OMC Transmission measurement after the 2nd deep cleaning

The 2nd deep cleaning didn't improve the transmission. (See Attachment 2)
The measured loss was 0.044+/-0.002

Aaron took the set to Cryo lab

Qty1 1/2 mounts
Qty2 prism mounts
Qty6 gluing fixures
Qty1 Rotary stage
Qty1 2" AL mirror
Qty1 Base for the AL mirror

=> Handed to Stephen -> Camille on Jan 27, 2023.

2/1 2:30PM~ Bonding reinforcement (Last EP30-2 gluing)

2/2 1:00PM~ Peripheral attachment / Optical testing setup

Attachment 1: North Cabinet 2nd from the left

Attachment 2: North Cabinet 3rd from the left

Attachment 3: South Cabinet (right)

This is a test bake conducted in Air Bake Oven A (ABO-A) held in the 40m Clean and Bake facility. The overall objective is to sucessfully cure the Curved Mirror Subassemblies with the appropriate temperature profile. In this test run, we wanted to ensure that the temperature profile dictated via the Platinum software is stable and repeatable.

Specific curing instructions can be found in LIGO-E1300201-v1, section 6.2.4 (https://dcc.ligo.org/E1300201-v1). This test air bake load contained several stainless steel masses and a stainless steel tray that will be utilized in the production curing run. Note that the thermacouple has been placed between two stainless steel masses.

Temperature profile results from 4/14/23 test cure can be seen in attachments below.

Borrowed for PZT DC Response Shadow Sensor Setup (see Attachment 1):

• Thorlabs PDA100A Photodiode (and power supply)
• Thorlabs MDT694B Piezo Driver

Current Location: Downs 227

• FSR measurement (dip) - done May 3, 2023
• FSR measurement (RFAM injection) - done May 3, 2023
• TMS measurement with PZT1/2 swept from 0V~200V
• Mirror cleaning / Power budget - done [OMC ELOG 530]
• PZT response DC / AC
• DCPD shim height adjustment
• QPD alignment / shim height adjustment
• Alignment: beam spot photos

[Thejas, Camille, Koji]

We aligned the laser beam to the cavity and drove the OMC cavity PZTs (0 to 5 V from signal generator with 15x amp from the piezo driver) with a ramp signal and logged the transmission mode spectrum. The drive PZT voltage changes from 3.4 V to 7 V for one fringe shift or half wavelength change in cavity length. The voltage gain of the PZT driver is 15 V/V so that's a difference of 54 V for half weavelngth of driving or 532 nm/54V or 9.85 nm/V. 

The ThorLabs MDT694B piezo driver was returned to the OMC lab.

• FSR measurement (dip) - done May 3, 2023
• FSR measurement (RFAM injection) - done May 3, 2023
• TMS measurement with PZT1/2 swept from 0V~200V
• Mirror cleaning / Power budget - done [OMC ELOG 530]
• PZT response DC / AC done May 11, 2023 [OMC ELOG 537]
• DCPD shim height adjustment
• QPD alignment / shim height adjustment
• Alignment: beam spot photos

The OMC PZT ac response was resorded was not as expected and a remeasurement will be attempted this week. Data: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7pf0k6awoa4wg0z/230503.zip?dl=0 

A+ OMC Build efforts ongoing or completed this week:

•  PZT lead onboard strain relief (D2000172)
  • Brief discussion in A+ SUS call - PEEK material callout is to be updated in v2, Don is handling this.
  • v1 drawings posted and UK team out for production, with Angus already communicating PEEK grade requirement to vendor during procurement process.
  • DCN is WIP per Russell.
• Rework of Helicoil holes
  • D1201278 and D1300498 were already Class A, but we recognized that the hole callouts were not consistent with current LIGO notation, and we decided to make sure that these holes were in a good state.
  • Don and I chased the holes with taps (gloves on, but in a dirty area)
  • Don created a C&B Ticket request/1835
• PZT characterization (ref. T1500060-v2 - PZT Testing Section 2.3.2)
  • DC Response measurement - see OMC_Lab/542 for initial findings.
    • 11 units appear to be good, 2 units appear to be damaged, 5 units need to be recharacterized (after soldering rework).
    • Quantitative results WIP.
  • Lab move to Downs 320 - this work needs to be logged.
    • DC Response setup updated, beam focusing was changed.
    • Oplev setup for Length to Angle measurement constructed for the first time.
• Component matching for Curved Mirror Subassembly
  • Continued work on algorithm-based matching code
  • Discussion with Gari and Calum - we will move toward manual matching to expedite

We have the following plans for the week ahead:

• Complete PZT DC Response data analysis.
• Finish solder rework of PZT leads.
• Start PZT Length to Angle measurement.
• Manually match Curved Mirror Subassembly components, enough to bond first 4 assemblies.
  • (this will be pending full characterization of PZTs)
• Make sure clean and bake ticket gets processed for reworked parts mentioned above.

