• HWP set
  
  • Optics: CVI QWPO-1064-08-2-R10
  • Mount: New Focus #9401
  • Post: Pedestal 2.5inch
  • Returned: Oct 19, 2012 by KA
• QWP set
  
  • Optics: CVI QWPO-1064-05-4-R10
  • Mount: New Focus #9401
  • Post: Pedestal 2.5inch
  • Returned: Jan 17, 2013 by KA
• Faraday set
  
  • Optics: OFR IO-2-YAG-HP Returned: Mar 21, 2013 by KA
  • Mount: New Focus #9701 Returned: Apr 17, 2013 by KA
  • Post: Pedestal (1.5+0.25inch)x2
• Steering Mirror 1
  
  • Optics: CVI Y1-1037-45S
  • Mount: Newport Ultima U100-AC
  • Post: Pedestal 3inch
  • Returned: Jan 17, 2013 by KA
• Steering Mirror 2
  
  • Optics: CVI Y1-1037-45P
  • Mount: Newport Ultima U100-AC
  • Post: Pedestal 3inch
  • Returned: Jan 17, 2013 by KA
• Steering Mirror 3
  • Optics: New Focus 5104
  • Mount: Newport Ultima U100-AC
  • Post: Pedestal 3inch
  • Returned: Jan 17, 2013 by KA
• Prism Mount
  
  • Mount: Thorlabs KM100P+PM1 2014/7/17
  • Post: Pedestal 1.5+1+1/8inch
• 0.5" Mirror Mount
  
  • Mount: Newport U50-AReturned: Apr 17, 2013 by KA
  • Mount: Newport U50-A 2014/7/17
  • Post: Pedestal 1.5+2inch
• Black Glass Beam Dump
  • Optics: 1" sq. schott glass x3
  • Mount: Custom Hexagonal 1"
  • Post: Pedestal 3inch
• PBS Set
  
  • 05BC16PC.9 (PBS 1064 1000:1)
    
  • Mount: Custom Aluminum
  • Returned: Jan 17, 2013 by KA
• Lenses
  
  • KBX067.AR33 f=125mm
  • KPX106 f=200mm, KPX109 f=250mm unknown-coat
  • KPX088.AR33 f=75mm
  • KPX094.AR33 f=100mm
  • PLCX-C (BK7) 3863 (f=7.5m), 2060 (f=4.0m), 1545 (f=3.0m), 1030 (f=2.0m) non-coat
  • PLCX-UV (FS) 30.9 non-coat(!) f=60mm
  • Returned: Jan 17, 2013 by KA
• Pedestals
  
  • 1/4" x5, 1/8" x3, Returned: Jan 17, 2013 by KA
  • 0.5" x1, 1.5" x1

Another loan from the 40m on Oct 17th, 2012

• Minicircuits
  
  • Splitter ZFSC-2-5 x2
  • Filter SLP-1.9 x2 / BLP-1.9 x1/2 / SLP-5 x1
  • Returned: Jan 17, 2013 by KA
• Connectors / Adaptors
  
  • SMA TEE x1 / SMA 50Ohm x 1 / BNC T x 10, Returned: Jan 17, 2013 by KA
  • SMA TEE x1 / SMA 50Ohm x 1Returned: May 20, 2013 by KA
• Pomona Box x1, Returned: Jan 17, 2013 by KA
• Pomona Box x1
• Power supply for New Focus Fast PD made by Jamie R Returned: Apr 17, 2013 by KA
• BS-1064-50-1037-45S / Newport U100-A mount / 1"+2" Pedestal, Returned: Jan 17, 2013 by KA
• BS-1064-50-1025-45P / Newport U100-A mount / 3/4" post + Base, Returned: Jan 17, 2013 by KA
• BNC cable 21ft x2, Returned: Jan 17, 2013 by KA
• SMA Cable 6ft

Another loan from the 40m on Nov 21th, 2012

• Mounting Base Thorlabs BA-2 x 17
• Mounting Posts (phi=3/4", L=2.65", normal x15, and 1/4"-20 variant x2)

Yet another loan from the 40m on Jan 16th, 2013

• V-groove Mounting Bases Custom. Qty.2Returned: Feb 25, 2013 by KA

Loan from ATF

32.7MHz EOM+Tilt aligner
Thorlabs Broadband EOM+Tilt aligner
Forks x 5Returned: Feb 25, 2013 by KA
JWIN Camera x 2

The RoC test setup has been built on the optical table at ATF.

The cavity formed by actual OMC mirrors have been locked.

The modulation frequency of the BB EOM was swept by the network analyzer.
A peak at ~30MHz was found in the transfer function when the input beam was misaligned and clipping was introduced at the transmission PD.
Without either the misalignment or the clipping, the peak disappears. Also the peak requires these imperfections to be directed in the same way
(like pitch and picth, or yaw and yaw). This strongly suggests that the peak is associated with the transverse mode.

