2 = 55e6, gamma2 = 0):
    '''
    T: Transmission of mirror (ITM)
    Loss: Loss of mirror ETM
    L_rt: Round trip length of cavity
    R_c: Radius of curvature of ETM
    
    '''
    
    
... 98 more lines ...
Attachment 3: Arm_HOManalysis.ipynb
{
 "cells": [
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 376,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": [
    "from pykat import finesse\n",
    "from pykat.commands import *\n",
... 825 more lines ...
Attachment 4: HOMplot.py
import numpy as np
import scipy.constants as scc
import matplotlib as mpl, matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from matplotlib import cm

plt.rcParams.update({'text.usetex': False,
                     'lines.linewidth': 2,
                     'font.family': 'serif',
                     'font.serif': 'Georgia',
                     'font.size': 22,
... 132 more lines ...
  4   Thu Mar 4 17:04:52 2021 PacoGeneralDesign specsSilicon TM dichroic coatings for phase I

Have been using the 40m Coatings repo code by Gautam (with some modifications to make dichroic designs under Ta2O5_Voyager), as well as the parameters compiled in the Mariner wiki for Silica-tantala thin films. Here are some of the top picks.

ETM

For ETM, the target transmissivities are 5.0 ppm @ 2128.2 nm and 50.0 ppm @ 1418.8 nm. After different combinations of differential evolution walkers, numbers of layers, thickness bounds, a couple of different optimization strategies, the optimum design has consistently converged with 19 - 26 layer pairs (total of 38 - 52 layers). The picks are based on the sensitivities, E_field at the boundary, and a qualitatively uniform stack (discarded "insane-looking" solutions). The top picks in Attachment 1 may be a good starting point for a manufacturer. In order of appearance, they are:

  1. ETM_210218_1632
  2. ETM_210222_1621
  3. ETM_210302_1210
  4. ETM_210302_1454

ITM

For ITM, the target transmissivities are 2000 ppm @ 2128.2 nm and 50.0 ppm @ 1418.8 nm (critically coupled cavity for AUX). The lower trans for 2128.2 nm made this easier faster to converge, although the number of thin film layers was equally centered about ~ 50 layers. Haven't explored as much in the parameter space, but the top picks in Attachment 2 are decent for approaching manufacturer. In order of appearance, they are:

  1. ITM_210303_1806
  2. ITM_210204_1547
  3. ITM_210304_1714
Attachment 1: ETM_coating_candidates.pdf
ETM_coating_candidates.pdf ETM_coating_candidates.pdf ETM_coating_candidates.pdf ETM_coating_candidates.pdf ETM_coating_candidates.pdf ETM_coating_candidates.pdf ETM_coating_candidates.pdf ETM_coating_candidates.pdf
Attachment 2: ITM_coating_candidates.pdf
ITM_coating_candidates.pdf ITM_coating_candidates.pdf ITM_coating_candidates.pdf ITM_coating_candidates.pdf ITM_coating_candidates.pdf ITM_coating_candidates.pdf
  6   Wed Mar 17 19:51:42 2021 PacoGeneralDesign specsSilicon TM dichroic coatings for phase I

Update on ETM

New optima are being found using the same basic code with some modifications, which I summarize below;

  1. Updated wavelengths to be 2128.2 nm and 1418.8 nm (PSL and AUX resp.)
  2. The thickness sensitivity cost "sensL" previously defined only for 2128 nm, is now incorporating AUX (1418 nm) in quadrature; so sensL = sqrt(sens(2128) ** 2 + sens(1418)**2)
  3. There is now a "starfish" plot displaying the optimized vector cost. Basically, the scores are computed as the inverse of the weighted final scalar costs, meaning the better stats reach farther out in the chart. One of these scalar costs does not actually belong to the optimization (stdevL) and is just a coarse measure of the variance of the thicknesses in the stack relative to the average thickness.
  4. Included a third wavelength as transOPLV (for the OPLEV laser) which tries to get R ~ 99 % at 632 nm
    1. Imagine,... a third wavelength! Now the plots for the transmissivity curves go way into the visible region. Just for fun, I'm also showing the value at 1550 nm in case anyone's interested in that.
  5. Adapted the MCMC modules (doMC, and cornerPlot) to check the covariance between the transmissivities at 2128 and 1418 for a given design.
  6. Reintroduced significant weights for TO noise and Brownian noise cost functions (from 1e-11 to 1e-1) because it apparently forces solutions with lower thickness variance over the stack (not definitive, need to sample more)

Still working to translate all these changes to ITM, but here are samples for some optimum.

  • Attachment 1 shows the spectral reflectivity/transmissivity curves with a bunch of labels and the transparent inset showing the starfish plot. Kind of crazy still.
  • Attachment 2 shows the stack. Surprisingly not as crazy (or maybe I have internalized the old "crazy" as "normal")
  • Attachment 3 shows a very simple corner plot illustrating the covariance between the two main wavelengths transmissions.
Attachment 1: ETM_R_210317_1927.pdf
ETM_R_210317_1927.pdf
Attachment 2: ETM_Layers_210317_1927.pdf
ETM_Layers_210317_1927.pdf
Attachment 3: ETM_nominal_cornerPlt.pdf
ETM_nominal_cornerPlt.pdf
  8   Wed Mar 24 17:36:46 2021 PacoGeneralDesign specsLeast common multiple stacks and varL cost

Update on ETM/ITM coating design;

- Following what seemed like a good, intuitive suggestion from Anchal, I implemented a parameter called Ncopies, which takes a stack of m-bilayers and copies it a few times. The idea here was to have stacks where m is the least common multiple of the wavelength fractional relation e.g. m(2/3) = 6 so as to regain some of the coherent scattering in a stack. Unfortunately, this didn't work as planned for m=6, 3, and 2.

- While the target transmissivities are reached with comparably fewer layers using this method, the sensitivity and the surface E field are affected and become suboptimal. The good thing is we can do the old way just by setting Ncopies = 0 in the optimization parameters yaml file.

- An example of such a coating is in Attachment 1.

- I decided to just add the 'varL' scalar cost to the optimizer. Now we minimize for the variance in the coating stack thicknesses. As a target I started with 40% but will play with this now.

 

Attachment 1: ETM_Layers_210323_0925.pdf
ETM_Layers_210323_0925.pdf
  9   Wed Mar 24 17:42:50 2021 PacoGeneralDesign specsSilicon TM dichroic coatings for phase I

Yeah, the magnitudes are the inverse weighted scalar costs (so they lie on the appropriate relative scale) and indeed larger enclosed areas point to better optima. I would be careful though, because the lines connecting the scalar costs depend on the order of the vector elements (for the plot)... so I guess if I take the cost vector and shuffle the order I would get a different irregular polygon, but maybe the area is preserved regardless of the order in which the scalars are displayed... enlightened

Quote:

Cool starfish 🌟 . What is the interpretation of the area enclosed by the vertices? Is that the (reciprocal) cost? So the better solution maximizes the area enclosed?

 

  10   Fri Apr 2 19:59:53 2021 PacoGeneralDesign specsDifferential evolution strategies

Differential evolution strategies 'benchmarking' for thin film optimization

Since I have been running the ETM/ITM coatings optimization many times, I decided to "benchmark" (really just visualize) the optimizer trajectories under different strategies offered by the scipy.optimize implementation of differential evolution. This was done by adding a callback function to keep track the convergence=val at every iteration. From the scipy.optimize.differential_evolution docs, this "val represents the fractional value of the population convergence".

Attachment 1 shows a modest collection of ~16 convergence trajectories for ETM and ITM as a function of the iteration number (limited by maxiter=2000) with the same targets, weights, number of walkers (=25), and other optimization parameters. The vertical axis plots the inverse val (so tending to small numbers represent convergence).

tl;dr: Put simply, the strategies using "binary" crossover schemes work better (i.e. faster) than "exponential" ones. Will keep choosing "best1bin" for this problem.

Attachment 1: diffevostrategies.pdf
diffevostrategies.pdf
  15   Fri Jun 4 11:09:27 2021 PacoGeneralDesign specsHR coating tolerance analysis

The HR coating specifications are:

ETM Transmission specs
2128.2 nm 5.0 ppm \pm 2 ppm
1418.8 nm 50.0 ppm \pm 2 ppm

 

ITM Transmission specs
2128.2 nm 2000.0 ppm \pm 200 ppm
1418.8 nm 50.0 ppm \pm 2 ppm

Analysis

  • Main constraint: Relative arm finesses @ 2128.2 nm should not differ by > 1%.
  • Secondary constraint: Relative arm finesses @ 1418.8 nm may differ, but the ETM and ITM pair should ensure critically coupled cavity to benefit ALS calibration PD shot noise.

Just took the finesse of a single arm:

\mathcal{F} = \frac{\pi \sqrt{r_1 r_2}}{1 - r_1 r_2}

and propagated transmissivities as uncorrelated variables to estimate the maximum relative finesse. Different tolerance combinations give the same finesse tolerance, so multiple solutions are possible. I simply chose to distribute the relative tolerance in T for the test masses homogeneously to simultaneously maximize the individual tolerances and minimize the joint tolerance.

A code snippet with the numerical analysis may be found here.


Tue Jun 8 11:52:44 2021 Update

The arm cavity finesse at 2128 nm will be mostly limited by the T = 2000 ppm of the ITM, so the finesse changes mostly due to this specification. Assuming that the vendor will be able to do the two ETM optics in one run (x and y), we really don't care so much about the mean value achieved in this run as much as the relative one. Therefore, the 200 ppm tolerance (10% level) is allowed at the absolute level, but a 20 ppm tolerance (1% level) is still preferred at the relative level; is this achievable?. Furthermore, for the AUX wavelength, we mostly care about achieving critical coupling but there is no requirement between the arms. Here a 20 ppm tolerance at the absolute level should be ok, but a 2 ppm tolerance between runs is highly desirable (although it seems crazier); is this achievable?

  19   Tue Jul 27 11:38:25 2021 PacoGeneralDesign specsDOPO single pass PDC efficiency

Here is a set of curves describing the single-pass downconversion efficiency in the 20 mm long PPKTP crystals for the DOPO. I used the "non-depleted pump approximation" and assumed a plane-wave (although the intensity matches the peak intensity from a gaussian beam). Note that these assumptions will in general tend to overestimate the conversion efficiency.

The parameters use an effective nonlinear coefficient "d_eff" of 4.5 pm/V, and assume we have reached the perfect (quasi) phase matching condition where delta_k = 0 (e.g. we are at the correct crystal operating temperature). The wavelengths are 1064.1 nm for the pump, and 2128.2 nm for degenerate signal and idler. The conversion efficiency here is for the signal photon (which is indistinguishable from the idler, so am I off by a factor of 2?)...

Attachment 1 shows the single pass conversion efficiency "eta" as a function of the pump power. This is done for a set of 5 minimum waists, but the current DOPO waist is ~ 35 um, right in the middle of the explored range. What we see from this overestimates is an almost linear-in-pump power increase of order a few %. I have included vertical lines denoting the damage threshold points, assuming 500 kW / cm ^2 for 1064.1 nm (similar to our free-space EOMs). As the waist increases, the conversion efficiency tends to increase more slowly with power, but enables a higher damage threshold, as expected.

At any rate, the single-pass downconversion efficiency is (over)estimated to be < 5 % for our current DOPO waist right before the damage threshold of ~ 10 Watts, so I don't think we will be able to use the amplified pump (~ 20-40 W) unless we modify the cavity design to allow for larger waist modes.


The important figure (after today's group meeting) would be a single pass downconversion efficiency of ~ 0.5 % / Watt of pump power at our current waist of 35 um (i.e. the slope of the curves below)

Attachment 1: singlepass_eff_overest.pdf
singlepass_eff_overest.pdf
  24   Thu Sep 9 11:25:30 2021 PacoGeneralDesign specsRerun HR coatings with n,k dispersion

[Paco]

I've re-run the HR coating designs for both ETM and ITM using interpolated dispersions (presumably at room temperature). The difference is shown in Attachment #1 and Attachment #2.

Basically, all features are still present in both spectral transmission plots, which is consistent with the relatively flat dispersions from 1 to 3 um in Silica and Tantala thin films, but the index corrections of a few percent from low-temperature estimates to room-temperature measured (?) dispersions are able to push the HR transmission up by a few (2-3) times. For instance, the ETM transmission at 2128.2 nm goes up by ~ 3. The new number is still well below what we have requested for phase I so this is in principle not an issue.

A secondary change is the sensitivity (the slope around the specified wavelength) which seems to have increased for the ETM and decreased for the ITM. This was another consideration so I'm running the optimizer to try and minimize this without sacrificing too much in transmission. For this I am using the stack as a first guess in an attempt to run fast optimization. Will post results in a reply to this post.

Attachment 1: etm_updated.pdf
etm_updated.pdf
Attachment 2: itm_updated.pdf
itm_updated.pdf
ELOG V3.1.3-