We have the following near future plans:

• Start PZT reliability testing (burn-in test) (ref. T1500060-v2 - PZT Testing Section 2.3.4),
  • Focused on units that will be used to bond first 4
• Bond first batch of Curved Mirror Subassemblies.
  • Make sure we have enough EP30-2 for subsequent batches (some used by HoQi effort)..
• Resume transport fixture build effort at 40m Bake Lab.
• Conduct walkthrough of OMC lab with build in mind.
• Follow updates of top level assy D2000172, and send finalized assy for 3D printing of mockup unit.

A+ OMC Build efforts ongoing or completed in the last two weeks:

•  PZT lead onboard strain relief (D2000172)
  • Some more discussion in A+ SUS calls - PEEK material callout is to be updated in v2, Don is handling this.
  • Looking forward to timeline update in coming week
• Rework of Helicoil holes
  • Don's C&B Ticket is being processed by Maty, will go for bake next week - request/1835
• PZT characterization (ref. T1500060-v2 - PZT Testing Section 2.3.2)
  • DC Response measurement - no new data collection.
    • 5 articles need to be recharacterized (after soldering rework).
    • Code for quantitative results is 90% complete, still debugging (WIP).
  • Lab move to Downs 320 - updated setup logged in OMC_Lab/545.
    • DC Response setup has not been rebuilt yet, but will need to be for more testing after solder repairs and/or reliability testing.
    • Oplev setup for Length to Angle measurement is operational.
  • Length to Angle measurement - lots of setup, refinement, and growing pains toward data collection.
    • 11 PZTs measured, just like DC Response (5 articles requiring solder rework)
• Component matching for Curved Mirror Subassembly
  • Matching calculations first draft (implemented manually) was supplied by Thejas.
  • EP30-2 batch (2x 50mL syringes) arrived, plenty for all curved mirror subassembly bonding and first OMC unit bonding, at least.

We have the following plans for the week ahead:

• Complete PZT DC Response and Length to Angle data analysis. (WIP)
  • We have been making manual comparisons / data quality checks throughout data collection.
  • Comparisons with past results from aLIGO build have suggested that our results are reasonable.
• Finish solder rework of PZT leads. (had been planned, solder hasn't arrived yet)
• Set up shadow sensor in new lab for future DC Response measurements.
• Set up PZT reliability testing (burn-in test). (ref. T1500060-v2 - PZT Testing Section 2.3.4)
• Resume transport fixture build effort at 40m Bake Lab.
  • Summer student Maria will be heavily involved.
• Insert helicoils in Class A plasma-sprayed DCPD housings

We have the following near future plans:

• Bond first batch of Curved Mirror Subassemblies.
• Conduct walkthrough of OMC lab with build in mind.
  • Transport Class A components that are ready for build to OMC cleanroom.
• Follow updates of top level assy D2000172, and send finalized assy for 3D printing of mockup unit.
  • Make sure that strain relief components are all on order and we know the timeline.

Newport UTR80

• Sensitivity: 4 arcsec
• Graduations: 1 deg
• Vernier: 1 arcmin
• Fine travel range: 4 deg
• No microemeter
• http://www.newport.com/UTR-A-Series-Precision-Steel-Rotation-Stages-with/144549/1033/info.aspx#tab_Specifications

Newport 481-A (SELECTED)

• Sensitivity: 15 arcsec
• Graduations: 1 deg
• Vernier: 5 arcmin
• Fine travel range: 5 deg
• With Micrometer

Newport RS40

• Sensitivity: 16 arcsec
• Graduations: 2 deg
• Vernier: 12 arcmin
• Fine travel range: 10 deg
• Micrometer BM11.5

Newport RS65

• Sensitivity: 11 arcsec
• Graduations: 2 deg
• Vernier: 12 arcmin
• Fine travel range: 10 deg
• Micrometer SM-06 to be bought separately

Elliot science MDE282-20G

• Sensitivity: 5 arcsec
• Graduations: 2 deg
• Vernier: 10 arcmin
• Fine travel range: 10 deg
• Micrometer 2 arcmin/1div
• Metric

Suruga precision B43-110N

• Sensitivity: ? arcsec
• Graduations: 2 deg
• Vernier: 6 arcmin
• Fine travel range: 10 deg
• Micrometer 34 arcsec/div
• http://www.suruga-ost.com/product.php?n=020401228
• Metric

Thorlabs precision B43-110N

• Sensitivity: ? arcsec
• Graduations: 1 deg
• Vernier: 5 arcmin
• Fine travel range: 14 deg
• Micrometer 144 arcsec/div
• http://www.thorlabs.com/thorProduct.cfm?partNumber=PR01

EDIT (ZK): All photos on Picasa. Also, I discovered that since Picasa was migrated to Google+ only,
you no longer have the option to embed a slideshow like you used to. Lame, Google.

Photos sent from Zach

(3D VIEW)

[Koji, Lisa, Jeff, Zach]

Jeffs concern after talking with the glue company (EMI) was that the UV blast for the top side was not enough.

First we wanted to confirm if too much blasting is any harmful for the glue joint.