The peak location was f_HOM = 29.79MHz. If we consider the length of the cavity is L=1.20m, the RoC is estimated as

RoC = L / (1 - Cos[f_HOM/(c/2/L) * PI]^2)

This formula gives us the RoC of 2.587 m.

I should have been able to find another peak at f_FSR-f_TMS. In deed, there was the structure found at 95MHz as expected.
However, the peak was really weak and the location was difficult to determine as it was coupled with the signal from residual RFAM.

The particle level in the clean booth was occasionally measured. Every measurement showed "zero".

To be improved:

• The trans PD is 1801 which was found in ATF with the label of the 40m. It turned out that it is a Si PD.
  I need to find an InGaAs PD (1811, 1611, or my BBPD) or increase the modulation, or increase the detected light level.
  (==> The incident power on 1810 increased. Oct 17)
• The BS at the transmission is actually Y1-45P with low incident angle. This can be replaced by 50% or 30% BS to increase the light on the fast PD.
  (==> 50% BS is placed. Oct 17)
• I forgot to put a 50ohm terminator for the BB EOM.
  (==> 50Ohm installed. Oct 17)
• A directional coupler could be used for the BBEOM signal to enhance the modulaiton by 3dB.
• The mode matching is shitty. I can see quite strong TEM20 mode.
• Use the longer cavity? L=1.8m is feasible on the table. This will move the peak at 27MHz and 56MHz (FSR=83MHz). Very promising.
  (==> L=1.8m, peak at 27MHz and 56MHz found. Oct.17)

Significant improvement has been achieved in the RoC measurement.

• The trans PD has much more power as the BS at the cavity trans was replaced by a 50% BS. This covers the disadvantage of using the a Si PD.
• The BB EOM has a 50Ohm terminator to ensure the 50Ohm termination at Low freq.
• The length of the cavity was changed from 1.2m to 1.8m in order to see the effect on the RoC measurement.

By these changes, dramatic increase of the signal to noise ratio was seen.

Now both of the peaks corresponds to the 1st-order higher-order modes are clearly seen.
The peak at around 26MHz are produced by the beat between the carrier TEM00 and the upper-sideband TEM01 (or 10).
The other peak at around 57MHz are produced by the lower-sideband TEM01 (or 10).

Peak fitting

From the peak fitting we can extract the following numbers:

• Cavity FSR (hence the cavity length)
• Cavity g-factor
• Approximate measure of the cavity bandwidth

Note that the cavity itself has not been touched during the measurement.
Only the laser frequency and the incident beam alignment were adjusted.

The results are calculated by the combination of MATLAB and Mathemaica. The fit results are listed in the PDF files.
In deed the fitting quality was not satisfactory if the single Lorentzian peak was assumed.
There for two peaks closely lining up with different height. This explained slight asymmetry of the side tails
This suggests that there is slight astigmatism on the mirrors (why not.)

The key points of the results:

- FSR and the cavity length: 83.28~83.31MHz / L=1.799~1.800 [m] (surprisingly good orecision of my optics placement!)

- Cavity g-factor: Considering the flatness of the flat mirror from the phase map, the measured g-factors were converted to the curvature of the curved mirror.
RoC = 2.583~4 [m] and 2.564~7 [m]. (Note: This fluctuation can not be explained by the statistical error.)
The mode split is an order of 10kHz. This number also agrees with the measurement taken yesterday.

If the curved mirror had the nominal curvature of 2.5m, the flat mirror should have the curvature of ~20m. This is very unlikely.

- Approximate cavity line width: FWHM = 70~80kHz. This corresponds to the finesse of ~500. The design value is ~780.
This means that the locking offset is not enough to explain the RoC discrepancy between the design and the measurement.

Wedge angle test

Result: Wedge angle of Prism A1: 0.497 deg +/- 0.004 deg

Principle:

o Attach a rail on the optical table. This is the reference of the beam.

o A CCD camera (Wincam D) is used for reading out spot positions along the rail.

o Align a beam path along the rail using the CCD.

o Measure the residual slope of the beam path. (Measurement A)

o Insert an optic under the test. Direct the first surface retroreflectively. (This means the first surface should be the HR side.)

o Measure the slope of the transmitted beam. (Measurement B)

o Deflection angle is derived from the difference between these two measurements.

Setup:

o An Al plate of 10" width was clamped on the table. Four other clamps are located along the rail to make the CCD positions reproducible.

o A prism (Coating A, SN: A1) is mounted on a prism mount. The first surface is aligned so that the reflected beam matches with the incident beam
with precision of +/-1mm at 1660mm away from the prism surface. ==> precision of +/- 0.6mrad

o In fact, the deflection angle of the transmission is not very sensitive to the alignment of the prism.
The effect of the misalignment on the measurement is negligible.

o Refractive index of Corning 7980 at 1064nm is 1.4496

Result:

Without Prism
Z (inch / mm), X (horiz [um] +/-4.7um), Y (vert [um] +/-4.7um)
0” / 0, -481.3, -165.1
1.375" / 34.925, -474.3, -162.8
3" / 76.2, -451.0, -186.0
4.375" / 111.125, -432.5, -181.4
6" / 152.4, -432.5, -181.4
7.375" / 187.325, -330.2, -204.6
9" / 228.6, -376.7, -209.3

With Prism / SN of the optic: A1
Z (inch / mm), X (horiz [um] +/-4.7um), Y (vert [um] +/-4.7um)
0” / 0, -658.3, -156.8
1.375" / 34.925, -744.0, -158.1
3" / 76.2, -930.0, -187.4
4.375" / 111.125, -962.6, -181.4
6" / 152.4, -1190.4, -218.6
7.375" / 187.325, -1250.9, -232.5
9" / 228.6, -1418.3, -232.5

Analysis:

Wedge angle of Prism A1: 0.497 deg +/- 0.004 deg

[Click for a sharper image]

A1
Horiz Wedge    0.497    +/-    0.004 deg
Vert Wedge      0.024    +/-    0.004 deg

A2
Horiz Wedge    0.549    +/-    0.004 deg
Vert Wedge      0.051    +/-    0.004 deg

A3
Horiz Wedge    0.463    +/-    0.004 deg
Vert Wedge      0.009    +/-    0.004 deg

A4
Horiz Wedge    0.471    +/-    0.004 deg
Vert Wedge      0.019    +/-    0.004 deg

A5
Horiz Wedge    0.458    +/-    0.004 deg
Vert Wedge      0.006    +/-    0.004 deg

KA's question:

Do you know how to apply this epoxy?
Do we need a plunger and a needle for this purpose?

Nic saids:

When we did it with Sam, I seem to remember just squirting some on some foil then dabbing it on with the needle.

Optical prisms 50pcs (A14+B12+C6+E18)
Curved Mirrors 25pcs (C13+D12)

Now it's enough for the first OMC (or even second one too).
Today's measurements all distributed in theta>0.5deg. Is this some systematic effect???
I should check some of the compeled mirrors again to see the reproducibility...

A1    Horiz Wedge    0.497039    +/-    0.00420005    deg / Vert Wedge     0.02405210    +/-    0.00420061    deg

A2    Horiz Wedge    0.548849    +/-    0.00419993    deg / Vert Wedge     0.05087730    +/-    0.00420061    deg
A3    Horiz Wedge    0.463261    +/-    0.00420013    deg / Vert Wedge     0.00874441    +/-    0.00420061    deg
A4    Horiz Wedge    0.471536    +/-    0.00420011    deg / Vert Wedge     0.01900840    +/-    0.00420061    deg
A5    Horiz Wedge    0.458305    +/-    0.00420014    deg / Vert Wedge     0.00628961    +/-    0.00420062    deg

B1    Horiz Wedge    0.568260    +/-    0.00419988    deg / Vert Wedge    -0.00442885    +/-    0.00420062    deg
B2    Horiz Wedge    0.556195    +/-    0.00419991    deg / Vert Wedge    -0.00136749    +/-    0.00420062    deg
B3    Horiz Wedge    0.571045    +/-    0.00419987    deg / Vert Wedge     0.00897185    +/-    0.00420061    deg
B4    Horiz Wedge    0.563724    +/-    0.00419989    deg / Vert Wedge    -0.01139000    +/-    0.00420061    deg
B5    Horiz Wedge    0.574745    +/-    0.00419986    deg / Vert Wedge     0.01718030    +/-    0.00420061    deg
E1    Horiz Wedge    0.600147    +/-    0.00419980    deg / Vert Wedge     0.00317778    +/-    0.00420062    deg
E2    Horiz Wedge    0.582597    +/-    0.00419984    deg / Vert Wedge    -0.00537131    +/-    0.00420062    deg
E3    Horiz Wedge    0.592933    +/-    0.00419982    deg / Vert Wedge    -0.01082830    +/-    0.00420061    deg

-------

To check the systematic effect, A1 and B1 were tested with different alignment setup.

A1    Horiz Wedge    0.547056    +/-    0.00419994    deg / Vert Wedge    0.0517442    +/-    0.00420061    deg
A1    Horiz Wedge    0.546993    +/-    0.00419994    deg / Vert Wedge    0.0469938    +/-    0.00420061    deg
A1    Horiz Wedge    0.509079    +/-    0.00420003    deg / Vert Wedge    0.0240255    +/-    0.00420061    deg

B1    Horiz Wedge    0.547139    +/-    0.00419994    deg / Vert Wedge    0.0191204    +/-    0.00420061    deg



 

Mirror T test

The mirror was misaligned to have ~2deg incident (mistakenly...) angle.

C1: Ptrans = 7.58uW, Pinc = 135.0mW => 56.1ppm

C1 (take2): Ptrans = 7.30uW, Pinc = 134.4mW => 54.3ppm

C2: Ptrans = 6.91uW, Pinc = 137.3mW => 50.3ppm

C3: Ptrans = 6.27uW, Pinc = 139.7mW => 44.9ppm

C4: Ptrans = 7.62uW, Pinc = 139.3mW => 54.7ppm

C5: Ptrans = 6.20uW, Pinc = 137.5mW => 45.1ppm

A1: Ptrans = 1.094mW, Pinc = 133.6mW => 8189ppm

In order to resume testing the curvatures of the mirrors, the same mirror as the previous one was tested.
The result looks consistent with the previous measurement.

It seems that there has been some locking offset. Actually, the split peaks in the TF@83MHz indicates
the existence of the offset. Next time, it should be adjusted at the beginning.

Curved mirror SN: C1
RoC: 2.5785 +/- 0.000042 [m]

Previous measurements
=> 2.5830, 2.5638 => sqrt(RoC1*RoC2) = 2.5734 m
=> 2.5844, 2.5666 => sqrt(RoC1*RoC2) = 2.5755 m

C1: RoC: 2.57845 +/− 4.2e−05m

C2: RoC: 2.54363 +/− 4.9e−05m

C3: RoC: 2.57130 +/− 6.3e−05m   

C4: RoC: 2.58176 +/− 6.8e−05m

C5: RoC 2.57369 +/− 9.1e−05m

==> 2.576 +/- 0.005 [m] (C2 excluded)

The thicknesses of the prism mirrors (A1-A5) were measured with micrometer thickness gauge.
Since the thickness of the thinner side (side1) depends on the depth used for the measurement,
it is not accurate. Unit in mm.

A1: Side1: 9.916, Side2: 10.066 => derived wedge angle: 0.43deg
A2: Side1: 9.883, Side2: 10.065 => 0.52
A3: Side1: 9.932, Side2: 10.062 => 0.38
A4: Side1: 9.919, Side2: 10.060 => 0.40
A5: Side1: 9.917, Side2: 10.058 => 0.40

Total (excluding C2, C7, C8): 2.575 +/- 0.005 [m]

New results

C6: RoC: 2.57321 +/− 4.2e-05m

C7: RoC: 2.56244 +/− 4.0e−05m ==> Polaris mount

C8: RoC: 2.56291 +/− 4.7e-05m ==> Ultima mount

C9: RoC: 2.57051 +/− 6.7e-05m

Previous results

C1: RoC: 2.57845 +/− 4.2e−05m

C2: RoC: 2.54363 +/− 4.9e−05m ==> Josh Smith @Fullerton for scattering measurement

C3: RoC: 2.57130 +/− 6.3e−05m   

C4: RoC: 2.58176 +/− 6.8e−05m

C5: RoC 2.57369 +/− 9.1e−05m

Measured the thickness of a curved mirror:

Took three points separated by 120 degree.

S/N: C2, (0.2478, 0.2477, 0.2477) in inch => (6.294, 6.292, 6.292) in mm

Conclusion: Good. First contact did not damage the coating surface, and reduced the loss

- Construct a cavity with A1 and C2

- Measure the transmission and FWHM (of TEM10 mode)

- Apply First Contact on both mirrors

- Measure the values again

Transmission:

2.66 +/- 0.01 V -> 2.83  +/- 0.01 V

==> 6.3% +/- 0.5 % increase

FWHM of TEM10:

Before: (66.1067, 65.4257, 66.1746) +/- (0.40178, 0.38366, 0.47213) [kHz]
After: (60.846, 63.4461, 63.7906) +/- (0.43905, 0.56538, 0.51756) [kHz]

==> 5.1% +/- 2.7% decrease

Question: What is the best way to measure the finesse of the cavity?

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?

The items:

- Autocollimator (AC) borrowed from Mike Smith (Nippon Kogaku model 305, phi=2.76", 67.8mm)

- Retroreflector (corner cube)

- Two V grooves borrowed from the 40m

Procedure:

- Autocollimator calibration

o Install the AC on a optical table

o Locate the corner cube in front of the AC.

o Adjust the focus of the AC so that the reflected reticle pattern can be seen.

o If the retroreflection and the AC are perfect, the reference reticle pattern will match with the reflected reticle pattern.

o Measure the deviation of the reflected reticle from the center.

o Rotate the retroreflector by 90 deg. Measure the deviation again.

o Repeat the process until total four coordinates are obtained.

o Analysis of the data separates two types of the error:
   The average of these four coordinates gives the systematic error of the AC itself.
   The vector from the center of the circle corresponds to the error of the retroreflector.

- Wedge angle measurement

To be continued

An autocollimator (AC) should show (0,0) if a retroreflector is placed in front of the AC.
However, the AC may have an offset. Also the retroreflector may not reflect the beam back with an exact parallelism.

To calibrate these two errors, the autocollimator is calibrated. The retroreflector was rotated by 0, 90, 180, 270 deg
while the reticle position are monitored. The images of the autocollimator were taken by my digital camera looking at the eyepiece of the AC.

Note that 1 div of the AC image corresponds to 1arcmin.

Basically the rotation of the retroreflector changed the vertical and horizontal positions of the reticle pattern by 0.6mdeg and 0.1mdeg
(2 and 0.4 arcsec). Therefore the parallelism of the retrorefrector is determined to be less than an arcsec. This is negligibly good for our purpose.

The offset changes by ~1div in a slanted direction if the knob of the AC, whose function is unknown, is touched.
So the knob should be locked, and the offset should be recorded before we start the actual work every time.

The wedge angle of the prism "A1" was measured with the autocollimator (AC).

The range of the AC is 40 arcmin. This means that the mirror tilt of 40arcmin can be measured with this AC.
This is just barely enough to detect the front side reflection and the back side reflection.

The measured wedge angle of the A1 prism was 0.478 deg.

Ideally a null measurement should be done with a rotation stage.

Method:

• Mount the tombstone prism on the prism mount. The mount is fixed on the rotation stage.
• Locate the prism in front of the autocollimator.
• Find the retroreflected reticle in the view. Adjust the focus if necessary.
• Confirm that the rotation of the stage does not change the height of the reticle in the view. 

  If it does, rotate the AC around its axis to realize it.
  This is to match the horizontal reticle to the rotation plane.
• Use the rotation stage and the alignment knobs to find the reticle at the center of the AC.
Make sure the reticle corresponds to the front surface.
• Record the micrometer reading.
• Rotate the micrometer of the rotation stage until the retroreflected reticle for the back surface.
• There maybe the vertical shift of the reticle due to the vertical wedging. Record the vertical shi
• Record the micrometer reading. Take a difference from the previous value.
   

Measurement:

• A1: α = 0.68 deg, β = 0 arcmin (0 div)
• A2: α = 0.80 deg, β = -6 arcmin (3 div down)
• A3: α = 0.635 deg, β = -1.6 arcmin (0.8 div down)
• A4: α = 0.650 deg, β = 0 arcmin (0div)
• A5: α = 0.655 deg, β = +2.4 arcmin (1.2 div up)

Analysis:

• \theta_H = ArcSin[Sin(α) / n]
• \theta_V = ArcSin[Sin(β) / n]/2
   
• A1: \theta_H = 0.465 deg, \theta_V = 0.000 deg
• A2: \theta_H = 0.547 deg, \theta_V = -0.034 deg
• A3: \theta_H = 0.434 deg, \theta_V = -0.009 deg
• A4: \theta_H = 0.445 deg, \theta_V = 0.000 deg
• A5: \theta_H = 0.448 deg, \theta_V = 0.014 deg

Measurement:

• A6:   α = 0.665 deg, β = +3.0 arcmin (1.5 div up)
• A7:   α = 0.635 deg, β =   0.0 arcmin (0.0 div up)
• A8:   α = 0.623 deg, β = - 0.4 arcmin (-0.2 div up)
• A9:   α = 0.670 deg, β = +2.4 arcmin (1.2 div up)
• A10: α = 0.605 deg, β = +0.4 arcmin (0.2 div up)
• A11: α = 0.640 deg, β = +0.8 arcmin (0.4 div up)
• A12: α = 0.625 deg, β = - 0.6 arcmin (-0.3 div up)
• A13: α = 0.630 deg, β = +2.2 arcmin (1.1 div up)
• A14: α = 0.678 deg, β =   0.0 arcmin (0.0 div up)
• B1:   α = 0.665 deg, β = +0.6 arcmin (0.3 div up)
• B2:   α = 0.615 deg, β = +0.2 arcmin (0.1 div up)
• B3:   α = 0.620 deg, β = +0.9 arcmin (0.45 div up)
• B4:   α = 0.595 deg, β = +2.4 arcmin (1.2 div up)
• B5:   α = 0.635 deg, β = - 1.8 arcmin (-0.9 div up)
• B6:   α = 0.640 deg, β = +1.6 arcmin (0.8 div up)
• B7:   α = 0.655 deg, β = +2.5 arcmin (1.25 div up)
• B8:   α = 0.630 deg, β = +2.8 arcmin (1.4 div up)
• B9:   α = 0.620 deg, β = - 4.0 arcmin (-2.0 div up)
• B10: α = 0.620 deg, β = +1.2 arcmin (0.6 div up)
• B11: α = 0.675 deg, β = +3.5 arcmin (1.75 div up)
• B12: α = 0.640 deg, β = +0.2 arcmin (0.1 div up)

Analysis:

• \theta_H = ArcSin[Sin(α) * n]
• \theta_V = ArcSin[Sin(β) / n]/2
   
• A6:   \theta_H = 0.490 deg, \theta_V =  0.017 deg
• A7:   \theta_H = 0.534 deg, \theta_V =  0.000 deg
• A8:   \theta_H = 0.551 deg, \theta_V = -0.0023 deg
• A9:   \theta_H = 0.482 deg, \theta_V =  0.014 deg
• A10: \theta_H = 0.577 deg, \theta_V =  0.0023 deg
• A11: \theta_H = 0.526 deg, \theta_V =  0.0046 deg
• A12: \theta_H = 0.548 deg, \theta_V = -0.0034 deg
• A13: \theta_H = 0.541 deg, \theta_V =  0.013 deg
• A14: \theta_H = 0.471 deg, \theta_V =  0.000 deg
• B1:   \theta_H = 0.490 deg, \theta_V =  0.0034 deg
• B2:   \theta_H = 0.563 deg, \theta_V =  0.0011 deg
• B3:   \theta_H = 0.556 deg, \theta_V =  0.0051 deg
• B4:   \theta_H = 0.592 deg, \theta_V =  0.014 deg
• B5:   \theta_H = 0.534 deg, \theta_V = -0.010 deg
• B6:   \theta_H = 0.526 deg, \theta_V =  0.0091 deg
• B7:   \theta_H = 0.504 deg, \theta_V =  0.014 deg
• B8:   \theta_H = 0.541 deg, \theta_V =  0.016 deg
• B9:   \theta_H = 0.556 deg, \theta_V = -0.023 deg
• B10: \theta_H = 0.556 deg, \theta_V =  0.0068 deg
• B11: \theta_H = 0.475 deg, \theta_V =  0.020 deg
• B12: \theta_H = 0.526 deg, \theta_V =  0.0011 deg

 [Jeff, Yuta, Koji]

Gluing test with UV-cure epoxy Optocast 3553-LV-UTF-HM

- This glue was bought in the end of October (~3.5 months ago).

- The glue was taken out from the freezer at 1:20pm.
- Al sheet was laid on the optical table. We made a boat with Al foil and pour the glue in it (@1:57pm)
- We brought two kinds of Cu wires from the 40m. The thicker one has the diameter of 1.62mm.
The thinner one has the diameter of 0.62mm. We decided to use thinner one being cut into 50mm in length.

- The OMC glass prisms have the footprint of 10mmx20mm = 200mm^2. We tested several combinations
of the substrates. Pairs of mirrors with 1/2" mm in dia. (127mm) and a pair of mirrors with 20mm in dia. (314mm).

- Firstly, a pair of 1/2" mirrors made of SF2 glass was used. A small dub on a thinner Cu wire was deposited on a mirror.
  We illuminated the glue for ~10sec. When the surfaces of the pair was matched, the glue did not spread on the entire
  surface. The glue was entirely spread once the pressure is applied by a finger. Glue was cured at 2:15pm. 12.873mm
  thickness after the gluing.

Some remark:
1. We should be careful not to shine the glue pot by the UV illuminator.
2. The gluing surface should be drag wiped to remove dusts on the surface.

- Secondly, we moved onto 20mm mirror pair taken from the remnant of the previous gluing test by the eLIGO people.
This time about 1.5 times more glue was applied.

- The third trial is to insert small piece of alminum foil to form a wedge. The thickness of the foil is 0.041mm.
The glue was applied to the pair of SF2 mirror (1/2" in dia.). A small dub (~1mm in dia) of the glue was applied.
The glue filled the wedge without any bubble although the glue tried to slide out the foil piece from the wedge.
So the handling was a bit difficult. After the gluing we measured the thickness of the wedge by a micrometer gauge.
The skinny side was 12.837mm, and the thicker side was 12.885mm. This is to be compared with the total thickness
12.823mm before the gluing. The wedge angle is 3.8mrad (0.22deg). The glue dub was applied at 2:43, and the UV
illumination was applied at 2:46.

- At the end we glued a pair of fused silica mirrors. The total thickness before the gluing was 12.658 mm.
The glue was applied at 2:59pm. The thickness after the gluing is 12.663 mm.
This indicates the glue thickess is 5um.

Perpendicularity test of the mounting prisms:

The perpendicularity of the prism pieces were measured with an autocollimator.

Two orthogonally jointed surfaces forms a part of a corner cube.
The deviation of the reflected image from retroreflection is the quantity measured by the device.

When the image is retroreflected, only one horizontal line is observed in the view.
If there is any deviation from the retroreflection, this horizontal line splits into two
as the upper and lower halves have the angled wavefront by 4x\theta. (see attached figure)

The actual reading of the autocollimator is half of the wavefront angle (as it assumes the optical lever).
Therefore the reading of the AC times 30 gives us the deviation from 90deg in the unit of arcsec.

SN / measured / spec

SN10: 12.0 arcsec (29 arcsec)

SN11: 6.6 arcsec (16 arcsec)

SN16: 5.7 arcsec (5 arcsec)

SN20: -17.7 arcsec (5 arcsec)

SN21: - 71.3 arcsec (15 arcsec)

Mounting Prisms:
(criteria: 30arcsec = 145urad => 0.36mm spot shift)
SN  Meas.(div) ArcSec Spec.
10   0.3989    11.97   29    good
11   0.2202     6.60   16    good
16   0.1907     5.72    5    good
20  -0.591    -17.73    5    good
21  -2.378    -71.34   15

21  -1.7      -51.     15
01  -0.5      -15.     52
02  -2.5      -75.     48
06  -1.0      -30.     15    good
07   1.7       51.     59
12  -2.2      -66.     40
13  -0.3      - 9.     12    good
14  -2.8      -84.     27
15  -2.5      -75.     50
17   0.7       21.     48
22   2.9       87.     63

Mirror A:
A1  -0.5      -15.     NA    good
A3   0.5       15.     NA    good
A4   0.9       27.     NA    good
A5   0.4       12.     NA    good
A6   0.1        3.     NA    good
A7   0.0        0.     NA    good
A8   0.0        0.     NA    good
A9   0.0        0.     NA    good
A10  1.0       30.     NA    good
A11  0.3        9.     NA    good
A12  0.1        3.     NA    good
A13  0.0        0.     NA    good
A14  0.6       18.     NA    good

Mirror B:
B1  -0.9      -27.     NA    good
B2  -0.6      -18.     NA    good
B3  -0.9      -27.     NA    good
B4   0.7       21.     NA    good
B5  -1.1      -33.     NA
B6  -0.6      -18.     NA    good
B7  -1.8      -54.     NA
B8  -1.1      -33.     NA
B9   1.8       54.     NA
B10  1.2       36.     NA   
B11 -1.7      -51.     NA
B12  1.1       33.     NA


Perpendicularity of the "E" mirror was measured.

Mounting Prisms:
(criteria: 30arcsec = 145urad => 0.36mm spot shift)
SN  Meas.(div) ArcSec Spec.
10   0.3989    11.97   29    good
11   0.2202     6.60   16    good
16   0.1907     5.72    5    good
20  -0.591    -17.73    5    good
21  -2.378    -71.34   15

21  -1.7      -51.     15
01  -0.5      -15.     52
02  -2.5      -75.     48
06  -1.0      -30.     15    good
07   1.7       51.     59
12  -2.2      -66.     40
13  -0.3      - 9.     12    good
14  -2.8      -84.     27
15  -2.5      -75.     50
17   0.7       21.     48
22   2.9       87.     63

Mirror A:
A1  -0.5      -15.     NA    good
A3   0.5       15.     NA    good
A4   0.9       27.     NA    good
A5   0.4       12.     NA    good
A6   0.1        3.     NA    good
A7   0.0        0.     NA    good
A8   0.0        0.     NA    good
A9   0.0        0.     NA    good
A10  1.0       30.     NA    good
A11  0.3        9.     NA    good
A12  0.1        3.     NA    good
A13  0.0        0.     NA    good
A14  0.6       18.     NA    good

Mirror B:
B1  -0.9      -27.     NA    good
B2  -0.6      -18.     NA    good
B3  -0.9      -27.     NA    good
B4   0.7       21.     NA    good
B5  -1.1      -33.     NA
B6  -0.6      -18.     NA    good
B7  -1.8      -54.     NA
B8  -1.1      -33.     NA
B9   1.8       54.     NA
B10  1.2       36.     NA   
B11 -1.7      -51.     NA
B12  1.1       33.     NA

Mirror E:
E1  -0.8      -24.     NA    good
E2  -0.8      -24.     NA    good
E3  -0.25     - 7.5    NA    good
E4  -0.5      -15.     NA    good
E5   0.8       24.     NA    good
E6  -1.0      -30.     NA    good
E7  -0.2      - 6.     NA    good
E8  -0.8      -24.     NA    good
E9  -1.0      -30.     NA    good
E10  0.0        0.     NA    good
E11 -1.0      -30.     NA    good
E12 -0.3      - 9.     NA    good
E13 -0.8      -24.     NA    good
E14 -1.0      -30.     NA    good
E15 -1.2      -36.     NA
E16 -0.7      -21.     NA    good
E17 -0.8      -24.     NA    good
E18 -1.0      -30.     NA    good



Measurement:

• E1:   α = 0.672 deg, β = +0.0 arcmin (0 div up)
• E2:   α = 0.631 deg, β = - 0.3 arcmin (-0.15 div down)
• E3:   α = 0.642 deg, β = +0.0 arcmin (0 div up)
• E4:   α = 0.659 deg, β = +1.4 arcmin (0.7 div up)
• E5:   α = 0.695 deg, β = +0.5 arcmin (0.5 div up)
• E6:   α = 0.665 deg, β = - 0.4 arcmin (-0.2 div down)
• E7:   α = 0.652 deg, β = +1.0 arcmin (0.5 div up)
• E8:   α = 0.675 deg, β = +2.0 arcmin (1.0 div up)
• E9:   α = 0.645 deg, β = - 2.4 arcmin (-1.2 div down)
• E10: α = 0.640 deg, β = +2.2 arcmin (1.1 div up)
• E11: α = 0.638 deg, β = +1.6 arcmin (0.8 div up)
• E12: α = 0.660 deg, β = +1.6 arcmin (0.8 div up)
• E13: α = 0.638 deg, β = +0.8 arcmin (0.4 div up)
• E14: α = 0.655 deg, β = +0.4 arcmin (0.2 div up)
• E15: α = 0.640 deg, β = +1.4 arcmin (0.7 div up)
• E16: α = 0.655 deg, β = +0.6 arcmin (0.3 div up)
• E17: α = 0.650 deg, β = +0.8 arcmin (0.4 div up)
• E18: α = 0.640 deg, β = +2.4 arcmin (1.2 div up)

Analysis:

• \theta_H = ArcSin[Sin(α) / n]
• \theta_V = ArcSin[Sin(β) / n]/2
   
• E1:   \theta_H = 0.460 deg, \theta_V =   0.000 deg
• E2:   \theta_H = 0.432 deg, \theta_V =  -0.0034 deg
• E3:   \theta_H = 0.439 deg, \theta_V =   0.000 deg
• E4:   \theta_H = 0.451 deg, \theta_V =  0.016 deg
• E5:   \theta_H = 0.475 deg, \theta_V =  0.011 deg
• E6:   \theta_H = 0.455 deg, \theta_V =  -0.0046 deg
• E7:   \theta_H = 0.446 deg, \theta_V =  0.011 deg
• E8:   \theta_H = 0.462 deg, \theta_V =  0.023 deg
• E9:   \theta_H = 0.441 deg, \theta_V =  -0.027 deg
• E10:   \theta_H = 0.438 deg, \theta_V = 0.025 deg
• E11:   \theta_H = 0.436 deg, \theta_V = 0.018 deg
• E12:   \theta_H = 0.451 deg, \theta_V = 0.018 deg
• E13:   \theta_H = 0.436 deg, \theta_V = 0.0091 deg
• E14:   \theta_H = 0.448 deg, \theta_V = 0.0046 deg
• E15:   \theta_H = 0.438 deg, \theta_V = 0.016 deg
• E16:   \theta_H = 0.448 deg, \theta_V = 0.0068 deg
• E17:   \theta_H = 0.444 deg, \theta_V = 0.0091 deg
• E18:   \theta_H = 0.438 deg, \theta_V = 0.027 deg

EDIT (ZK): Koji points out that (1 - Ti) should really be the non-resonant reflectivity of the aligned cavity, which is much closer to 1. However, it should *actually* be the non-resonant reflectivity of the entire OMC assembly, including the steering mirror (see bottom of post). The steering mirror has T ~ 0.3%, so the true results are somewhere between my numbers and those with (1 - Ti) -> 1. In practice, though, these effects are swamped by the other errors.

More information about the power-dependent visibility measurement:

As a blanket statement, this measurement was done by exact analogy to those made by Sam and Sheon during S6 (c.f. LHO iLog 11/7/2011 and technical note T1100562), since it was supposed to be a verification that this effect still remains. There are absolutely better ways to do (i.e., ways that should give lower measurement error), and these should be investigated for our characterization. Obviously, I volunteer.

All measurements were made by reading the output voltages produced by photodetectors at the REFL and TRANS ports. The REFL PD is a BBPD (DC output), and the TRANS is a PDA255. Both these PDs were calibrated using a Thorlabs power meter (Controller: PM100D; Head: S12XC series photodiode-based---not sure if X = 0,2... Si or Ge) at the lowest and highest power settings, and these results agreed to the few-percent level. This can be a major source of error.

The power was adjusted using the HWP/PBS combination towards the beginning of the experiment. For reference, an early layout of the test setup can be seen in LLO:5978 (though, as mentioned above, the REFL and TRANS PDs have been replaced since then---see LLO:5994). This may or may not be a "clean" way to change the power, but the analysis should take the effect of junk light into account.

Below is an explanation of the three traces in the plot. First:

• TRANS: TRANS signal calibrated to W
• REFL_UL: REFL signal while cavity is unlocked, calibrated to W
• REFL_L: REFL signal while cavity is locked, calibrated to W
• Psb: Sideband power (relative to carrier)
• Ti: Input mirror transmission (in power)

Now, the traces

1. Raw transmission: This measurement is simple. It is just the raw throughput of the cavity, corrected for the power in the sidebands which should not get through. I had the "AM_REF" PD, which could serve as an input power monitor, but I thought it was better to just use REFL_UL as the input power monitor and not introduce the error of another PD. This means I must also correct for the reduction in the apparent input power as measured at the REFL PD due to the finite transmission of the input coupler. This was not reported by Sam and Sheon, but can be directly inferred from their data.
   • trans_raw = TRANS ./ ( REFL_UL * (1 - Psb) * (1 - Ti) )
   • Equivalently, trans_raw = (transmitted power) ./ (input power in carrier mode)
2. Coupling: This is how much of the power incident on the cavity gets coupled into the cavity (whether it ends up in transmission or at a loss port). Sheon plots something like (1 - coupling) in his reply to the above-linked iLog post on 11/8/2011.
   • coupling = ( REFL_UL * (1 - Ti) - REFL_L ) ./ ( REFL_UL * (1 - Psb) * (1 - