40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  OMC elog, Page 1 of 7  Not logged in ELOG logo
New entries since:Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969
Entry  Mon Jul 18 14:20:09 2022, Koji, General, General, OMC #002 Plan Portal 

== Initial Preparation ==

  • [Done] OMC #002 placement
  • [Done] OMC #002 locking
  • Details OMC ELOG 414

== Measurements ==

  • [Done] Transmission / Power budget before FirstContact OMC ELOG 416
  • [Done] Transmission / Power budget after FirstContact OMC ELOG 417
  • [Done] Backscatter measurement with a new deflection optics
    • [Done] Optics bonding done waiting for cure OMC ELOG 420 -> Returned the bond to Madeline OMC ELOG 424
    • [Done] Backscatter measurement
      • Measurement: 0.6 ppm OMC ELOG 422
      • (Transmission is 10~60mW. If the backscatter is the order of 1ppm or less, we expect the light level is ~10nW. Can we really detect it? How? ... OK... last time the measurement has been done with the stick PD type powermeter with baffles and the room light turned off (OMC ELOG 209). So it's not totally crazy.)
  • [Done] High QE PD preparation / install / QE check
    • [Done] High QE PD inventory check
      • A1-23    LLO OMC#001
      • A1-25    LLO OMC#001
      • B1-01    LHO OMC#003
      • B1-16    LHO OMC#003
      • B1-22    @CIT Cage B1 Cleaned/Installed
      • B1-23    @CIT Cage B2 Cleaned/Installed
      • C1-03    @CIT Cage B3 Cleaned
      • C1-05    Dead / CIT contamination test cav
      • C1-07    Dead / CIT contamination test cav
      • C1-08    @CIT Cage C2
      • C1-09    @CIT Cage C3
      • C1-10    @CIT Cage C4
      • C1-11    @CIT Cage D1
      • C1-12    @CIT Cage D2
      • C1-14    @CIT Cage D3
      • C1-15    Dead / CIT Cage D4
      • C1-17    LHO Spare
      • C1-21    LHO Spare
      • D1-08    not @CIT, maybe LLO Spare?
      • D1-10    not @CIT, maybe LLO Spare?
    • [Done] Install & QE check
  • [Done] Fiber input beam characterization OMC ELOG 421

== Repair / Preparation ==

  • [Done] Obtain: UHV Foil (done) / EP30 (found at the 40m OMC ELOG 434)
  • [Done] Crimper tool? LLO bought a new one and modify it.
  • [Done] BeCu wire clamps:
  • [Done] FirstContact cavity mirror cleaning (see OMC ELOG 414)
  • [Done] FirstContact for protection OMC ELOG 430
     
  • Beam dump cleaning -> not necessary
     
  • [Done] Replacing the cable bracket
    • [Done] Obtain all parts from Stephen.
    • [Done] Class B Torque wrench present in the lab
    • [Done] Replacement work
  • Delamination Repair
  • Check all the fasteners

== Shipping ==

  • Tools to ship to LLO
    • CLASS B special tool kit
    • FC kit
    • Electronic kit (PD connector / trans-impedance amp)
    • Spare PDs
    • Power meters
    • Beamdump
       
  • OMC Pelican Filling (Stephen)
  • OMC Outerbox/insulation (Stephen/Downs)
  • OMC Shipment

 

    Reply  Tue Jul 19 03:17:56 2022, Koji, General, General, OMC #002 Power Budget before mirror cleaning 

o Power Budget (2022/07/18)
NPRO ADJ -50 (min)
Fiber incident 62.8mW
Fiber output 45.1mW
Matching to the fiber 72%


DCPD T =  8.90  +/- 0.01  mW
REFPD  =  3.760  +/- 0.001 V

DCPD R =  8.82  +/- 0.01  V
REFPD  =  3.760 +/- 0.001 V

CM1    =  81.4  +/- 0.1   uW
REFPD  =  3.767 +/- 0.001 V

CM2    =  86.6  +/- 0.1   uW
REFPD  =  3.767 +/- 0.001 V

REFLPD
OFS    = -6.214 +/- 0.001 mV (beam blocked)
OFS_REF= +4.587mV

LOCKED =  57.5  +/- 0.5   mV
REFPD  =  3.970 +/- 0.003 V

UNLOCK =  2.816 +/- 0.003 V
REFPD  =  3.943 +/- 0.001 V

P_Inc  =  20.04 +/- 0.01  mW
REFPD  =  3.946 +/- 0.001 V
 


Analysis Result

- Cavity coupling 0.989 (1.1% junk&sidebands)

- Cavity R&T: R=756ppm, T=0.946
- OMC Throughput (Cavity T x First BS R): T=0.939
- Cavity loss per mirror 90 ppm / Round Trip Loss 432ppm

 

       Reply  Thu Jul 21 02:55:06 2022, Koji, General, General, OMC #002 Power Budget after mirror cleaning 

o Power Budget after FirstContact cleaning (2022/07/20)
NPRO ADJ -50 (min)
Fiber incident --.-mW
Fiber output --.-mW
Matching to the fiber ??%



DCPD T =  8.62  +/- 0.01  mW
REFPD  =  3.549  +/- 0.001 V

DCPD R =  9.46  +/- 0.01  V
REFPD  =  3.562 +/- 0.001 V

CM1    =  74.5  +/- 0.1   uW
REFPD  =  3.585 +/- 0.001 V

CM2    =  81.7  +/- 0.1   uW
REFPD  =  3.585 +/- 0.001 V

REFLPD
vOFS    = -6.197 +/- 0.001 mV (beam blocked)
vOFS_REF= +4.58mV

LOCKED =  47.6  +/- 0.2   mV
REFPD  =  3.596 +/- 0.003 V

UNLOCK =  2.700 +/- 0.003 V
REFPD  =  3.590 +/- 0.001 V

P_Inc  =  19.36 +/- 0.001  mW
REFPD  =  3.594 +/- 0.001 V


Analysis Result

- Cavity coupling 0.980 (2.0% junk&sidebands)

- Cavity R&T: R=229ppm, T=0.970 (previous T=0.946, 2.4% UP!)
- OMC Throughput (Cavity T x First BS R): T=0.963
- Cavity loss per mirror 42.8 ppm / Round Trip Loss 238ppm

    Reply  Thu Jul 21 14:35:35 2022, Koji, General, General, Bond reinforcement blocks for the invar brackets IMG_1095.JPGIMG_1091.JPG

Bond reinforcement blocks for the invar brackets:

  • Attachment 1: CLASS A glass prisms (the surplus of the 2016 repair)
  • Attachment 2: Dirty reiforcement bars made of Aluminum
  • There are also many dirty prisms in the kit obtained from Stephen
    Reply  Thu Jul 21 14:55:48 2022, Koji, General, General, Optics bonding for the backscatter measurement IMG_1098.JPG

The backscatter beam is supposed to appear in the backpropagation path. The transmission of the OMC has a couple of optics, it's not easy to access that beam.
To try to deflect the beam either horizontally or vertically, small optical pieces were made. (Attachment)

These are the combination of the optics

- Thorlabs PF05-03 Fused Silica Mirror Blank (dia12.7mm x t 6.0mm) + Thorlabs 1/2"sq BB Dielectric Mirror BBSQ05-E03

- Thorlabs PF05-03 Fused Silica Mirror Blank (dia12.7mm x t 6.0mm) + Thorlabs ME05-G01 Protected Al Mirror (dia12.7mm x t 3.2mm) + Thorlabs MRA10-K13 Right-Angle Prism Nd:YAG 10mm

Torr seal was used as the bonding epoxy. It uses a 1:2 volume mixture (not easy because of the viscosity) and is relatively fast to cure (in a couple of hours).
The test piece showed some softness after 3~4 hours so I left the parts cured overnight at room temp (i.e. 18degC)

    Reply  Thu Jul 21 17:47:00 2022, Koji, General, General, The profile of the beam incident on the fiber input coupler fiber_beam_profile.pdf

The profile of the beam incident on the fiber input

The fiber input was deflected by a 45deg mirror. The beam profile was measured with WincamD. The beam was too strong (~60mW) even at the smallest pump power (ADJ -50) of the NPRO. So the two ND20 filters were added to the lens right before the 45 deg mirror and the camera.

The measured profile had some deviation from the nice TEM00 particularly around the waist. This could be a problem of the too small beam on the ND filter and the CCD.
This is not an issue as we just want to know the approximate shape of the beam.

For the fiber coupling, if we have the beam waist radius of ~200um it is sufficient for decent coupling.

    Reply  Fri Jul 22 00:31:17 2022, Koji, General, General, OMC #002 backscatter measurement OMC_backscatter.pdf

Measure the power ratio between the forward-propagating and reverse-propagating beams.

  1. Place a small deflecting mirror at the transmission.
  2. Place a flat mirror at the deflected transmission. When the alignment of this mirror is adjusted to retroreflect this beam, the DC of the cavity reflection PD increases, and also the CCD shows spurious fringes.
  3. This condition allows us to locate the power meter at the reverse-propagating spot of the transmission (Attachment 1)
  4. Place a black glass beam dump for the main (bright) transmission (Attachment 2)
  5. Now the power meter is receiving the counter-propagating beam. Turn off the room light and place an anodized Al baffle as shown in Attachment 2. Move the baffle to block only the counter-propagating. Move the baffle out. => Record the power meter reading with/without the baffle in the counter-propagating path. The difference is the power of the reverse-propagating beam.
  6. Now measure the power of the reflected main transmission. This tells us the power ratio between the foward- and back-propagating beams.
  7. Remove the small deflecting mirror and measure the power of the main transmission.
  8. Now the back-propagating power can be estimated from 6 and 7. The same amount is going back to the IFO path.
  9. The reflectivity can be calculated from the 7 and the transmission

- To increase the incident laser power, NPRO Current ADJ was set to be 0 (increased from -50)

- 1st:  Without the baffle 0.373 +/- 0.001 uW / With the baffle 0.318 +/- 0.001 uW
- 2nd: Without the baffle 0.370 +/- 0.001 uW / With the baffle 0.318 +/- 0.001 uW
- 3rd: Without the baffle 0.370 +/- 0.001 uW / With the baffle 0.317 +/- 0.001 uW

==> 53.3 +/- 0.6 nW

- The main transmission was 84.0mW
==> Backpropagation ratio was 0.634+/-0.007 ppm

- Direct measurement of the OMC was  after BS 96.6mW
==> Backpropagation power from the cavity: 61.3 +/- 0.7 nW

- Cavity transmission for the matched beam is Tcav RinputBS = 0.963
==> Incident resonant TEM00 power 100.3mW

- Reflection 61.3+/-0.7 nW x RinputBS = 60.8+/-0.7 nW
-> The effective reflectivity for the mode-matched resonant TEM00 beam incident on the OMC (1st steering mirror) is 0.606+/-0.007 ppm

    Reply  Fri Jul 22 17:47:38 2022, Koji, General, General, C&B request for the reinforcement blocks PXL_20220722_222013127.jpg

OMC Reinforcement blocks

1. P/N D1600316; Version v4; Type 01; Qty 30; Source Chemistry Machine Shop
2. P/N D1600316; Version v4; Type 02; Qty 15; Source Chemistry Machine Shop
3. P/N D1600316; Version v4; Type 01; Qty 40; Source Resource MFG PO S422806
4. P/N D1600316; Version v4; Type 02; Qty 40; Source Resource MFG PO S422806

Stephen asked Srinath for the ICS entry.
Stephen made the C&B request https://cleanandbake.ligo.caltech.edu/clean_and_bake/request/1708/

Madeline was asked to take care of the C&B.

Also, the Torr Seal box was returned to Madeline.

    Reply  Tue Jul 26 00:12:58 2022, Koji, General, General, High QE PD: QE measurements IMG_1118.JPG

- Installed the High QE PDs to OMC #002

  • B1-22@Cage B1 was installed to the transmission DCPD
  • B1-23@Cage B1 was installed to the reflection DCPD

Upon the installation, the legs of the PDs were cut by 3mm. Also, the tab of the PD could not be embedded in the DCPD housing. Therefore, the tabs were cut.

The alignment looked just fine. The weak reflections are directed to the black glass beam dumps.

- After the installation, the QEs were measured.

  • With Thorlabs S130C power meter, the QE was estimated to be ~95%. (Accuracy +/-7%)
  • With Thorlabs S401C power meter, the QE was estimated to be ~100%. (Accuracy +/-3%)

It is so confusing. So I decided to make the QE test setup.


Ophir RM9 with chopper (+/-5%): 8.97mW
Thorlabs S140C integrating sphere (+/-7%): 9.11mW
Thorlabs S130C PD power meter (+/-7%): 9.15mW
Thorlabs S401C thermal power meter (+/-3%): 8.90mW
So there looks ~3% discrepancy between S130C and S401C

Then tried to measure the QE of C1-03@Cage B3 with Ophir RM9
- Initial state: QE=0.95
- First FirstContact application: QE went up to 0.973
- Second FirstContact application: QE = 0.974, basically no change


To Do:
- Calibrate the trans-impedance amp with Keithley
- Apply FC to B1-22 and B1-23 to see if there is an improvement
- The power should be measured with S401C because the accuracy seems better (+/-3%).
- Take photos of the PD FC process

General To Do:

- Backscatter test 2nd trial

- Start applying the first contact to the optical surfaces
- Beam dump cleaning
- Apply FC cap to the PDs
- Delamination repair (light side)
- Delamination repair (dark side)
- Cable bracket replace (dark side)

 

       Reply  Wed Jul 27 10:34:09 2022, Koji, General, General, High QE PD: QE measurements 2 IMG_1119.JPGIMG_1120.JPG

- DLPCA-200 trans-impedance amplifier was calibrated.
  Keithley source meter 2450 was connected to the amp. Provide current and read the output voltage with the precision digital voltage meter (Agilent/Keysight).
  Gain: 999.7V/A@7mA, 999.6V/A@8mA

- From the power meter spec, Thorlabs S401C seemed the best (+/-3%). So the QEs of the 9 PDs were checked with this power meter again.

- All PDs exhibited the QE of 0.95~0.96. It's all relative as the power meter has a systematic error.
- Tried to clean B1-22 and B1-23 PDs. They didn't show significant improvement after the cleaning. To avoid the unnecessary risk of damaging the PDs, further cleaning was not performed. (Some photos were attached)

- What we can do is use this result as the relative measurements.
- For OMC#2, B1-22 is the DCPD(T) and B1-23 is the DCPD(R). C1-03 and C1-12 are the spares, according to this latest result.
- At LLO, we track down the source of the throughput reduction (-10%). The QEs of the PDs are going to be tested in the same setup at once to compare their PDs and our PDs.

PD Type SN Case DCV1 Pin [mW] dPin [mW] Power Meter DCV2 Avg(DCV) Std(DCV) DCVOFS (mV) Responsivity [A/W] dR QE dQE Date Note
IGHQEX3000 B1-22 B1 7.734 9.43 0.02 TL 401C 7.745 7.7395 0.006 -0.0260 0.821 0.002 0.957 0.002 July 26, 2022 clean1 / installed (T)
IGHQEX3000 B1-23 B2 7.679 9.26 0.02 TL 401C 7.709 7.6940 0.015 -0.0220 0.831 0.002 0.969 0.003 July 26, 2022 clean1 / installed (R)
IGHQEX3000 C1-03 B3 7.775 9.40 0.02 TL 401C 7.770 7.7725 0.003 -0.0450 0.827 0.002 0.964 0.002 July 26, 2022 clean3
                                 
IGHQEX3000 C1-08 C2 7.717 9.45 0.02 TL 401C 7.750 7.7335 0.017 -0.0430 0.819 0.002 0.954 0.003 July 26, 2022 initial
IGHQEX3000 C1-09 C3 7.737 9.50 0.05 TL 401C 7.776 7.7565 0.019 -0.0580 0.817 0.005 0.952 0.006 July 26, 2022 initial
IGHQEX3000 C1-10 C4 7.757 9.50 0.03 TL 401C 7.774 7.7655 0.009 -0.0650 0.818 0.003 0.953 0.003 July 26, 2022 initial
                                 
IGHQEX3000 C1-11 D1 7.826 9.66 0.01 TL 401C 7.828 7.8270 0.001 -0.0570 0.810 0.001 0.945 0.001 July 26, 2022 initial
IGHQEX3000 C1-12 D2 7.841 9.51 0.02 TL 401C 7.841 7.8410 0.000 -0.0410 0.825 0.002 0.961 0.002 July 26, 2022 initial
IGHQEX3000 C1-14 D3 7.769 9.55 0.01 TL 401C 7.789 7.7790 0.010 -0.0520 0.815 0.001 0.950 0.002 July 26, 2022 initial
    Reply  Wed Jul 27 10:09:51 2022, Koji, General, General, 4+4 wire clamp in hand PXL_20220727_072154009.jpg

Regarding: D1200971

- 4 CLASS A wire clamp obtained from the OMC spare
- 4 more DIRTY wire clamp obtained from WB experiments (they no longer use these)

Once the later ones are C&Bed, we have enough.

 

    Reply  Wed Jul 27 10:34:30 2022, Koji, General, General, OMC #002 Protective FirstContact Paint IMG_1125.JPG

The optical surfaces were coated with FirstContact to keep them clean / somewhat protected during the transportation.
The PD aperture was sealed with FirstContact "caps" (made by Kate in 2016?).

    Reply  Wed Jul 27 23:52:18 2022, Koji, General, General, OMC #002 Cable bracket replacement (1) IMG_1126.JPGIMG_1135.JPGIMG_1127.JPGIMG_1129.JPGIMG_1130.JPG

Parts check

- D1300052-V3 SN001 is going to be used (Attachment 1)

- This is the PEEK version of the cable bracket (Attachment 2). The side thread holes have no Helicoils inserted. This needs to be done!
 

Connector arrangement check / cable routing check

Attachment 3: Connector Arrangement from the Northside

Attachment 4: Connector Arrangement from the South side

Attachment 5: Cable routing (Northside down)

At this point, the delamination of the V shape beam dumps was visible. This is the subject of bonding reinforcement.

    Reply  Thu Jul 28 00:28:15 2022, Koji, General, General, OMC #002 Cable bracket replacement (2)  IMG_1132.JPGIMG_1133.JPGIMG_1136.JPG

Connector unmounting

- (Attachment 1) The connector nut rings were removed using an angled needle nose plier. The connector shell has a tight dimension relative to the hole on the bracket. But of course, they could be extracted.

- The 4 screws mounting the bracket to the invar blocks were successfully removed. No extra damage to the bonding.

- (Attachment 2) The plan was to remove the cable pegs by unfastening the button head 1/4-20 screws from the bracket and then just replace the bracket with the new one. However, these screws were really tight. The two were successfully removed without cutting the PEEK cable ties. Two cable ties were necessary to be cut to detach the bracket+pegs from the fragile OMC. Then one screw was removed. However, the final one could not be unfastened. This is not a problem as we are not going to recycle the metal cable bracket... as long as we have spare parts for the new bracket.

- (Attachment 3) Right now, the new bracket is waiting for the helicoils to be inserted. So the OMC lid was closed with the cables piled up. Just be careful when the lid is open.

    Reply  Thu Jul 28 00:46:47 2022, Koji, General, General, Subject: OMC #002 Cable bracket replacement (3) IMG_1137.JPGIMG_1148.JPGIMG_1138.JPG

Checking the spare parts

- Conclusion for OMC#2: need PEEK cable ties
- for more OMCs: need more BHCS / PEEK cable ties / Helicoils

  • Helicoils: 1/4-20 0.375 helicoils / Qty 4 / Class A (Attachment 1)
    • looks like there are many more as the transport fixture bags (Attachment 2). Stephen noted that they are meant to be CLASS B
       
  • Cable pegs: D1300057 / Qty 24 + 3 recycled from OMC#2 / Class A (Attachment 3)
    • Requirement: 3+3+4 = 10 for the 4th OMC / 3x4 =12 for the cable bracket replacement -> we have enough
       
  • PEEK Cable Ties: Stephen reported they were deformed by baking heat... did not check how they are in the bags.
     
  • Button Head Cap Screws 1/4-20 length ? none found in the bags.
    • Qty 4 spare (forgot to take a picture) + 3 recycled. So we have sufficient for OMC#2
    Reply  Wed Aug 10 18:42:27 2022, Koji, General, General, OMC #002 Cable bracket replacement (4) PXL_20220809_235457354.jpgPXL_20220811_011910569.jpgPXL_20220811_013746139.jpg

[Stephen Koji]

Now we got the C&Bed parts to continue to work on the cable bracket replacement.

1) Helicoil insertion

1/4-20 Helicoils were inserted into the 6 thread holes of D1300052. It went mostly okay. We witnessed that the Helicoil insertion tool delaminated the plating of the Helicoils upon insertion (Attachment 1). Stephen mentioned that this is not usual, but we didn't find anything further such as increased friction, more debris, etc. So we decided to go forward.

2) EP30-2 Kit

The EP30-2 kit was transferred from the 40m clean room to the OMC lab. The EP30-2 kit tracking was updated via C1900343

3) D1300052 reinstallation -> FAIL

Now resumed to the installation of D1300052 bracket. However, the hole size of the bracket is just a bit too small compared with the size of the mighty mouse connectors. It was already quite tight with the metal version. However, this PEEK version seems to have 0.1 mm further small diameter, and then the connectors do not penetrate the holes. The plan could be
1) Use a razor blade to shave the hole inner circle.
2) Use a cleaned drill bit to make the hole size 0.2mm bigger.

       Reply  Thu Aug 11 15:24:57 2022, Koji, General, General, OMC #002 Cable bracket replacement (5) 

- The hole size extension is going forwared now.

- Madeline and Chub are cleaning (sonicating) a drill (29/64=0.4531")
- The parts in a bag were brought to the 40m C&B lab.

- The hole is going to be 11mil=0.28mm larger than the recommendation (0.442").
  It's not a D-hole. The connector has a rounded-rectangular flange that fits into the PEEK parts.
  So I don't think it's an issue.

- Chub has a proper spanner to fasten the nuts. We want to use it here and LLO.

 

    Reply  Mon Aug 15 21:31:56 2022, Koji, General, General, OMC #002 Cable bracket replacement (6)  IMG_1155.JPGIMG_1149.JPGIMG_1150.JPG

The cable bracket was successfully replaced.

  • Looking from the QPD side (North side in Attachment 1), the connectors for the DCPDs and PZT are sticking out, and the ones for QPDs are sticking to the other side. So only two rectangular holes (for QPDs) are facing north.
    • Top left is DCPDT
    • Top right is DCPDR
    • Bottom center is PZT
    • Bottom left is QPD (far/long)
    • Bottom right is QPD (near/short)
       
  • First, the cable pegs for the short sides are fastened with the original screws (Vented BHCS 1/4-20).
  • Then, the cables are started to be inserted from the bottom so that the nuts can be rotated with the spanner. The spanner helped a bit but the nut only has two positions to hook the spanner and the clearance is not sufficient to insert the spanner when one of the hook positions is facing the bottom. The enlarged hole (29/64") perfectly worked . The flange of the connector can be held with a rectangular hole, so a bit bigger hole than the connector size was not an issue. Finally, all the cables were attached to the bracket.
  • The bracket has not yet been fixed on the OMC breadboard yet. This was done with the four screws from the top. Along with the assembly document E1300201, the fastening torque was limited to 2 in-lb using a digital torque wrench.
  • Attachment 2 shows the view from the "North" side. Attachment 3 shows the view from the "South" side. The cables were not yet tied on the cable pegs on the long side of the bracket.
    Reply  Mon Aug 15 22:06:18 2022, Koji, General, General, OMC #002 new cable tie installed 

New cable ties were installed on the cable pegs attached to the long sides of the cable bracket.
The photos are coming from Stephen.

 

    Reply  Mon Aug 15 22:43:35 2022, Koji, General, General, OMC #002 Delamination repair Part1 (1) 

Checked the delamination status:

  • The Invar bar on the cable bracket (DCPD side): Almost all delaminated
  • The invar bar on the cable bracket (QPD side): Rims still intact, center delaminated
  • The invar bar reinforced in 2016: One of the reinforcement bar half delaminated

The photos are coming from Stephen.

       Reply  Mon Aug 15 22:49:03 2022, Koji, General, General, OMC #002 Delamination repair Part1 (2) 7x

EP30-2 preparation

  • Two Al foil cups + A sheet of Al foil (for test cure)
  • Set a tube on the glue gun
  • Attach an applicator tube
  • Push a couple of times, and dispense the glue for a single stroke on a waste Al cup
  • Pour the 6g of glue to the other cup.
  • Add 0.3g of silica beads powder to the cup
  • Steer. Pick a few drops to the test cure Al foil
  • Bake the test piece for 15min in 200F (95degC) ==> Very good

#1 The Invar bar on the cable bracket (DCPD side)

Added short (frosted) Al bars (Attachment 1) to the short sides of the invar bar. (Attachments 2/3). Some glue was sucked into the delamination gap by capillary action (=good) (Attachment 4)

#2 The Invar bar on the cable bracket (QPD side)

Added short (frosted) Al bars to the short sides of the invar bar. (Attachments 3/5). Maybe some glue was sucked into the delamination gap??? Not so clear. (Attachment 4)

#3 The Invar bar reinforced in 2016

Added a short (frosted) Al bars to a short side of the invar bar (Attachment 6). On both sides of the 2016 reinforcement, rectangular prisms are added (Attachment 6)
Some capillary action is visible beneath the invar bar (Attachment 7)


Leave it as it is for a day

 

Entry  Fri Jul 15 22:14:14 2022, Koji, General, General, OMC Lab recovery for the OMC #002 test PXL_20220716_035922673.jpgPXL_20220716_025319391.MP.jpgPXL_20220716_025334324.jpgPXL_20220716_035309066.jpgPXL_20220716_035411435.NIGHT.jpg

- The lab is chilly (18degC)

- Cleaned the lab and the optical table a bit so that the delicate work can be done. The diode test rig (borrowed from Downs - see OMC ELOG 408 and OMC ELOG 409) was removed from the table and brought to the office (to return on Monday)

- The rack electronics were energized.

- The OMC mirrors in use were returned to the cases and stored in the plastic box.

- The optical table was also cleaned. Removed the old Al foils. The table was wiped with IPA

- The OMC #4 was moved to the other part of the table, and then OMC #2 was placed in the nominal place (Attachment 1). Note that the "legs" were migrated from #4 to #2. There are three poles that defines the location of the OMC Transportation

- The lid was removed and the OMC was inspected (Attachment 2). Immediately found some more delamination of the epoxy beneath the cable bracket (Attachment 3). This needs to be taken care of before shipment.

- The cavity was already flashing as usual, and a bit of alignment made the TEM00 flashing.

- The locking was a little tricky because the LB unit seemed to have a gain-dependent offset. After some adjustment, robust locks were achieved. The cavity was then finely adjusted. Attachment 4 shows the CCD image of the reflection. The core of the spot is more or less axisymmetric as usual. There is also a large helo around the spot. I was not aware of this before. I may need to wipe some of the mirrors of the input path.

- As the satisfactory lock was achieved, I called a day by taking a picture of the table (Attachment 5).

    Reply  Tue Jul 26 00:01:59 2022, Koji, General, General, OMC #002 delamination check 2 IMG_1106.JPGIMG_1107.JPGIMG_1110.JPG

More epoxy delamination check:

DCPD R (Attachment 1): Found half delaminated

DCPD T (Attachment 2): Found half delaminated

QPD1/QPD2 (Attachment 3): Looks fine

------

In total we need to fix bonding of three invar bases (including the one for the cable bracket)

Entry  Mon Jul 25 18:25:04 2022, Koji, General, General, A/C Filter was replaced 
New filter PN
Grainger
TK70457312T Mini-Pleat Air Filter, Style - Air Filters Box, Performance Rating MERV 14, Nominal Filter Size 12x24x2
 
Previous filter PN
Global Industrial Equipment
Extended Surface Pleated Cartridge Filter Serva-Cell Mp4 Slmp295 12X24X2 Gl WBB431699
-> No longer available
Entry  Thu May 20 17:03:50 2021, Koji, General, General, SRS LCR meter SRS720 borrowed from Downs P_20210520_154841.jpg

Item loan: SRS LCR meter SRS720 borrowed from Downs. The unit is at the 40m right now for testing with an excelitas PD. Once it is done, the setup will be moved to the OMC lab for testing the high QE PDs

    Reply  Sun May 30 15:17:16 2021, Koji, General, General, DCPD AF capacitance measirement PD_cap_meas.pdf20210529013015_IMG_0577.jpeg20210529013114_IMG_0580_2.jpeg20210529013200_IMG_0584.jpeg20210529013229_IMG_0586.jpeg

Attachment 1: System diagram. The reverse bias voltage is controlled by DS335. This can produce a voltage offset up to 10V. A G=+2 opamp circuit was inserted so that a bias of up to +15V can be produced. The capacitances of the photodiodes were measured with SR720 LCR meter with a probe. DS335 and SR720 were controlled from PC/Mac via serial connections.

Attachment 2: Overview

Attachment 3: How was the probe attached to the photodiode under the test

Attachment 4: The bias circuitry and the power supply

Attachment 5: G=+2 amp

       Reply  Sun May 30 15:32:56 2021, Koji, General, General, DCPD AF capacitance measirement highQEPD_capacitance.pdfC30665_capacitance.pdf

Measurement result:

The capacitance at no bias was 460~500pF. This goes down to below 300pF at 1.0~1.5V reverse bias. At maximum +15V, the capacitance goes down to 200~220pF.

On this opportunity, the capacitances of a couple of Excelitas C30665 photodiodes were measured. In Attachment 2, the result was compared with one of the results from the high QE PDs. In general the capacitance of C30665 is lower than the one from the high QE PDs.

    Reply  Fri Jul 22 17:41:01 2022, Koji, General, General, SRS LCR meter SRS720 returned to Downs PXL_20220723_002330805.jpg

SRS LCR meter SRS720 was returned to Downs as before.

 

Entry  Thu Jul 21 13:21:27 2022, Koji, General, Configuration, Windows laptop for WincamD Beam'R2 recovery IMG_1102.JPG

The Windows laptop for WincamD/Beam'R2 (DELL Vostro3300) was not functional.
- Windows 7 got stuck in the starting up process (Google "startup repair loop")
- The battery can't charge and the adapter connection is flaky

I decided to newly install Win10.
I made a new bootable Win10 DVD from the ISO downloaded from IMSS. The ISO file was converted to CDR using Disk Utility on Mac.
This deleted the past disk partitions. The installation process has no trouble and Win10 ran successfully. The machine is slow but still acceptable for our purpose.
Dataray Version 7.1H25Bk was downloaded from the vendor website https://dataray.com/blogs/software/downloads and installed successfully.
The devices ran as expected by connecting the heads and selecting the proper device in the software.

Then, the Win10 fell into "Hibernation Loop" and "Shutdown loop" (after disabling hibernation in the safe mode).
This is probably the combination of extremely slow windows update (feature update i.e. beta OS update) and the occasional shutdown due to the flakiness of the AC connection

Win10 was reinstalled and automatic Win update was disabled via windows policy manager or something like that. Still, it tries to download and update some of the updates (what's happening there!?

Here are my strong recommendations on how to use this laptop

  • Do not use any network connection. It will enable Windows Update kicks in and destroy the machine.
  • Use a USB stick for data transportation if necessary
  • Buy a replacement battery (maybe a 3rd-party cheap one
  • The Win10 DVD should always be inserted into the laptop's drive so that we can reinstall the windows anytime.
Entry  Tue Jun 28 16:13:34 2022, Koji, General, General, The small optical table not small enough to get out IMG-5203.jpg

The table width was an inch too large compared to the door width. We need to tilt the table and it seemed too much for us. Let's ask the transportation for handling.

Photo courtesy by Juan

Entry  Thu Jun 23 21:03:33 2022, Koji, Facility, General, Moving the small optical table to CAML (TCS Lab) PXL_20220624_035628602.jpg

I've cleared the small optical table and wondered how to move it out of the room. Fortunately, the north side of the big table had wide enough clearance and let the 36" wide table go through. This was easy without moving other heavy stuff.

From here to the door, a bit of work is required. A possibility is to roll the laser blocking wall to the south side of the big table. This will require moving the shelving in the entrance area but it's not a lot of work compared to disassembling a part of the wall.

If this does not work somehow, we will consider removing the last panel of the wall and it will definitely allow the table to get out from the door.

Entry  Fri Feb 5 07:40:37 2021, Stephen, Supply, General, OMC Unit 4 Build Machined Parts IMG_8117.JPG

OMC Unit 4 Build Machined Parts are currently located in Stephen's office. See image of large blue box from office, below.

Loaned item D1100855-V1-00-OMC08Q004 to Don Griffith for work in semi-clean HDS assy.

This includes mass mounting brackets, cable brackets, balance masses, etc. For full inventory, refer to ICS load Bake-9527 (mixed polymers) and Bake-9495 (mixed metals).

Inventory includes all items except cables. Plasma sprayed components with slight chipping were deemed acceptable for Unit 4 use. Cable components (including flex circuit) are ready to advance to fabrication, with a bit more planning and ID of appropriate wiring.

    Reply  Wed Jul 7 14:21:50 2021, Stephen, Supply, General, OMC Unit 4 Build Machined Parts IMG_9238.JPGIMG_9236.JPG

More explicit insights into the inventory for the Unit 4 build. Image of inventory included below.

Machined Parts:

Cable Components:

  • Hughes Circuits made us Kapton flex circuits. These have not been processed in any way.
  • Rich had supplied a spool of Gore 4-conductor in-vacuum wire (see below image). I returned the sppol for Rich but it is living in Downs and available for use.
  • PEEK cable ties were damaged during bake, and will be replaced by SYS inventory.

Retrofit/Repair Capabilities:

  • Aluminum reinforcement brackets D1600316
  • Glass reinforcement brackets (Edmund Optics 45-072 and 45-071)

ref: E1900034 and other associated documents.

Entry  Sat Nov 21 13:58:30 2020, Koji, Electronics, Characterization, Dark Current Measurement for InGaAs QPDs Q3000_dark_current.pdf

Dark current measurement for InGaAs QPDs (OSI FCI-InGaAs-Q3000) has been done using Keithley 2450 and Frank's diode test kit. Frank's setup uses various custom instruments which are no longer exist, therefore the kit was used only for switching between the segments.

The diodes were serialized as 81, 82, 83, 84, continuing the numbering for the OMC QPDs. The numbers are engraved at the side and the back of the diode cans.

Overall, the QPDs nominally indicated the usual dark current level of <10nA.
SEG1 of #82 showed a lower voltage of reverse breakdown but this is not a critical level.
#83 showed variations between the segments compared to the uniform characteristics of #81 and #84.

    Reply  Sun Nov 22 13:49:12 2020, Koji, Electronics, Characterization, Impedance Measurement for InGaAs QPDs impedance_measurement.pdfP_20201121_183830.jpgimpedance_test.pdfQ3000_impedance_test.pdf

To know any anomaly to the junction capacitance of the QPD segments, the RF impedances were tested with a hand-made impedance measurement.
All segments look almost identical in terms of capacitance.

Measurement setup:
The impedance of a device can be measured, for example, from the complex reflection coefficient (S11). To measure the reflection, a bidirectional coupler was brought from the 40m. Attachments 1 and 2 shows the connection. The quantity A/R shows S11. The network analyzer can convert a raw transfer function to an impedance in Ohm.

Calibration and Measurement limit:
The network analyzer was calibrated with 1) a piece of wire to short the clips 2) 50ohm resistor 3) open clips. Then the setup was tested with these three conditions (again). Attachment 3 shows the result. Because of the impedance variation of the system (mainly from the Pomona clip, I guess), there looks the systematic measurement error of ~1pF or ~25nH. Above 100MHz, the effect of the stray impedance is large such that the measurement is not reliable.

The setup was tested with a 10pF ceramic capacitor and this indicated it is accurate at this level. The setup is sufficient for measuring the diode junction capacitance of 300~500pF.

Impedance of the QPD segments:

Then the impedances of the QPD segments were measured (Attachment 4). The segments showed the identical capacitance of 300~400pF level, except for the variation of the stray inductance at high freq, which we can ignore. Note that there is no bias voltage applied and the nominal capacitance in the datasheet is 225pF at 5V reverse bias. So I can conclude that the QPDs are quite nominal in terms of the junction capacitance.

(Ed: 11/23/2020 The RF components were returned to the 40m)

       Reply  Mon Nov 23 23:17:19 2020, Koji, Electronics, Characterization, The dark noise of the Q3000 QPDs Q3000_dark_noise_81.pdfQ3000_dark_noise_82.pdfQ3000_dark_noise_83.pdfQ3000_dark_noise_84.pdf

The dark noise levels of the four Q3000 QPDs were measured with FEMTO DLPCA200 low noise transimpedance amp.

The measurement has been done in the audio frequency band. The amp gain was 10^7 V/A. The reverse bias was set to be 5V and the DC output of the amplifier was ~40mV which corresponds to the dark current of 4nA. It is consistent with the dark current measurement.

The measured floor level of the dark current was below the shot noise level for the DC current of 0.1mA (i.e. 6pA/rtHz).
No anomalous behavior was found with the QPDs.

Note that there is a difference in the level of the power line noise between the QPDs. The large part of the line noises was due to the noise coupling from a soldering iron right next to the measurement setup, although the switch of the iron was off. I've noticed this noise during the measurement sets for QPD #83. Then the iron was disconnected from the AC tap.
 

          Reply  Tue Nov 24 10:45:07 2020, gautam, Electronics, Characterization, The dark noise of the Q3000 QPDs 

I see that these measurements are done out to 100 kHz - I guess there is no reason to suspect anything at 55 MHz which is where this QPD will be reading out photocurrent given the low frequency behavior looks fine? The broad feature at ~80 kHz is the usual SR785 feature I guess, IIRC it's got to do with the display scanning rate.

Quote:

The measured floor level of the dark current was below the shot noise level for the DC current of 0.1mA (i.e. 6pA/rtHz).

             Reply  Tue Nov 24 12:27:18 2020, Koji, Electronics, Characterization, The dark noise of the Q3000 QPDs 

The amplifier BW was 400kHz at the gain of 1e7 V/A. And the max BW is 500kHz even at a lower gain. I have to setup something special to see the RF band dark noise.
With this situation, I stated "the RF dark noise should be characterized by the actual WFS head circuit." in the 40m ELOG.

Entry  Fri Nov 20 18:51:23 2020, Koji, General, General, Instrument loan 

FEMTO DLPCA200 low noise preamp (brand new)

Keithley Source Meter 2450 (brand new) => Returned 11/23/2020

were brought to the OMC lab for temporary use.

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/QIL/2522

Entry  Mon Nov 9 22:06:18 2020, Koji, Mechanics, General, 5th OMC Transport Fixture IMG_0211.jpgIMG_0221.jpg

I helped to complete the 5th OMC Transport Fixture. It was built at the 40m clean room and brought to the OMC lab. The fixture hardware (~screws) were also brought there.

Entry  Fri Nov 6 18:38:00 2020, Koji, General, General, Powermeter lent from OMC Lab to 2um ECDL 

Thorlabs' powermeter controler + S401C head was lent from OMC Lab. Returned to OMC Jul 15, 2022 KA

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/SUS_Lab/1856

Entry  Fri Oct 23 19:09:54 2020, Koji, General, General, Particle counter transfered to Radhika 

See this entry: https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/15642

Entry  Fri Oct 9 01:01:01 2020, Koji, General, General, TFT Monitor mounting 20201008214515_IMG_0152.jpg20201008214519_IMG_0153.jpg20201008214536_IMG_0154.jpg20201008220955_IMG_0155.jpg20201008221019_IMG_0156_2.jpg

To spare some room on the optical table, I wanted to mount the two TFT monitor units on the HEPA enclosure frame.
I found some Bosch Rexroth parts (# 3842539840) in the lab, so the bracket was taken for the mount. This swivel head works very well. It's rigid and still the angle is adjustable.

https://www.boschrexroth.com/ics/cat/?cat=Assembly-Technology-Catalog&p=p834858

BTW, this TFT display (Triplett HDCM2) is also very nice. It has HDMI/VGA/Video/BNC inputs (wow perfect) and the LCD is Full-HD LED TFT.
https://www.triplett.com/products/cctv-security-camera-test-monitor-hd-1080p-led-display-hdcm2

https://www.newegg.com/p/0AF-0035-00016

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1350407-REG/triplett_hdcm2_ultra_compact_7_hd_monitor.html

The only issue is that one unit (I have two) shows the image horizontally flipped. I believe that I used the unit with out this problem before, I'm asking the company how to fix this.

 

    Reply  Fri Oct 16 00:53:29 2020, Koji, General, General, TFT Monitor mounting 

The image flipping of the display unit was fixed. The vendor told me how to fix it.

- Open the chassis by the four screws at the side.
- Look at the pass-through PCB board between the mother and display boards.
- Disconnect the flat flex cables from the pass-through PCB (both sides) and reconnect them (i.e. reseat the cables)

That's it and it actually fixed the image flipping issue.

 

Entry  Thu Oct 8 19:55:22 2020, Koji, General, Characterization, Power Measurement of Mephisto 800NE 1166A Mephisto800NE_1166A.pdf

The output of Mephisto 800NE (former TNI laser) was measured.
The output power was measured with Thorlabs sensors (S401C and S144C). The reference output record on the chassis says the output was 837mW at 2.1A injection.
They all showed some discrepancy. Thus we say that the max output of this laser is 1.03W at 2.1A injection based on the largest number I saw.

Entry  Fri Dec 13 14:59:18 2019, Stephen, General, General, OMC Beam Dump Production Cure Bake IMG_6080.JPGIMG_6079.JPG

[Koji, Jordan, Stephen]

The beam dumps, bonded on Fri 06 Dec 2019, were placed in the newly tuned and configured small dirty ABO at the Bake Lab on Fri 13 Dec 2019.

Images are shared and references are linked below

Bonding log entry - https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/OMC_Lab/386

Bake ticket - https://services.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/clean_and_bake/request/992/

OMC Beam Dump - https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-D1201285

    Reply  Wed Dec 18 21:54:53 2019, Koji, General, General, OMC Beam Dump Production Cure Bake P_20191218_160650_vHDR_On.jpegP_20191218_160705_vHDR_On.jpegP_20191218_160733_003.jpeg

The beamdumps were taken out from the oven and packed in bags.

The bottom of the V are completely "wet" for 17 BDs among 20 (Attachment 1/2).

3 BDs showed insufficient glue or delamination although there is no sign of lack of rigidity. They were separated from the others in the pack.

       Reply  Mon Sep 28 16:03:13 2020, rana, General, General, OMC Beam Dump Production Cure Bake 
are there any measurements of the BRDF of these things? I'm curious how much light is backscattered into the incoming beam and how much goes out into the world.

Maybe we can take some camera images of the cleaned ones or send 1-2 samples to Josh. No urgency, just curiosity.

I saw that ANU and also some labs in India use this kind of blue/green glass for beam dumps. I don't know much about it, but I am curious about its micro-roughness and how it compares to our usual black glass. For the BRDF, I think the roughnesss matters more for the blackness than the absorption.

          Reply  Mon Sep 28 16:13:08 2020, Koji, General, General, OMC Beam Dump Production Cure Bake 

According to the past backscatter test of the OMC (and the black glass beamdump: not V type but triangular type on a hexagonal-mount), the upper limit of the back reflection was 0.13ppm. https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/OMC_Lab/209

I don't have a BRDF measurement. We can send a few black glass pieces to Josh.

Entry  Mon Aug 10 15:53:46 2020, Koji, General, General, Lab status check 

Check-in to the OMC lab to see the status. Nothing seemed changed. No bug. The HEPA is running normal. The particle level was 0.

Went into the HEPA enclosure and put a cover on the OMC. Because of the gluing template, the lid could not be close completely (that's expected and fine).

The IPA vector cloth bag was not dry yet but seemed expired (some smell). There is no stock left -> 5 bags to be ordered.

Entry  Mon Aug 10 15:34:04 2020, Koji, Facility, Loan / Lending, Glue bake oven 

Black and Decker Glue Baking Oven came back to the OMC lab on Aug 10, 2020, Georgia had lent the unit for the SAMS assembly/testing.

Entry  Thu Jul 31 15:07:53 2014, Koji, General, General, Item lending 

Tara: Laser Safety goggle -> Returned

Evan:
HP signal generator (990MHz) (prev. setting 32.7MHz / +3dBm)
Black glass beam dump

Dmass:

LB1005 Oct 24.

    Reply  Fri Jan 30 19:31:08 2015, Koji, General, General, Item lending 

Gabriele:

PZT HV Amp

Evan:
HP signal generator (990MHz) (prev. setting 32.7MHz / +3dBm)Returned March 23, 2016
Black glass beam dump

Dmass:

LB1005 Oct 24. This unit is permanently gone to Cryo lab. Acquired a new unit. Aug, 2016.

Quote:

Tara: Laser Safety goggle -> Returned

Evan:
HP signal generator (990MHz) (prev. setting 32.7MHz / +3dBm)
Black glass beam dump

Dmass:

LB1005 Oct 24.

 

       Reply  Tue Feb 3 18:23:49 2015, Koji, General, General, Item lending 

- The laser was removed and shipped to LHO today.

- UV illuminator / fused silica fiber light guide / UV power meter / UV face shield (Qty 2) will be shipped to MIT.
They are CIT properties except for the illuminator.

Quote:

Gabriele:

PZT HV Amp

Evan:
HP signal generator (990MHz) (prev. setting 32.7MHz / +3dBm)
Black glass beam dump

Dmass:

LB1005 Oct 24.

Quote:

Tara: Laser Safety goggle -> Returned

Evan:
HP signal generator (990MHz) (prev. setting 32.7MHz / +3dBm)
Black glass beam dump

Dmass:

LB1005 Oct 24.

 

 

          Reply  Wed Feb 4 20:07:24 2015, Koji, General, General, Item lending C30140_1.JPGC30140_2.JPGC30141.JPGC30142.JPGC30143.JPG

Shipment to MIT (L. Barsotti, J. Miller)

1. UV Illuminator (LESCO Super Spot MK III)

2. UV Power meter (American Ultraviolet AIB1001) Caltech property C30140

3. UV protection face shield (VWR UVC-803) Qty.2 Caltech property C30141/C30142

4. UV Fiber Optic Light Guide (American Ultraviolet OLB1081) C30143

All returned: Aug 30, 2016

             Reply  Tue Jul 21 20:20:12 2015, Koji, General, General, Item lending 

Kate (ATF)

- 4ch color oscilloscope (Tektronix)

- Chopper controller

- Chopper with a rotating disk

                Reply  Fri Sep 9 14:34:31 2016, Koji, General, General, Item lending 

To 40m

First Contact Kit by Calum

Class A Kapton sheets

 

                   Reply  Thu Feb 27 14:31:13 2020, Koji, General, General, Item lending P_20200227_134755_vHDR_On.jpg

Item lending as per Ian's request: Particle Counter from OMC Lab to QIL

 

                      Reply  Mon Aug 10 15:29:54 2020, Koji, General, General, Item lending 

The particle counter came back to the OMC lab on Aug 10, 2020

 

Entry  Fri Dec 6 00:55:25 2019, Koji, Optics, General, Beamdump gluing 6x

[Stephen, Koji]

20 glass beamdumps were bonded at the 40m cleanroom.


Attachment 1: We had 20 fused silica disks with a V-groove and 40 black glass pieces
Attachment 2: The black glass pieces had (usual) foggy features. It is well known to be very stubborn. We had to use IPA/acetone and wiping with pressure. Most of the feature was removed, but we could still see some. We decided to use the better side for the inner V surfaces.
Attachment 3: EP30-2 expiration date was 1/22/2020 👍. 7.66g of EP30-2 was poured and 0.38g of glass sphere was added. Total glue weight was 8.04g
Attachment 4: Glue test piece was baked at 200F in a toaster oven for ~12min. It had no stickiness. It was totally crisp. 👍👍👍
Attachment 5: Painted glue on the V-groove and put the glass pieces in. Then gave a dub of blue at the top and bottom of the V from the outside. In the end, we mostly had the glue went through the V part due to capillary action.
Attachment 6: The 20 BDs were stored in stainless vats. We looked at them for a while to confirm there is no drift and opening of the V part. Because the air bake oven was not available at the time, we decided to leave the assys there for the room temp curing, and then later bake them for the completion of the curing.
 

Entry  Tue Oct 22 15:54:59 2019, Koji, Electronics, Loan / Lending, Borrowed LB1005 from Cryo Cav 

From Cryo Cav setup

Borrowed LB1005 Servo box -> OMC

 

Entry  Tue Oct 22 11:56:09 2019, Stephen, Supply, General, Epoxy Status update as of 22 October 2019 image_ep30-2_epoxy_kit_pcs_item_1582_location_downs_3303.JPG

The following is the current status of the epoxies used in assembly of the OMC (excerpt from C1900052)

Re-purchasing efforts are underway and/or complete

Entry  Tue Oct 22 11:52:53 2019, Stephen, General, General, Epoxy Curing Timeline of OMC PZT Assy #9 and #10 omc_elog_383_Epoxy_Curing_Timeline_of_OMC_PZT_Assy_20191022.pngomc_elog_383_Epoxy_Curing_Timeline_of_OMC_PZT_Assy.pptx

This post captures the curing timeline followed by OMC PZT Assys #9 and #10.

Source file posted in case any updates or edits need to be made.

Entry  Tue Oct 22 10:25:01 2019, Stephen, General, General, OMC PZT Assy #9 and #10 Production Cure Bake  OMC_ABO_PZT_Curing_Bake_effort_201906_thru_201909.xlsproduction_cure_bake_pzt_assys_9_and_10_20190927.png

OMC PZT Assy Production Cure Bake (ref. OMC elog 381) for PZT Assy #9 and #10 started 27 September 2019 and completed 28 September 2019. Captured in the below figure (purple trace). Raw data has been posted as an attachment as well.

We have monitored the temperature in two ways:

1) Datalogger thermocouple data (purple trace).
2) Checking in on temperature of datalogger thermocouple (lavender circles) and drive thermocouple (lavender diamonds), only during initial ramp up.

Comments on bake:

  • No changes were made to the tuning or instrumentation of the oven between the successful qualifying bake obtained on 26 September (ref. OMC elog 380). However, the profile seems to have been more similar to prior qualifying bake attempts that were less successful (ref. OMC elog 379), particularly as the oven seems to have ramped to an overtemperature state. I am a bit mystified, and I would like to see the oven tuning characterized to a greater extent than I have had time and bandwith to complete within this effort.
  • The maximum datalogger temperature was 104 °C, and the duration of the soak (94 °C or higher) was 68 minutes. This was in contrast to a programmed soak of 2.5 hours and a programmed setpoint of 84 °C.
  • The drive thermocouple did appear to be under-reporting temperature relative to the datalogger thermocouple, but this was not confirmed during the soak period. Neither thermocouple was calibrated as part of this effort.


 

Entry  Mon Sep 23 21:29:51 2019, Koji, Optics, General, OMC(004): PZT sub-assembly gluing (#9/#10) IMG_8933.jpgIMG_8934.jpg

[Stephen, Shruti, Koji]

We worked on the gluing of the PZT sub-assy (#9 and #10) along with the designed arrangement by Shruti (OMC ELOG 374).

The detailed procedures are described in E1300201 Section 6.2 PZT subassembly and Section 7.3 EP30-2 gluing.

We found that the PZTs, which were debonded from the previous PZT sub assy with acetone, has some copper wires oxidized. However, we confirmed that this does not affect the conductivity of the wires, as expected.

The glue test piece cooked in the toaster oven showed excellent curing. GO SIGNAL

Stephen painted the PZT as shown in Attachment 1.

The fixtures were closed with the retaining plate and confirmed that the optics are not moving in the fixtures.


At this point, we checked the situation of the air-bake oven. And we realized that the oven controller was moved to another vacuum oven and in use with a different setting.

Stephen is going to retrieve the controller to the air bake oven and test the temp profile overnight. Once we confirm the setting is correct, the PZT sub assys will be heat cured in the oven.  Hopefully, this will happen tomorrow. Until then, the sub-assys are resting on the south flow bench in the cleanroom.

    Reply  Mon Sep 30 23:16:53 2019, Koji, Optics, General, OMC(004): PZT sub-assembly gluing (#9/#10) IMG_8950.jpegIMG_8953.jpegIMG_8954.jpegIMG_8955.jpeg

Friday: [Stephen, Koji]

As the oven setting has qualified, we brought the PZT assys in the air bake oven.

Monday: [Stephen, Shruti, Koji]

We brought the PZT assys to the clean room. There was not bonding between the flexture and the PZT subassy (Good!). Also the bonding o at each side looks completely wetted and looks good. The package was brought to the OMC lab to be tested in the optical setup.

Entry  Thu Sep 26 17:33:52 2019, Stephen, General, General, Dirty ABO test run prior to PZT Subassembly Bonding - ABO is Ready! image_showing_20190924_abo_qualifying_bake.png

Follow up on OMC elog 379

I was able to obtain the following (dark blue) bake profile, which I believe is adequate for our needs.

The primary change was a remounting of the thermocouple to sandwich it between two stainless steel masses. The thermocouple bead previously was 1) in air and 2) close to the oven skin.

Entry  Tue Sep 24 12:19:20 2019, Stephen, General, General, Dirty ABO test run prior to PZT Subassembly Bonding  image_showing_20190923_abo_qualifying_bake.png

The 40m Bake Lab's Dirty ABO's OMEGA PID controller was borrowed for another oven in the Bake Lab (sound familiar? OMC elog 377), so I have had to play with the tuning and parameters to recover. This bake seemed to inadequately match the intended temperature profile for some reason (intended profile is shown by plotting prior qualifying bake for comparison).

The parameters utilized here are exactly matching the prior qualifying bake, except that the autotuning may have settled on different parameters.

Options to proceed, as I see them, are as follows:

  1. reposition the oven's driving thermocouple closer to the load and attempt to qualify the oven again overnight
  2. retune the controller and attempt to qualify the oven again overnight
  3. proceed with current bake profile, except monitor the soak temperature via data logger thermocouple and intervene if temperature is too high by manually changing the setpoint.

 

Entry  Wed Sep 18 23:38:52 2019, Stephen, General, General, Dirty ABO ready for PZT Subassembly Bonding index.png

The 40m Bake Lab's Dirty ABO's OMEGA PID controller was borrowed for another oven in the Bake Lab, so I have had to play with the tuning and parameters to recover a suitable bake profile. This bake is pictured below (please excuse the default excel formatting).

I have increased the ramp time, temperature offset, and thermal mass within the oven; after retuning and applying the parameters indicated, the rate of heating/cooling never exceeds .5°C/min.

Expected parameters:  Ramp 2.5 hours Setpoint 1 (soak temperature) 94 °C no additional thermal mass
Current parameters:    Ramp 4 hours Setpoint 1 (soak temperature) 84 °C Thermal mass added in the form of SSTL spacers (see photo)


The ABO is controlled by a different temperature readout from the data logger used to collect data; the ABO readout is a small bead in contact with the shelf, while the data logger is a lug sandwiched between two stainless steel masses upon the shelf. I take the data logger profile to be more physically similar to the heating experienced by an optic in a gluing fixture, so I feel happy about the results of the above bake.

I plan to add the data source file to this post at my earliest convenience.

Entry  Wed Sep 18 23:16:06 2019, Stephen, Supply, General, Items staged at 40m Bake Lab for PZT Subassembly Bonding IMG_5216.JPGIMG_5215.JPG

The following items are presently staged at the 40m Bake Lab (see photo indicating current location) (noting items broght by Koji as well):

  1. Bonding fixtures, now modified with larger washers to constrain springs, and with modification from OMC elog 358.
  2. Curved Mirrors and Tombstones as selected by Shruti in OMC elog 374.
  3. PZTs as debonded from first iteration subassemblies (SN 12 and SN 13)
  4. Epoxy-cure-testing toaster oven
  5. Other items I can't think of but will populate later  =D

The following item is in its home in Downs 303 (Modal Lab)

  1. EP30-2 epoxy (expiration 2020 Jan 22) with full kit (tracked in PCS via location update [LINK])

 

Entry  Wed Sep 18 22:30:11 2019, Stephen, Supply, General, EP30-2 Location and Status IMG_5217.JPG

Here is a summary of the events of the last week, as they relate to EP30-2.

1) I lost the EP30-2 syringes that had been ordered for the OMC, along with the rest of the kit.

  • Corrective action: Found in the 40m Bake Lab garbing area.
  • Preventative action: log material moves and locations in the OMC elog
  • Preventative action: log EP30-2 moves and locations in PCS via location update [LINK]
  • Preventative action: keep EP30-2 kit on home shelf in Modal Lab unless kit is in use

2) The EP30-2 syringes ordered for the OMC Unit 4 build from January had already expired, without me noticing.

  • Corrective action: Requested LHO ship recently-purchased EP30-2 overnight
  • Preventative action: log expiration dates in OMC elog
  • Preventative action: begin purchasing program supported by logistics, where 1 syringe is maintained on hand and replaced as it expires

3) LHO shipped expired epoxy on Thursday. Package not opened until Monday.

  • Corrective action: Requested LHO ship current EP30-2 overnight, this time with much greater scrutiny (including confirming label indicates not expired)
  • Preventative action: Packages should be opened, inspected, and received in ICS or Techmart on day of receipt whenever possible.

4) Current, unopened syringe of EP30-2 has been received from LHO. Expiration date is 22 Jan 2020. Syringe storage has been improved. Kit has been docked at its home in Downs 303 (Modal Lab) (see attached photo, taken before receipt of new epoxy).

Current Status: Epoxy is ready for PZT + CM subassembly bonding on Monday afternoon 23 September.

Entry  Thu Sep 5 15:40:42 2019, shruti, Optics, Configuration, PZT Sub-Assembly Diagrams_SubAssembly.pdfC10_C13_Combinations.pdfPlots_Config_Tolerance.pdf

Aim: To find the combinations of mounting prism+PZT+curved mirror to build two PZT sub-assemblies that best minimises the total vertical beam deviation.

(In short, attachment 1 shows the two chosen sets of components and the configuration according which they must be bonded to minimize the total vertical angular deviation.)

The specfic components and configuration were chosen as follows, closely following Section 2.3.3 of T1500060:

Available components:

Mounting prisms: 1,2,12,14,15 (Even though there is mention of M17 in the attachments, it can not be used because it was chipped earlier.)

PZTs: 12,13

Curved mirrors: 10,13

 

Method:

For a given choice of prism, PZT and mirror, the PZT can be placed either at 0deg or 180deg, and the mirror can rotated. This allows us to choose an optimal mirror rotation and PZT orientation which minimises the vertical deviation.

Total vertical angle = $\theta_{v, prism} +\theta_{v,wedge} +\theta_{v,mirror}$

\theta_{v, prism} was measured by Koji as described in elog 369.

\theta_{v, wedge} [\text{arcsec}] = \theta_{PZT} \sin{\frac{\pi \phi_{PZT}}{180}},             \theta_{PZT}, \phi_{PZT} are the wedge angle and orientation respectively and were measured earlier and shown in elog 373 . 

\theta_{v, mirror} [\text{arcsec}] = \frac{180 \times 3600 \times d}{\pi R_{RoC}} \times \sin{\frac{\pi (\phi-\phi_{ROT})}{180}},               The measurement of the location of the curvature bottom (d, \phi) of the mirrors is shown in elog 372 . The optimal \phi_{ROT} is to be found.

 

These steps were followed:

  1. For every combination of prism, PZT, and mirror, the total vertical deviation was minimized with respect to the angle of rotation of the curved mirror computationally (SciPy.optimize.minimize). The results of this computation can be found in Attachment 2: where Tables 1.1 and 2.1 show the minimum achievable deviations for mirrors C10 and C13 respectively, and Tables 1.2 and 2.2 show the corresponding angle of rotation of the mirrors \phi_{ROT} .
  2. From the combinations that show low total deviations (highlighted in red in Attachment 2), the tolerances for 5 arcsec and 10 arcsec deviations with mirror rotation were calculated, and is shown in Tables 1.3, 1.4, 2.3, 2.4 of Attachment 2.
  3. While calculating the tolerances, the dependence of the vertical deviations with rotation were also plotted (refer Attachment 3).
  4. Two sets from available components with low total deviation and high tolerance were chosen. 

 

Result:

These are the ones that were chosen:

  1. M14 + PZT13 at 0deg + C13 rotated by 169deg anticlockwise (tot vertical dev ~ -3 arcsec)
  2. M12 + PZT12 at 0deg + C10 rotated by 88deg clockwise (tot vertical dev ~0 arcsec)

The method of attaching them is depicted in Attachment 1.

 

Entry  Thu Jan 10 18:37:50 2013, Koji, Optics, Characterization, Wedging of the PZTs PZT_wedging.pdf

Yesterday I measured the thickness of the PZTs in order to get an idea how much the PZTs are wedged.

For each PZT, the thickness at six points along the ring was measured with a micrometer gauge.
The orientation of the PZT was recognized by the wire direction and a black marking to indicate the polarity.

A least square fitting of these six points determines the most likely PZT plane.
Note that the measured numbers are assumed to be the thickness at the inner rim of the ring
as the micrometer can only measure the maximum thickness of a region and the inner rim has the largest effect on the wedge angle.
The inner diameter of the ring is 9mm.



The measurements show all PZTs have thickness variation of 3um maximum.

The estimated wedge angles are distributed from 8 to 26 arcsec. The directions of the wedges seem to be random
(i.e. not associated with the wires)



As wedging of 30 arcsec causes at most ~0.3mm spot shift of the cavity (easy to remember),
the wedging of the PZTs is not critical by itself. Also, this number can be reduced by choosing the PZT orientations
based on the estimated wedge directions --- as long as we can believe the measurements.



Next step is to locate the minima of each curved mirror. Do you have any idea how to measure them?

    Reply  Thu Aug 22 12:35:53 2019, Stephen, Optics, Characterization, Wedging of the debonded PZTs 2019 August IMG_4775.JPGIMG_4770.JPG

Wedge and thickness measurements of PZTs 12 and 13 took place after debonding and cleaning - results are shown in the first image (handwritten post-it format).

These thickness measurements seem to have come back thinner than previous measurements. It is possible that I have removed some PZT material while mechanically removing glue. It is also possible that there is systematic error between the two sets of measurements. I did not run any calculations of wedge ange or orientation on these data.

Note that cleaning of debonded PZTs involved mechanically separating glue from the planar faces of PZTs. The second image shows the razer blade used to scrape the glue away.

There were thick rings of glue where there had been excess squeezed out of the bond region, and there was also a difficult-to-remove bond layer that was thinner. I observed the presence of the thin layer by its reflectivity. The thick glue came off in patches, while the thin glue came off with a bit of a powdery appearance. It was hard to be certain that all of the thin bond layer came off, but I made many passes on each of the faces of the 2 PZTs that had been in the bonded CM assemblies. I found it was easiest to remove the glue in the bonded

I was anticipating that the expected 75-90 micron bond layer would affect the micrometer thickness measurements if it was still present, but I did not notice any irregularities (and certainly not at the 10 micron level), indicating that the glue was removed successfully (at least to the ~1 micron level).

 

Quote:

Yesterday I measured the thickness of the PZTs in order to get an idea how much the PZTs are wedged.

For each PZT, the thickness at six points along the ring was measured with a micrometer gauge.
The orientation of the PZT was recognized by the wire direction and a black marking to indicate the polarity.

A least square fitting of these six points determines the most likely PZT plane.
Note that the measured numbers are assumed to be the thickness at the inner rim of the ring
as the micrometer can only measure the maximum thickness of a region and the inner rim has the largest effect on the wedge angle.
The inner diameter of the ring is 9mm.



The measurements show all PZTs have thickness variation of 3um maximum.

The estimated wedge angles are distributed from 8 to 26 arcsec. The directions of the wedges seem to be random
(i.e. not associated with the wires)



As wedging of 30 arcsec causes at most ~0.3mm spot shift of the cavity (easy to remember),
the wedging of the PZTs is not critical by itself. Also, this number can be reduced by choosing the PZT orientations
based on the estimated wedge directions --- as long as we can believe the measurements.



Next step is to locate the minima of each curved mirror. Do you have any idea how to measure them?

 

       Reply  Thu Aug 29 11:51:49 2019, shruti, Optics, Characterization, Wedging of the debonded PZTs - Calculation PZT_Wedging_Results.pdfPZT_Wedging_Calc.pdf

Using the measurements of PZTs 12,13 taken by Stephen, I estimated the wedging angle and orientation following Section 2.3.1 of T1500060. The results can be found in Attachment1 and is summarised as follows.

For PZT 12, PZT 13 respectively:

Avg. height = 2.0063 mm, 2.0035 mm

Wedge direction (from the same direction as in the doc: positive right) = 120 deg, 120 deg

Wedge angles = 45.8 arcsec, 30.6 arcsec

 

This was done assuming that the measurements were taken uniformly at intervals of 60deg along the inner rim of the PZT. The diameter (2r) of the inner rim, according to T1500060, is 9mm. The measured heights were fitted with the function

h = h_0 + \tan(\Omega)\text{ }r(1-\cos(\theta - \alpha))

as depicted in Attachment2 to find wedging angle (\Omega) and orientation (\alpha).

Quote:

Wedge and thickness measurements of PZTs 12 and 13 took place after debonding and cleaning - results are shown in the first image (handwritten post-it format).

These thickness measurements seem to have come back thinner than previous measurements. It is possible that I have removed some PZT material while mechanically removing glue. It is also possible that there is systematic error between the two sets of measurements. I did not run any calculations of wedge ange or orientation on these data.

Note that cleaning of debonded PZTs involved mechanically separating glue from the planar faces of PZTs. The second image shows the razer blade used to scrape the glue away.

There were thick rings of glue where there had been excess squeezed out of the bond region, and there was also a difficult-to-remove bond layer that was thinner. I observed the presence of the thin layer by its reflectivity. The thick glue came off in patches, while the thin glue came off with a bit of a powdery appearance. It was hard to be certain that all of the thin bond layer came off, but I made many passes on each of the faces of the 2 PZTs that had been in the bonded CM assemblies. I found it was easiest to remove the glue in the bonded

I was anticipating that the expected 75-90 micron bond layer would affect the micrometer thickness measurements if it was still present, but I did not notice any irregularities (and certainly not at the 10 micron level), indicating that the glue was removed successfully (at least to the ~1 micron level).

 

Quote:

Yesterday I measured the thickness of the PZTs in order to get an idea how much the PZTs are wedged.

For each PZT, the thickness at six points along the ring was measured with a micrometer gauge.
The orientation of the PZT was recognized by the wire direction and a black marking to indicate the polarity.

A least square fitting of these six points determines the most likely PZT plane.
Note that the measured numbers are assumed to be the thickness at the inner rim of the ring
as the micrometer can only measure the maximum thickness of a region and the inner rim has the largest effect on the wedge angle.
The inner diameter of the ring is 9mm.



The measurements show all PZTs have thickness variation of 3um maximum.

The estimated wedge angles are distributed from 8 to 26 arcsec. The directions of the wedges seem to be random
(i.e. not associated with the wires)



As wedging of 30 arcsec causes at most ~0.3mm spot shift of the cavity (easy to remember),
the wedging of the PZTs is not critical by itself. Also, this number can be reduced by choosing the PZT orientations
based on the estimated wedge directions --- as long as we can believe the measurements.



Next step is to locate the minima of each curved mirror. Do you have any idea how to measure them?

 

 

Entry  Fri Aug 23 11:11:44 2019, shruti, Optics, Characterization, Finding the curvature bottom CircleFit.pdfSineFit.pdf

I attempted to fit the data taken by Koji of the beam spot precession at the CCD in order to find the location of the curvature bottom in terms of its distance (d) and angle (\phi) from the centre of the mirror. This was done using the method described in a previous similar measurement  and Section 2.1.3 of T1500060.

Initially, I attempted doing a circle_fit on python as seen in Attachment 1, and even though more points seem to coincide with the circle, Koji pointed out that the more appropriate way of doing it would be to fit the following function:

f(i, \theta, r, \phi) = \delta_{i,0} [r \cos(\theta+\phi) + x_c] + \delta_{i,1} [r \sin(\theta+\phi) +y_c]

since that would allow us to measure the angle \phi more accurately; \phi is the anti-clockwise measured angle that the curvature bottom makes with the positive x direction.

As seen on the face of the CCD, x is positive up and y is positive right, thus, plotting it as the reflection (ref. Attachment 2) would make sure that \phi is measured anti-clockwise from the positive x direction.

 

The distance from the curvature bottom is calculated as 

d = \frac{rR}{2L}

r: radius of precession on CCD screen (value obtained from fit parameters, uncertainty in this taken from the std dev provided by fit function)

R: radius of curvature of the mirror 

L: Distance between mirror and CCD

 

R = 2.575 \pm 0.005 m (taken from testing procedure doc referenced earlier) and L = 0.644 \pm 0.005 m (value taken from testing doc, uncertainty from Koji)

  d (mm) \phi (deg)
C7 0.554 \pm 0.004 -80.028 \pm 0.005
C10 0.257 \pm 0.002 -135.55 \pm 0.02
C13 0.161 \pm 0.001 -79.31 \pm 0.06

 

Entry  Mon Jul 1 12:49:42 2019, Koji, Optics, Characterization, Scattering measurement of A and C mirrors omc_cm_tis_062419.pdfomc_prism_tis_062419.pdf

Liyuan's scattering measurement for the A and C mirrors.

Entry  Mon Jul 1 12:38:49 2019, Koji, Optics, Characterization, A and M prisms perpendicularity measurement 6x

[Stephen, Koji]

The perpendicularity of some of the A and M prisms were tested.

Results

- The measurement results are listed as Attachment 1 and 2 together with the comparisons to the measurement in 2013 and the spec provided from the vendor.
- Here, the positive number means that the front side of the prism has larger angle than 90deg for the air side. (i.e. positive number = facing up)
- The RoC of the curved mirrors is 2.5m. Therefore, roughly speaking, 83arcsec corresponds to ~1mm beam spot shift. The requirement is 30 arcsec.
- The A prisms tend to have positive and small angle deviations while the M prisms to have negative and large (~50arcsec) angle deviations.
- The consistency: The measurements in 2013 and 2019 have some descrepancy but not too big. This variation tells us the reliability of the measurements, say +/-30arcsec.

Setup

- The photos of the setup is shown as Attachments 3/4/5. Basically this follows the procedure described in Sec 2.2.2 of T1500060.
- The autocollimator (AC) is held with the V holders + posts.
- The periscope post for the turning Al mirror was brought from Downs by Stephen.
- The turning mirror is a 2" Al mirror. The alignment of the turning mirror was initially aligned using the retroreflection to the AC. Then the pitching of the holder was rotated by 22.5deg so that the AC beam goes down to the prism.
- The prism is held on a Al mirror using the post taken from a prism mount.
- If the maximum illumination (8V) is used, the greenish light becomes visible and the alignment becomes easier.
- There are two reflections 1) The beam which hits the prism first, and then the bottom mirror second, 2) The beam which hits the bottom mirror first and then the prism second. Each beam gains 2 theta compared to the perfect retroreflection case. Therefore the two beams have 4 theta of their relative angle difference. The AC is calibrated to detect 2 theta and tells you theta (1div = 1 arcmin = 60 arcsec). So just read the angle defferencein the AC and divide the number by 2 (not 4).

Entry  Mon Jun 24 12:54:58 2019, Koji, Clean, General, HEPA BOOTH 

https://www.airscience.com/purair-flow-laminar-flow-cabinets

Entry  Tue May 28 12:14:20 2019, Stephen, Optics, General, CM PZT Assembly Debonding of EP30-2 in Acetone 8x

[LiyuanZ, StephenA]

Downs B119

Summary: Beginning on 20 May 2019, two CM PZT assemblies were soaked in Acetone in an effort to debond the EP30-2 bonds between tombstone-PZT and between PZT-optic. Debonding was straightforward after 8 days of soaking. 24 hours of additional acetone soaking will now be conducted in an attempt to remove remnant EP30-2 from bonding surfaces.

Procedure: The assemblies were allowed to soak in acetone for 8 days, with acetone level below the HR surface of the optic. No agitation of the solution, mechanical abrasion of the bond, or other disturbance was needed for the bond to soften.

GariLynn contributed the glassware and fume hood, and advised on the process (similar to debonding of CM and PZT from OMC SN002 after damaging event). The equipment list was (WIP, more detail / part numbers will be gathered today and tomorrow):

  • crystallizing dish (no spout, like a deep petri dish)
  • curved lid
  • wax sheet (to seal)
  • acetone
  • fume hood

Results: Today, 28 May 2019, I went to the lab to check on the optics after 8 days of soaking. Liyuan had monitored the acetone level during the first 4 days, topping up once on 24 May. All bonds were fully submerged for 8 days.

There were 2 assemblies soaked in one crystallizing dish. Debonded assemblies - ref OMC eLOG 328 for specified orientations and components:

PZT Assy #9 - ref. OMC eLOG 334 - M17+PZT#12+C10

PZT Assy #7 - ref. OMC eLOG 332 - M1+PZT#13+C13

PZT Assy #7 was investigated first.

  • C13 was removed with no force required.
  • PZT#13 was removed with no force required.
  • EP30-2 remained at the bond surfaces and tracing the diameters of each bond on each of the 3 bonding surfaces of the PZT and tombstone - these components were returned to the dish to soak.
  • No EP30-2 remained on the surface of the curved mirror - C13 was removed and stored.

A video of removal of C10 and PZT#12 from PZT Assy #9 was collected (See Attachment 8), showing the ease with which the debonded components could be separated.

  • C10 was removed with no force required.
  • A slight force - applied by gripping the barrel of the PZT and pushing with the index finger on the surface of the tombstone - was required to separate PZT#12 from M17,
    • likely due to excess glue at the barrel of the PZT
  • EP30-2 remained at the bond surfaces and tracing the diameters of each bond on each of the 3 bonding surfaces of the PZT and tombstone - these components were returned to the dish to soak.
  • No EP30-2 remained on the surface of the curved mirror - C13 was removed and stored.

Photos and video have been be added to supplement this report (edit 2019/07/08).

 

Entry  Thu May 23 23:27:38 2019, Koji, Optics, Characterization, IGHQEX3000 high power test HQEPD_high_power_test.pdfpd_images.png

LaserComponents IGHQEX3000 (Cage B2: Serial# B1-23) was exposed to the beam with the optical power from 1.6mW to 332mW.
After each illumination, the dark current and the dark noise level were measured. Also the photo image of the PD surface was taken each time.

- No significant change of the dark current after each illumination.

- No significant change of the dark noise after each illumination.

- No visible change of the surface observed.

(During this dark noise measurement, the current amp gain was set to be 1e8 V/A, instead of 1e7 for the measurements yesterday.)

Entry  Thu May 23 01:42:46 2019, Koji, Optics, Characterization, C30665 high power test C30665_high_power_test.pdfpd_surface.jpg

An Excelitas C30665 PD with the cap removed (SN07 in Case H slot #2) was exposed to the beam with the optical power of 1.4mW to 334mW.
After each illumination, the dark current and the dark noise level were tested. Also the photo image of the PD surface was taken each time.

- No significant change of the dark current after each illumination.

- No significant change of the dark noise after each illumination.

- No visible change of the surface observed.

 

Entry  Mon May 20 19:53:17 2019, Koji, Optics, Configuration, DCPD high power test BIAS.pdfP_20190520_204822.jpg

We want to perform a damage test of OMC DCPDs with high power beam. The OMC DCPD is the 3mm InGaAs photodiodes with high quantum efficiency, delivered by Laser Components.
The sites want to know the allowed input power during the OMC scan for beam mode analysis. The nominal bias voltage of the PDs is +12V. Therefore, 30mA of photocurrent with the transimpedance of 400 Ohm is already enough to saturate the circuit. This means that the test is intended to check the damage of the photodiode mainly by the optical power.

The test procedure is as follows:

1. Illuminate the diode with certain optical power.
2. Measure the dark current and dark noise of the PD with no light on it.
3. Check the condition of the PD surface with a digital camera.
4. Repeat 1~3 with larger optical power.

The beam from an NPRO laser is delivered to the photodiode. The maximum power available is 300~400mW. The beam shape was regulated to have the beam radius of ~500um.

- When the PD is exposed to the high power beam, the circuit setup A) is used. This setup is intended to mimic the bias and transimpedance configuration used in the DCPD amp at the site.

- When the dark noise is measured, the circuit setup B) is used. This setup is low noise enough to measure the dark noise (and current) of the PD.

- The test procedure is going to be tested with an Excelitas 3mm InGaAs PD (C30665), and then tested with the high QE PD.

    Reply  Wed May 22 07:31:37 2019, Koji, Optics, Configuration, Camera test (DCPD high power test) 20190521201838_IMG_7939_2.jpg

C30665 (3mm) camera test. The camera was Canon PowerShot G7X MkII. Exposure 1/15s, F 5.6, ISO 125, MF (~the closest), no zoom.
This image was taken before the beam illumination. Will tune the green lighting to have some gradient on the surface so that we can see any deformation of the surface.

 

Entry  Thu May 16 12:41:28 2019, Chub, General, General, fire pillow found on optics table 

That is an expanding fire pillow, also known as firebrick.  It is used to create a fire block where holes in fire-rated walls are made and prevents lab fires from spreading rapidly to adjacent labs.  I had to pull cable from B254 to our labs on either side during a rather narrow window of time.  Some of the cable holes are partially blocked, making it difficult to reach the cable to them. The cable is then just guided to the hole from a distance.  With no help, it's not possible to see this material getting shoved out of the hole.  I can assure you that I took great pains not to allow the CYMAC coax to fall into any equipment, or drag against any other cables.   

Entry  Wed May 15 19:07:53 2019, Koji, Clean, General, What is this??? P_20190515_185602.jpgP_20190515_185844.jpg

Suddenly something dirty emerged in the lab. What is this? It looks like an insulation foam or similar, but is quite degraded and emits a lot of particulates.

This does not belong to the lab. I don't see piping above this area which shows broken insulation or anything. All the pipes in the room are painted white.

The only possibility is that it comes from the hole between the next lab (CRIME Lab). I found that the A.C. today is much stronger and colder than last week. And there is a positive pressure from CRIME Lab. Maybe the foam was pushed out from the hole due to the differential pressure (or any RF cable action).

 

Entry  Thu May 9 18:10:24 2019, Koji, Optics, Characterization, OMC(004): Spot position scan / power budget 190508.pngscattering_spots_CM1.png

(Now the CCD image is captured as a movie and the screen capture is easier!)

Various spot positions on CM1 and CM2 were tried to test how the transmission is dependent on the spot positions. CM1 has a few bright spots while CM2 shows very dark scattering most of the case. Attachment 1 is the example images of one of the best alignment that realized the transmission of ~96%. FM1 and FM2 also showed bright spots. The replacement of the FM mirrors does not improve nor degrade the transmission significantly. The transmission is still sensitive to the spot positions on the alignment. This indicates that the loss is likely to be limited by CM1.

Attachment 2 shows the distribution of the (known) scattering spots on CM1. The bright spots are distributed every ~1mm on the spot height and the beam (with beam radius of .5mmm) can't find a place where there is no prominent spots.

We will be able to examine if the transmission can be improved or not by replacing this CM1 mirror.

Entry  Thu May 9 17:35:07 2019, Koji, Optics, General, Alignment strategy T1500060_OMC_Optical_Testing_Procedure.pdf

Notes on the OMC cavity alignment strategy

- x3=1.17 γ + 1.40 δ, x4=1.40 γ + 1.17 δ
- This means that the effect of the two curved mirrors (i.e. gouy phases) are very similar. To move x3 and x4 in common is easy, but to do differentially is not simple.
- 1div of a micrometer is 10um. This corresponds to the angular motion of 0.5mrad (10e-6/20e-3 = 5e-4). ~0.5mm spot motion.
- ~10um displacement of the mirror longitudinal position has infinitesimal effect on the FSR. Just use either micrometer (-x side).
- 1div of micrometer motion is just barely small enough to keep the cavity flashing. => Easier alignment recovery. Larger step causes longer time for the alignment recovery due to the loss of the flashes.

- After micrometer action, the first move should be done by the bottom mirror of the periscope. And this is the correct direction for beam walking.

- If x3 should be moved more than x4, use CM2, and vise versa.
- If you want to move x3 to +x and keep x4 at a certain place, 1) Move CM2 in (+). This moves x3 and x4 but x3>x4. 2) Compensate x4 by turning CM1 in (-). This returnes x4 to the original position (approximately), but leave x3 still moved. Remember the increment is <1div of a micrometer and everytime the cavity alignment is lost, recover it before loosing the flashes.

Entry  Thu May 9 16:07:18 2019, Stephen, Mechanics, General, Improvements to OMC Bonding Fixture image_of_issue_with_OMC_PZT_bonding_fixture_from_D16003336-v3.pngimage_02_of_issue_with_OMC_PZT_bonding_fixture_from_D16003336-v3.PNG

[Stephen, Koji]

As mentioned in eLOG 331, either increased thermal cycling or apparent improvements in cured EP30-2 strength led to fracture of curved mirrors at unintended locations of bonding to the PEEK fixture parts.

The issue and intended resolution is summarized in the attached images (2 different visualizations of the same item).

Redline has been posted to D1600336-v3.

Drawing update will be processed shortly, and parts will be modified to D1600336-v4.

 

Entry  Wed May 1 15:40:46 2019, Koji, Optics, Characterization, OMC(004): Spot positions and the scattering misalignment.pdf

Tried a few things.

1. Replaced CM1 (PZT ASSY #10=M21+PZT#22+C12) with PZT ASSY #7 (=M1+PZT#13+C13)

We tried PZT ASSY #7 at the beginning and had the spots at almost at the top edge of the curved mirrors. As we found a particle on the bottom of the M1 prism (and removed it), I gave it a try again. Resulting spots are again very high. This results in rejecting PZT ASSY #7 and we set the combination of the PZT ASSYs as #8 (M7+P11+C11) and #10 (M21+P22+C12). This combination nominally gives the spot ~1mm above the center of the curved mirrors.

2. Swapped FM1 and FM2. Now FM1=A5 and FM2=A14.

No significant change of the scattering features on the FMs. The transmitted power was 14.85mW (Ref PD Vin = 3.42V), Reflection PD Vrefl,lock = 54.3mV and Vrefl,unlock = 2.89V (Vin=3.45V), Vrefl,offset = -6.39mV. The incident power was 17.43mW (Vin 3.69V).

==> Coupling 0.979 , OMC transmission 0.939 (This includes 0.6% loss to the QPD path) ...Not so great number

3. Built better camera setups to check the spot position and the scattering from the cavity mirrors.

Now the spot heights are fixed and safe to move the camera up for inches to obtain better views of the mirror faces. The camera was set 15" away from the mirrors with 1.5" height from the beam elevation. This is 0.1rad (~ 5 deg) and Cos(0.1)~0.995 so the distortion (compression) of the view is negligible. (Attachment) The spot photo were taken with the fixed CCD gain, the focus on the glass, and  lens aperture F=8.0. Later the focus and aperture were adjusted to have clear view of the scattring points.

The intensity of each scattering was constant at different views. I suppose this is because the scattering is coming from a spot smaller than the wavelength. The bright spots does not show any visible feature on the mirror surfaces when they were inspected with a green flash light.

CM2 has the excellent darkness and we want to keep this spot position. FM1, FM2, and CM1 showed bright scattering.

The spot at CM1 is not well centered on the mirror. And this is the way to avoid this scattering point. So let's think about to move the spot on CM1 by 1.3mm towards the center while the spot on the CM2 is fixed. Note that this is going to be done by the micrometers for CM1 and CM2.

By turning right micrometer of CM1 forward (50um = 5div = 1/10 turn) and the left micrometer of CM2 backward (60um = 6div) moves the spots on FM1, FM2, CM1, and CM2 by (0.43, 0.87, 1.3, 0)mm. This basically moves the spots toward the center of each mirror. Let's give it a try.

 

    Reply  Fri May 3 11:06:28 2019, Koji, Optics, Characterization, OMC(004): Spot positions and the scattering misalignment.pdf

Experiment on 5/1
- CM1 right knob was moved 1div (10um) backward such that the spots were better centered on the mirrors 

FM1 (A5): h=-0.2mm -> 0.4mm made the spot much darker but still it has a few scattering spots.
FM2 (A14): h=-0.8mm -> 0.2mm reduced the number of spots from 2 to 1. And it is darker. The remaining spot at the center.
CM1 (C11): h=-1.3mm -> +1.0mm made the spot much darker.
CM2 (C12): h=-0.7mm -> +0.2mm remains dark.

Note: CM1 h=1mm and CM2 h~0mm are good locations. h+ is the good direction to move. Avoid h-.
FM1 and FM2 has the scat spots at the center. Want to go h+ more.

Uniformly go h+ is the good move. => This can be done by rotate CM1 positive => CM1 right knob CCW.

2019/5/1 CM1 right micrometer 1div backward
         
    Unit   V_RefPD [V]
P_TRANS 13.53 [mW]   3.09
V_REFL_LOCKED 53.4 [mV]   3.09
V_REFL_UNLOCK 2.52 [V]   3.065
P_IN 14.45 [mW]   3.07
V_REFL_OFFSET -6.35 [mV]    
         
Coupling 0.977      
OMC_Trans 0.953      

Improvement of the transmission from 93.9%->95.3%


- Further moved CM1 right knob 0.5div (0.5um) backward such that the spots were moved to h+ directions.
FM1 (A5): h=0.4mm -> 1.1mm (there is only one spot rather than multiple spots)
FM2 (A14): h=0.2mm -> 1.1mm (darker but multiple spots)
CM1 (C11): h=1.0mm -> 1.8mm (brighter but single spot)
CM2 (C12): h=0.2mm -> 1.5mm (dark multiple spots)

2019/5/1 CM1 right micrometer 0.5div backward
         
    Unit   V_RefPD [V]
P_TRANS 14.55 [mW]   3.28
V_REFL_LOCKED 49 [mV]   3.28
V_REFL_UNLOCK 2.755 [V]   3.299
P_IN 15.64 [mW]   3.3
V_REFL_OFFSET -6.316 [mV]    
         
Coupling 0.980      
OMC_Trans 0.955      

Not much improvement of the transmission but kept 95% level.

- Replaced FM1 (A5) with A1 mirror (No photo)

Good news: This did not change the cavity alignment at all.

Transmission 95.4%

- Tweaked the CM1 angle

Transmission 95.3%

=> A1 mirror does not improve the transmission much.


Next Plan: Use A5 (or something else) as FM2 and see if A14 caused the dominant loss.

Entry  Thu Apr 25 15:05:19 2019, Joe, Optics, Characterization, Looking at PZT HOM spacing dependance and thinking about workflow 

[koji, joe]

The template or glass breadboard was wobbling, and we noticed that the caivty alignment became worse/better when it was pressed down. We saw that it was the glass breadboard, so it was fixed into the transport fixture more securely. Now its alignement didn't change when it was pressed down. We took a pzt mirror out and replaced it, the alignment din't change much so that was good. We set up posts to hold the pzt wires.

We noticed that the bottom of the mirrors were dirty, so we cleaned them, and once we were happy with the newton rings, we aligned the cavity

Took a photo of CM2, the spot is maybe 1 beam diameter vertically and horizontally from the centre, and quite a bright spot could be seen. The same problem with CM1. We thought it would be good to see a measurement of higher order mode spacing dependence on PZT DC voltage rather than doing the full characterisation since the alignment seems to change quite a lot when ever we do anything, and this cavity arrangement probably isn't very good anyway (can see scattering on both curved mirrors with the IR camera). 

did measurements of FSR, = 2.64835MHz

did HOM spacing for 0,75,150V on CM1 in pitch and yaw.

we want to come up with a work flow for how to do these measurements, and make automate parts of the analysis?

 

Entry  Wed Apr 24 13:58:51 2019, Joe, Optics, Characterization, OMC power budget and UV Epoxy Bonding of BS1 

[koji,philip,joe,liyuan,stephen]

need to add spot positions.

Mirrors: PZT11,PZT22, A14, A5

Measurement postion Power P_normalise
P_in 15.66+-0.01mV 3.251+-0.001
V_ref,lock 64+-2mV 3.22+-0.001
V_ref,unlock 2.808+-0.001 V 3.253+-0.001
P_qpd 99.5+-0.5 uW 3.24+-0.002
P_cm1 79.0+-0.5 uW 3.22+-0.002
P_cm2 76.2+-0.03 uW 3.22+-0.01
P_trans 14.55+-0.05 mW 3.22+-0.01
Vref,dark -6.286 mV +-0.01mV  

Mode matching = 97.72%

15.66-> 15.30mW coupled.

~100uW for QPD

->15.2mW in cavity

Trans = 14.55mW -> 95.7% transmission

The flat mirrors were the ones with the most scattering, so we thought about how to improve it. We tried to move the first flat mirror by pushing it with our finger so that he beam would move along the optic. We tried this a couple of times, however the second time we moved it we lost our alignment and could not retrieve it. We looked at the mirror and we could see quite a lot of newtonian rings. We could see a small fibre on the glass bread board. We cleaned the optics base and the gbb, and we could get the alignment back. The beam was aligned to the cavity, the spots no longer hit the centre of the CM2. 

We measured the power budget again.

Measurement position Power P_normalise
V_ref,lock 47mV 3.24V
P_trans 14.45+-0.005mW 3.24 +-0.003 V
V_ref,unlock 2.68+-0.001 V 3.25+-.003
     

mode matching = 1-47/2680 = 0.9824, 98.2% mode matching

same p_normalise so

15.66-> 15.34mW coupled.

~15.24mW in cavity

transmission = 14.45, so 94.8% transmission.

Koji noticed that FM1 wasn't touching the template correctly, so he re-aligned the cavity.

Afternoon session - UV Bonding (E1300201-v1 procedure 6.4.4 "Gluing" using procedure in section 7.2 "UV Gluing")

Wiped down UV PPE, UV Illuminator, and UV Power Meter

Applied Optocast 3553-LV Epoxy to sample fused silica optics, to test quantity of glue needed and to become familiar with the process and tools. Philip and Joe each created a successful bond. Joe's had 3 visible spots in the bulk of the bond. Acetone was used to scrub some residue of epoxy from the surface near the OD, which was likely cured. Short duration exposure (seconds) to acetone at the perimeter of the bond did not yield any weakening of bond.

While test pieces were bonded, Koji was making some adjustments to the cavity alignment in preparation for gluing of the steering mirror BS1.

Koji noticed that the spring clamp was causing pitch in the BS1 mirror, so he recommended that we utilize the "restrain by allen key" technique to load the mirror during curing.

Once aligned, we tried taking the BS1 mirror out of the template and then putting it back. We did this twice and both times the cavity needed realigning (with the curved mirrors as well as the input steering periscope). Why is this? Since the mirror was touching the template it should not have become misaligned right? Maybe the template moves slightly? I think before glueing in the cavity mirrors we should find out why probably? Koji took a look and claimed that a few optics may have been unconstrained. 

Planning between Koji and Joe led to placement of 5 drops of epoxy on the BS1 surface, to match the bonding area. At this point we noticed that the template was not secured very well, by poking down on it we could see it move. This might explain why we are becoming misaligned very easily. Once the prism was back on the board, Koji used allen keys to move around the prism. This was done until we could align it again (i.t looked too pitched). The beam was aligned back into the cavity, and the UV light was used to cure the bond. The reflected DC when locked was

  • pre-cured = 47mV
  • cured = 55 mV

so it looks ok still.

 

 

 

Entry  Tue Apr 23 10:21:12 2019, Joe, Optics, Configuration, Moving the spots to the centre of the curved mirrors FSR_detuned_locking.pdfCM1_IMG_7702.JPGCM2_IMG_7704.JPG

[Koji,Philip, Liyuan, Joe]

CM1:

We moved the curved mirrors to these positions:

inner = 0.807mm

outer = 0.983 mm

CM2:

inner = 0.92 mm

outer = 0.85 mm

To do this so that realignment was easier, we moved the screws in steps of 5um. We alternated which mirror we adjusted so that we could monitor with a wincam how well aligned the beam into the cavity was. We only moved the cavity mirrors a small amount so we could still see higher order mode flashes transmitted through the cavity (e.g.TM03 modes). We would then improve the input alignment, and then move the cavity mirrors some more. Once the mirrors were adjusted according to http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/190422_195450/misalignment4.pdf the spot positions looked near the middle of the curved mirrors (using a beam card). We began beam walking but we ran  out of range of the bottom periscope screws in the yaw dof. We tried using the third screw to move the mirrror in both yaw and pitch, hopefully this will let move the mirror such that we can use the just the yaw screw. This screw also ran out of range, so we decided that the cavity needed a small adjustment.

The curved mirrors were moved slightly (>5um) and then we tried to get alignment. By using the fibre coupler translation stage, we move the beam side ways slightly, and then tried to get the periscope mirrors back to a position where the screws could move the mirrors. Once we had an ok alignment, we checked the beam. It looked like it was pretty close to the centre of the curved mirrors, which is where we wanted it to be.

We then tried locking the cavity, although the error signal was quite small. The adjusted the input offset and gain of the servo (there is apparently some problem to do with the input and output offsets). Once the cavity was locked we could make the final adjustments to aligning. We still ran out of range on the periscope. We decided to move the breadboard with the fibre coupler and mode matching lenses on it. Because we knew that the cavity was aligned such that the beam hits the centres of the curved mirrors, we could regain flashes quite quickly. We saw the error signal go down, but eventually this decrease was just to do with the beam clipping on the periscope mirrors. We moved the spot back to where we ok aligned, and slid the periscope so we were not clipping the mirror. This worked very well, and then optimised the alignment.

We then tried to improve the mode matching. 

We took photos of the spot positions (quite near the center) and made the detuned locking measurement. The fitting of the data (attachment 1) wsa 1.1318m (what error should we put here?).

I think the order we did things in was:

  • turning anti clockwise on the fibre coupler and misalign the diode, we measured the modespacing.
  • returned the alignment for the photodiode, and realign fibre couple.
  • miss align the photodiode horizontally, and then used fibre coupler to maximise the peak higher order mode peak height. We then used the PD again to make the peak height bigger.
  •  
Entry  Mon Apr 22 09:54:21 2019, Joe, General, , Shortening cavity (A5,A14,PZT11,PZT22) to get closer to design FSR CM1_IMG_7699.jpgCM2_IMG_7697.jpg

[Koji,Joe,Philip,stephen]

in units 20um per div on the micrometer [n.b. we reailised that its 10um per div on the micrometer]

CM1 inner screw pos: 11.5

cm1 outer screw pos: 33.5

cm2 inner screw pos: 11

cm2 outer screw pos: 13

the cavity is currently 3mm too long, move each mirror closer by 0.75mm

CM1 inner screw pos: 11.5+37.5 = 49

cm1 outer screw pos: 33.5+37.5= 71

cm2 inner screw pos: 11+37.5 = 48.5

cm2 outer screw pos: 13+37.5 = 50.5

The screws on the micrometers were adjusted to these values.

cleaned cm1 (PZT 11). There was a mark near the edge which we were not able to remove with acetone. On the breadboard there were 3 spots which we could not remove with acetone. Once we wiped the mirror and breadboard we put the mirror back. 

FM2 (A5). The prism looked quite bad when inspected under the green torch, with lots of lines going breadthways. We thought about replacing this with A1, however this has had the most exposure to the environment according to koji. This has a bit of negative pitch, so would bring down the beam slightly. We decided to continue to use A5 as it had worked fairly well before. The breadboard was cleaned, we could see a few spots on it, they were cleaned using acetone.

FM1 (A14). Near the edge of the bottom surface of the prism we could see some shiny marks, which may have been first contact. We attempted to scrape them off we tweezers. The breadboard looked like it had a few marks on it. These were hard to remove with the acetone, it kept leaving residue marks. We used isopropanol to clean this now, which worked much better. The sharp edges of the breadboard can cause the lens tissue to tear a bit, so it took a few rounds of cleaning before it looked good to put a prism on. The mirror was put back onto the breadboard. 

The cavity was aligned, then we realised that 1 turn is 500um, so its still too long (1.75mm long). The FSR was 264.433Mhz, which is 

CM2 still showed quite a bit more scattering than CM1, so we want to move this beam.

CM1:

  • inner = 0.405mm
  • outer = 0.67mm

CM2

  • inner = 0.507mm
  • outer = 0.42mm

want to increase by 1.7/4 = 0.425, so

CM1:

  • inner = 0.405+ 0.425 mm = 0.83 mm
  • outer = 0.67+ 0.425mm = 1.095 mm

CM2

  • inner = 0.507 + 0.425mm = 0.932 mm
  • outer = 0.42 + 0.425mm = 0.845 mm

we tried to align the cavity, however the periscope screws ran out of range, so we changed the mircometers on CM2. We tried this for quite some time, but had problems with the beam reflected from the cavity clipping the steering mirror on the breadboard (to close to the outer edge of the mirror). This was fixed by changing the angle of the two curved mirrors. (We should include a diagram to explain this).

The cavity was locke, the FSR was measured using the detuned locking method, and we found that the FSR = 264.805 MHz, which corresponds to a cavity length of 1.1321m

we took some photos, the spot is quite far to the edge of the mirrors (3 to 4mm), but its near the centre vertically. photos are 

123-7699 = CM2

123-7697 = CM1

 

 

    Reply  Mon Apr 22 19:54:28 2019, Koji, General, , OMC(004): Spot positions at the end of Apr 22nd misalignment4.pdf
 
ELOG V3.1.3-