We took a test joint of FS-FS with the UV epoxy. We blasted the UV for 1min with ~15mm distance from the joint.
After the observation of the joint, we continued to blast more.
In total, we gave additional 5min exposure. No obvious change was found on the joint.

Then proceed to blast the OMC top again. We gave 1 min additional blast on each glue joint.

We want to make sure the responses of the PZT actuator does not change after the EP30-2 gluing.

A shadow sensor set up was quickly set-up at the fiber output. It turned out the ring PZTs are something really not-so-straightforward.
If the PZT was free or just was loosely attached on a plane by double-sided tape, the actuation response was quite low (30% of the spec).
After some struggle, I reached the conclusion that the PZT deformation is not pure longitudinal but some 3-dimensional, and you need to
use a "sandwitch" with two flat surfaces with some pressue.

I turned the setup for horizontal scans to the vertical one, and put the PZT between quarter-inch spacers.
Then two more spacers are placed on the stack so that the weight applies the vertical pressure on the PZT.
This is also use ful to adjust the height of the shadow.

The calibration plot is attached. It gives us ~21k V/m.
Voltage swing of 150V results the output voltage change of ~50mV.  This is pretty close to what is expected from the spec (16nm/V).
The PZT#3 (which had the mirror glued on) showed significantly large response.

Test PZT #1: 17.4nm/V
Test PZT #2: 17.2nm/V
Test PZT #3: 30.6nm/V
UHV PZT #24: 17.6nm/V

These numbers will be checked after the heat cure of EP30-2

We attached fused silica windows on the test PZTs. http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/93

The glued assemblies were brought to Bob's bake lab for the heat cure. There they are exposed to 94degC heat for two hours (excluding ramp up/down time).

After the heat cure, we made the visual inspection.
The photos are available here.

Pre-bake
Test PZT #1: 17.4nm/V
Test PZT #2: 17.2nm/V
Test PZT #3: 30.6nm/V

Post-bake
Test PZT #1: 27.2 nm/V
Test PZT #2: 26.9 nm/V
Test PZT #3: 21.4 nm/V

Measurement precision is ~+/-20%
Spec is 14nm/V

Test result of the PZTs by Valera and Ryan

PZT  Length Angle
 #   [nm/V] [urad/um]
 11  14.5   17.6
 12  13.8   17.8
 13  11.2   25.0
 14  14.5    6.6
 15  12.5   10.6

 21  14.5    9.7
 22  13.8   28.8
 23  14.5    6.8  ==> Assembly #2
 24  18.5   51.7  ==> Used for prototyping
 25  17.1   13.8
 26  14.5    6.6  ==> Assembly #1

[Koji / Jeff]

This is the elog about the work on May 9th.

We made two glass brackets glue on the junk 2" mirrors with the UV glue a while ago when we used the UV bonding last time.

On May 7th:

We applied EP30-2 to the glass brackets and glued invar shims on them. These test pieces were left untouched for the night
and brought to Bob for heat curing at 94degC for two hours.

On May 9th:

We received the test pieces from Bob.

First, a DCPD mount was attached on one of the test pieces. The fasteners were screwed at the torque of 4 inch lb.
It looked very sturdy and Jeff applied lateral force to break it. It got broken at once side of the bracket.

We also attached the DCPD mount to the other piece. This time we heard cracking sound at 2 inch lb.
We found that the bracket got cracked at around the holes. As the glass is not directly stressed by the screws
we don't understand the mechanism of the failure.

After talking to PeterF and Dennis, we decided to continue to follow the original plan: glue the invar shims to the brackets.

We need to limit the fastening torque to 2 inch lb.

The invar reinforcement shims were glued on the glass brackets on the breadboard.
We worked on the light side on May 10th and did on the dark side on May 13rd.

U-shaped holding pieces are used to prevent each invar shim to be slipped from the right place.

We are going to bring the OMC breadboard to the bake oven tomorrow to cure the epoxies and promote the outgasing.

DCPD mounts and QPD mounts were attached on the breadboard. They are not aligned yet and loosely fastened.

DCPD (mounting 4-40x5/16 BHCS Qty4)

Face plates fatsened by 4-40x5/16 BHCS (24 out of 40)

Housing   Face plate Destination  PD
002       002        L1OMC DCPD1  #10
003       003        L1OMC DCPD2  #11
004       004        H1OMC DCPD1
008       005        H1OMC DCPD2
009       006        I1OMC DCPD1
010       007        I1OMC DCPD2


QPD (mounting 4-40x5/16 BHCS Qty4)

Face plates fatsened by 4-40x1/4 BHCS (24 out of 80)

Housing   Face plate Destination QPD
002       002        L1OMC QPD1  #38 #43 swapped on 29th May.
003       003        L1OMC QPD2  #43 #38 swapped on 29th May.
004       004        H1OMC QPD1
005       005        H1OMC QPD2
006       006        I1OMC QPD1
007       007        I1OMC QPD2

* 4-40x5/16 BHCS Qty 8 left
* 4-40x5/16 BHCS Qty 56 left

Cut the diode legs by 3mm

Analysis of the PZT scan / TF data taken on May 31st and Jun 1st.

[DC scan]

Each PZT was shaken with 10Vpp 1Hz triangular voltage to the thorlabs amp.
The amp gain was x15. Abut 4 TEM00 peaks were seen on a sweep between 0 and 10V.

The input voltage where the peaks were seen was marked. Each peak was mapped on the
corresponding fringe among four. Then the each slope (up and down) was fitted by a iiner slope.
Of course, the PZTs show hystersis. Therefore the result is only an approximation.

PZT1: PZT #26, Mirror C6 (CM1)
PZT2: PZT #23, Mirror C5 (CM2)

PZT arrangement [ELOG Entry]

PZT1:
Ramp Up        13.21nm/V
Ramp Down   13.25nm/V
Ramp Up        13.23nm/V
Ramp Down   13.29nm/V

=> 13.24+/-0.02 nm/V

PZT2:
Ramp Up        13.27nm/V
Ramp Down   12.94nm/V
Ramp Up        12.67nm/V
Ramp Down   12.82nm/V

=> 12.9+/-0.1 nm/V

[AC scan]

The OMC cavity was locked with the fast laser actuation. Each PZT was shaken with a FFT analyzer for transfer function measurments.
(No bias voltage was given)

The displacement data was readout from the laser fast feedback. Since the UGF of the control was above 30kHz, the data was
valid at least up to 30kHz. The over all calibration of the each curve was adjusted so that it agrees with the DC response of the PZTs (as shown above).

The response is pretty similar for these two PZTs. The first series resonance is seen at 10kHz. It is fairly high Q (~30).

After the PZT test, the curved mirrors were aligned to the cavity again.

In order to check the height of the cavity beam, the test DCPD mount was assembled with 2mm shim (D1201467-3)
The spot position was checked with a CCD camera.

According to the analysis of the picture, the spot height is about 0.71mm lower than the center of the mount.

The glass components for the I1 OMC top side were glued by the UV glue.

Breadboard SN#4
Wire bracket SN#5/6/7/8

Each PZT was swept with 0-150V 11Hz triangular wave.
Time series data for 0.2sec was recorded for each PZT.

The swept voltage at the resonances were extracted and the fringe number was counted.
Some hysteresis is seen as usual.

The upward/downward slopes are fitted by a linear line.

The average displacement is 11.3nm/V for PZT1 and 12.7nm/V.

The PZT response was measured with a FFT analyzer. The DC calibration was adjusted by the above numbers.

Summary

- The breadboard has a resonance at 1.2kHz. The resonant freq may be chagned depending on the additional mass and the boundary condition.

- There is no forest of resonances at around 1kHz. A couple of resonances It mainly starts at 5kHz.

- The PZT mirrors (CM1/CM2) have the resonance at 10kHz as I saw in the past PZT test.

Motivation

- Zach's LLO OMC characterization revealed that the OMC length signals have forest of spikes at 400-500Hz and 1kHz regions.

- He tried to excite these peaks assuming they were coming from mechanical systems. It was hard to excite with the OMC PZT,
but actuating the OMCS slightly excited them. (This entry)

Because the OMC length control loop can't suppress these peaks due to their high frequency and high amplitude, they limit
the OMC residual RMS motion. This may cause the coupling of the OMC length noise into the intensity of the transmitted light.
We want to eventually suppress or eliminate these peaks.

By this vibration test we want to:

- confirm whether the peaks are coming from the OMC or not.
- identify what is causing the peaks if they are originated from the OMC
- correct experimental data for comparison with FEA

Method

- Place a NOLIAC PZT on the object to be excited.
- Look at the actuation signal for the OMC locking to find the excited peaks.

Results

Breadboard

- This configuration excited the modes between 800-1.2kHz most (red curve). As well as the others, the structures above 5kHz are also excited.

- The mode at 1.2kHz was suspected to be the bending mode of the breadboard. To confirm it, metal blocks (QPD housing and a 4" pedestal rod)
  were added on the breadboard to change the load. This actually moved (or damped) the mode (red curve).

- Note that the four corners of the breadboard were held with a PEEK pieces on the transport fixture.
  In addition, the installed OMC has additional counter balance mass on it.
  This means that the actual resonant frequency can be different from the one seen in this experiment. This should be confirmed with an FEA model.
  The breadboard should also exhibit higher Q on the OMCS due to its cleaner boundary condition. 

DCPD / QPD

- Vibration on the DCPDs and QPDs mainly excited the modes above 3kHz. The resonances between 3 to 5kHz are observed in addition to the ubiquitous peaks above 5kHz.
  So are these coming from the housing? This also can be confirmed with an FEA model.

- Some excitation of the breadboard mode at 1.2kHz is also seen.

CM1/CM2 (PZT mirrors)

- It is very obvious that there is a resonance at 10kHz. This was also seen in the past PZT test. This can be concluded that the serial resonance of the PZT and the curved mirror.
- There is another unknown mode at around 5~6kHz.

- Some excitation of the breadboard mode at 1.2kHz is also seen.

FM1/FM2 and Peripheral prism mirrors (BSs and SMs)

- They are all prism mirrors with the same bonding method.

- The excitation is concentrated above 5kHz. Small excitation of the breadboard mode at 1.2kHz is also seen. Some bump ~1.4kHz is also seen in some cases.

Beam dumps

- The excitation is quite similar to the case of the peripheral mirrors. Some bump at 1.3kHz.

Other tapping test of the non-OMC object on the table

- Transport fixture: long side 700Hz, short side 3k. This 3K is often seen in the above PZT excitation

- Fiber coupler: 200Hz and 350Hz.

- The beam splitter for the back scattering test: 900Hz

Improved vibration measurement of the OMC

Improvement

- Added some vibration isolation. Four 1/2" rubber legs were added between the OMC bread board and the transport fixture (via Al foils).
  In order to keep the beam height same, 1/2" pedestal legs were removed.

- The HEPA filter at the OMC side was stopped to reduce the excitation of the breadboard. It was confirmed that the particle level for 0.3um
  was still zero only with the other HEPA filter.

Method

- Same measurement method as the previous entry was used.

Results

Breadboard

- In this new setup, we could expect that the resonant frequency of the body modes were close to the free resonances, and thus the Q is higher.
  Noise is much more reduced and it is clear that the resonance seen 1.1kHz is definitely associated with the body mode of the breadboard (red curve).

  As a confirmation, some metal objects were placed on the breadboard as tried before. This indeed reduced the resonant frequency (blue curve).

DCPD / QPD

- Vibration on the DCPDs and QPDs mainly excited the modes above 2~3kHz.
  In order to check if they are coming from the housing, we should run FEA models.

- Some excitation of the breadboard mode at 1.1kHz was also seen.

CM1/CM2 (PZT mirrors)

- Baseically excitation was dominated by the PZT mode at 10kHz. Some spourious resonances are seen at 4~5kHz but I believe this is associated with the weight placed on the excitation PZT.

FM1/FM2 and peripheral prism mirrors (BSs and SMs)

- The modes of the FMs are seen ~8k or 12kHz. I believe they are lowered by the weight for the measurement. In any case, the mode frequency is quite high compared to our frequency region of interest.

- As the prism resonance is quite high, the excitation is directly transmitted to the breadboard. Therefore the excitation of the non-cavity caused similar effect to the excitation on the breadboard.
  In fact what we can see from the plot is excitation of the 1.1kHz body mode and many high frequency resonances.

Beam dumps

- This is also similar to the case of the peripheral mirrors.

Prisms

Fundamental: 12.3kHz Secondary: 16.9kHz

DCPDs

Fundamental: 2.9kHz Secondary: 4.1kHz

QPDs

Fundamental: 5.6kHz Secondary: 8.2kHz

Structural analysis of the PZT mirror with COMSOL.

Inline figures: Eigenmodes which involves large motion of the tombstone. In deed 10kHz mode is not the resonance of the PZT-mirror joint, but the resonance of the tombstone.

Attached PDF: Simulated transfer function of the PZT actuation. In order to simulate the PZT motion, boundary loads on the two sides of the PZT were applied with opposite signs.
10kHz peak appears as the resonance of the tombstone dominates the mirror motion. At 12kHz, the PZT extension and the backaction of the tombstone cancells each other and
the net displacement of the mirror becomes zero.

https://awiki.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/wiki/EOM_Mount_Stability

A simple COMSOL simulation was run to see how the PZT deforms as the voltage applied.

Use the geometry of the ring PZT which is used in the OMCs -  NAC2124 (OD 15mm, ID 9mm, H 2mm)
The material is PZT-5H (https://bostonpiezooptics.com/ceramic-materials-pzt) which is predefined in COMSOL and somewhat similar to the one used in NAC2124 (NCE51F - http://www.noliac.com/products/materials/nce51f/)
The bottom surface of the ring was electrically grounded (0V), and mechanically fixed.
Applied 100V between the top and bottom.

As performed in the ELOG 202, the PZTs of the OMC 002 were tested.

DC response was measured by sweeping each PZT with 0-150V triangular voltage at 11Hz. Acquire 0.2sec of the tie series using an oscilloscope to get the PDH error, cavity transmission, and the sweep signal.

The voltage where the tranmission peaks were observed were fitted were recorded. One fringe corresponds to the displacement of 532nm. So the displacement and the applied volatagewere fitted witha linear function.

This gave the PZT response for PZT1 and PZT2 to be 14.9nm/V and 14.4nm/V.

AC response was measured with SR785. The PZT was shaken with 1~50mVpp signal with the DC offset of 5V while the OMC was locked with the feedback to the laser fast PZT. The transfer function from the applied PZT voltage to the servo output were measured. The closed loop TF was also measured to remove the effect of the servo control.  The DC levels of the responses were calibrated using the values above.

[Koji Stephen]

The four PZT sub-assemblies were glued in the gluing fixtures. There were two original gluing fixtures and two additional modified fixtures for the in-situ bonding at the repair of OMC(002).

- Firstly, we checked the fitting and arrangements of the components without glue. The component combinations are described in ELOG 329.
- Turned on the oven toaster for the cure test (200F).
- Then prepared EP30-2 mixture (7g EP30-2 + 0.35g glass sphere).
- The test specimen of EP30-2 was baked in the toaster oven. (The result shows perfect curing (no stickyness, no finger print, crisp fracture when bent)
- Applied the bond to the subassemblies.
- FInally the fixtures were put in airbake Oven A. We needed to raise one of the tray with four HSTS balance weights (Attachment 2).

[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.

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.

The AL metal bracket was replaced with a PEEK version.

Attachments 1/2: Before the replacement. The photos show how the cables are arranged.

Attachment 3: How the replacement work is going. The 1/4-20 screws were super tight. Once the connectors were removed, an Allen key was inserted to a hole so that the 1/4-20 on the short sides were removed by closing Allen key arms. For the screws on the longer sides, the same technique can be applied by using three Allen keys. This time none of the screws/cable pegs were wasted. The clothes were used to protect the breadboard from any impact of the action.

Attachments 4/5: Final state.

OMC #1 repair has been 100% done

---------

We still have 4 correct cable pegs and many 1/4-20 BHSCs for OMC #4.

Yesterday, we noticed that we could not close the transport fixture for OMC #4. We could not fully rotate the knobs of the locks. Today, I took the hooks from the functioning locks of the spare transport fixture.

It turned out that the default dimension of the lock seemed too tight. The functioning one has the through holes elongated by a file or something. This modification will be necessary for future transport fixtures.

The transport fixture was brought to the 40m clean room to use as an assembly reference.

Inserted 4-40 and 2-56 helicoils into the DCPD/QPD housings for the 4th OMC. The retainer caps were also fastened to the housings.

EDIT (ZK): All the plots here were generated using my MATLAB cavity modeling tool, ArbCav. The utility description is below. The higher-order mode resonance plots are direct outputs of the function. The overlap plots were made by modifying the function to output a list of all HOM resonant frequencies, and then plotting the closest one as a function of cavity length. This was done for various values of highest mode order to consider, as described in the original entry.

Description:

This function calculates information about an arbitrary optical cavity. It can plot the cavity geometry, calculate the transmission/reflection spectrum, and generate the higher-order mode spectrum for the carrier and up to 2 sets of sidebands.

The code accepts any number of mirrors with any radius of curvature and transmission, and includes any astigmatic effects in its output.

As opposed to the previous version, which converted a limited number of cavity shapes into linear cavities before performing the calculation, this version explicitly propagates the gouy phase of the beam around each leg of the cavity, and is therefore truly able to handle an arbitrary geometry.

----------------Original Post----------------

I expressed concern that arbitrarily choosing some maximum HOM order above which not to consider makes us vulnerable to sitting directly on a slightly-higher-order mode. At first, I figured the best way around this is to apply an appropriate weighting function to the computed HOM frequency spacing. Since this will also have some arbitrariness to it, I have decided to do it in a more straightforward way. Namely, look at the spacing for different values of the maximum mode number, n_max, and then use this extra information to better select the length.

Assumptions:

• The curved mirror RoC is the design value of 2.50±0.025 m
• The ±9 MHz sidebands will have ~1% the power of the other fields at the dark port. Accordingly, as in Sam's note, their calculated spacing is artificially increased by 10 linewidths.
• The opening angle of 4º is FIXED, and the total length is scaled accordingly

Below are the spacing plots for the bowtie (flat-flat-curved-curved) and non-bowtie (flat-curved-flat-curved) configurations. Points on each line should be read out as "there are are no modes of order N or lower within [Y value] linewidths of the carrier TEM₀₀ transmission", where N is the n_max appropriate for that trace. Intuitively, as more orders are included, the maxima go down, because more orders are added to the calculation.

*All calculations are done using my cavity simulation function, ArbCav. The mode spacing is calculated for each particular geometry by explicitly propagating the gouy phase through each leg of the cavity, rather than by finding an equivalent linear cavity*

Since achievable HOM rejection is only one of the criteria that should be used to choose between the two topologies, the idea is to pick one length solution for EACH topology. Basically, one maximum should be chosen for each plot, based on how how high an order we care about.

Bowtie

For the bowtie, the n_max = 20 maximum at L = 1.145 m is attractive, because there are no n < 20 modes within 5 linewidths, and no n < 25 modes within ~4.5 linewidths. However, this means that there are also n < 10 modes within 5 linewidths, while they could be pushed (BLUE line) to ~8.5 linewidths at the expense of proximity to n > 15 modes.

Therefore, it's probably best to pick something between the red and green maxima: 1.145 m < L < 1.152 m.

By manually inspecting the HOM spectrum for n_max = 20, it seems that L = 1.150 m is the best choice. In the HOM zoom plot below and the one to follow, the legend is as follows

• BLUE: Carrier
• GREEN: +9 MHz
• RED: -9 MHz
• CYAN: +45 MHz
• BLACK: -45 MHz

Non-bowtie

Following the same logic as above, the most obvious choice for the non-bowtie is somewhere between the red maximum at 1.241 m and the magenta maximum at 1.248 m. This still allows for reasonable suppression of the n < 10 modes without sacrificing the n < 15 mode suppression completely.

Upon inspection, I suggest L = 1.246 m

I reiterate that these calculations are taking into account modes of up to n ~ 20. If there is a reason we really only care about a lower order than this, then we can do better. Otherwise, this is a nice compromise between full low-order mode isolation and not sitting directly on slightly higher modes.

RoC dependence

One complication that arises is that all of these are highly dependent on the actual RoC of the mirrors. Unfortunately, even the quoted tolerance of ±1% makes a difference. Below is a rendering of the RED traces (n_max = 20) in the first two plots, but for R varying by ±2% (i.e., for R = 2.45 m, 2.50 m, 2.55 m).

The case for the non-bowtie only superficially seems better; the important spacing is the large one between the three highest peaks centered around 1.24 m.

Also unfortunately, this strong dependence is also true for the lowest-order modes. Below is the same two plots, but for the BLUE (n_max = 10) lines in the first plots.

Therefore, it is prudent not to pick a specific length until the precise RoC of the mirrors is measured.

Conclusion

Assuming the validity of looking at modes between 10 < n < 20, and that the curved mirror RoC is the design value of 2.50 m, the recommended lengths for each case are:

• Bowtie: L_RT = 1.150 m
• Non-bowtie: L_RT = 1.246 m

 HOWEVER, variation within the design tolerance of the mirror RoC will change these numbers appreciably, and so the RoC should be measured before a length is firmly chosen.

EDIT 2 (ZK): As with the previous post, all plots and calculations here are done with my MATLAB cavity modeling utility, ArbCav.

EDIT (ZK): Added input q parameters for OMMT 

I found the nice result that the variation in the optimal length vs. variation in the mirror RoC is roughly linear within the ±1% RoC tolerance. So, we can choose two baseline mode definitions (one for each mirror topology) and then adjust as necessary following our RoC measurements.

Bowtie

For R = 2.5 m, the optimal length (see previous post) is L_RT = 1.150 m, and the variation in this is dL_RT/dR ~ +0.44 m/m.

Here is an illustration of the geometry:

The input q parameters, defined at the point over the edge of the OMC slab where the beam first crosses---(40mm, 150mm) on the OptoCad drawing---are, in meters:

• q_ix = - 0.2276 + 0.6955 i
• q_iy = - 0.2276 + 0.6980 i

Non-bowtie

For R = 2.5 m, the optimal length is L_RT = 1.246 m, and the variation in this is also dL_RT/dR ~ +0.44 m/m.

Geometry:

q parameters, defined as above:

• q_ix = - 0.0830 + 0.8245 i
• q_iy = - 0.0830 + 0.8268 i

Here is the proposed RoC measurement setup. Koji tells me that this is referred to as "Anderson's method".

We would like to use a linear cavity to measure the RoC of the curved mirrors independently (before forming the ring cavity), since the degeneracy of HOMs will make the fitting easier.

• An NPRO is PDH locked to a linear cavity formed of a high-quality flat mirror on one end, and the OMC curved optic on the other.
• A second, broadband EOM is placed after the first one, and its frequency is swept with a VCO to generate symmetric sidebands about the carrier
• A TRANS RFPD's signal is demodulated at the secondary EOM frequency, to give a DC signal proportional to HOM transmission
• This HOM scan is fit to a model, with RoC the free parameter. Since there are two sidebands, the HOM spectrum of the model must be folded about the carrier frequency.
• To get a good signal, we should slightly misalign the input beam, allowing for higher overlap with HOMs.

If we decided that the symmetric sidebands are too unwieldy, or that we have issues from sidebands on sidebands, we can accomplish the same style measurement using an AOM-shifted pickoff of the pre-PDH EOM beam. The advantage of the former method is that we don't have to use any polarization tricks.

Nic Smith sent me a bunch of elog lists where the results of the mode scan can be found.

From Nic:

There have been many mode scan analyses done at LLO:
http://ilog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/ilog/pub/ilog.cgi?group=detector&date_to_view=06/07/2008&anchor_to_scroll_to=2008:06:07:20:55:41-jrsmith
http://ilog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/ilog/pub/ilog.cgi?group=detector&date_to_view=06/16/2008&anchor_to_scroll_to=2008:06:16:17:47:11-waldman
http://ilog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/ilog/pub/ilog.cgi?group=detector&date_to_view=08/06/2009&anchor_to_scroll_to=2009:08:06:12:23:16-kissel
http://ilog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/ilog/pub/ilog.cgi?group=detector&date_to_view=09/25/2009&anchor_to_scroll_to=2009:09:25:20:57:47-kate

We didn't do as much of this at LHO. At some point we were trying to figure out how the arm cavity mode was different from the carrier mode:
http://ilog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/ilog/pub/ilog.cgi?group=detector&date_to_view=04/17/2009&anchor_to_scroll_to=2009:04:17:23:15:05-kawabe
http://ilog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/ilog/pub/ilog.cgi?group=detector&date_to_view=03/27/2009&anchor_to_scroll_to=2009:03:27:21:38:14-kawabe
http://ilog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/ilog/pub/ilog.cgi?group=detector&date_to_view=02/18/2009&anchor_to_scroll_to=2009:02:18:20:15:00-kawabe

Here's a long mode scan that was done, and the data is attached to the elog, but none of the amplitudes are analyzed.
http://ilog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/ilog/pub/ilog.cgi?group=detector&date_to_view=07/08/2009&anchor_to_scroll_to=2009:07:08:17:02:19-nicolas

Here is a more detailed version of the setup, so that we can gather the parts we will need.

Parts list:

• Optics, etc.:
  • 1 NPRO
  • 2 QWP
  • 3 HWP
  • 2 PBS
  • 2 EOM (at least one broadband)
  • 2 RFPD (at least one very-high-bandwidth for TRANS, e.g., 1611)
  • 1 CCD camera
  • OMC curved mirrors to be tested
  • 1 low-loss flat reference mirror with appropriate transmission (e.g., G&H, ATF, etc.)
  • ~3 long-ish lenses for MMT, EOM focusing
  • ~2 short lenses for PD focusing
  • 1 R ~ 80% power splitter for TRANS (can be more or less)
  • ~7 steering mirrors
  • ~3 beam dumps
  • Mounts, bases, clamps, hardware
• Electronics:
  • 1 fixed RF oscillator (e.g., DS345, etc.)
  • 1 VCO (e.g., Marconi, Tektronix, etc.)
  • 2 Minicircuits RF mixers
  • 2 Minicircuits RF splitters
  • 2 SMA inline LPFs
  • Locking servo (SR560? uPDH? PDH2?)
  • Some digital acquisition/FG system
  • Power supplies, wiring and cabling.

Based on Zach's experiment design, I wrote up a bit more detailed optical layout for the mirror test.

Item: Newfocus Fast PD
Qty.: 1
Mirror: Newfocus Fast PD
Mount: Post
Post: Post Holder (Newfocus)
Fork: Short Fork

Item: Thorlabs RF PD
Qty.: 1
Mirror: Thorlabs RF PD
Mount: Post
Post: Post Holder (Newfocus)
Fork: Short Fork

Item: Newfocus Broadband
Qty.: 1
Mirror: Newfocus EOM
Mount: Newfocus
Post: Custom Mount? or Pedestal X"?
Fork: Short Fork

Item: Newfocus Resonant
Qty.: 1
Mirror: Newfocus EOM
Mount: Newfocus
Post: Custom Mount? or Pedestal X"?
Fork: Short Fork

Item: ND Filter
Qty.: 2
Mirror: -
Mount: Thorlabs FIlter Holder
Post: Pedestal X"
Fork: Short Fork

Item: New Port Lens Kit 1"
Qty.: 1

Item: Thorlabs ND Kit
Qty.: 1

Item: Plano Convex Lens
Qty.: f=100, 100, 150, 200
Mirror: New Port (AR)
Mount: Thorlabs
Post: Post Holder (Newfocus)
Fork: Short Fork

Item: Bi-Convex Lens
Qty.: 75
Mirror: New Port (AR)
Mount: Post
Post: Post Holder (Newfocus)
Fork: Short Fork

Item: Flipper Mirror
Qty.: 1
Mirror: CVI Y1-10XX-45P
Mount: New Focus Flipper
Post: Pedestal X"
Fork: Short Fork

Item: Steering Mirror
Qty.: 8
Mirror: CVI Y1-10XX-45P
Mount: Suprema 1inch
Post: Pedestal X"
Fork: Short Fork

Item: PBS
Qty.: 3
Mirror: PBS 1inch BK7
Mount: Newport BS Mount
Post: Pedestal X"
Fork: Short Fork

Item: Knife Edge Beam Dump
Qty.: 4
Mirror: Thorlabs Knife Edge
Mount: Post
Post: Post Holder (Newfocus)
Fork: Short Fork

Item: Half Wave Plate
Qty.: 4
Mirror: CVI QWPO-
Mount: CVI
Post: Pedestal X"
Fork: Short Fork

Item: Quater Wave Plate
Qty.: 3
Mirror: CVI QWPO-
Mount: CVI
Post: Pedestal X"
Fork: Short Fork

Item: OMC Curved Mirror
Qty.: 2
Mirror: -
Mount: Suprema 0.5inch + Adapter
Post: Pedestal X"
Fork: Short Fork

Item: Prism Holder
Qty.: 1
Mirror: OMC Prism
Mount: Newport Prism Mount
Post: Pedestal X"
Fork: Short Fork

Item: CCD
Qty.: 1
Mirror: Thorlabs?
Mount: Thorlabs?
Post: Post Holder (Newfocus)
Fork: Short Fork

EGE&G 2mm photodiode angle response measured by Sam T1100564-v1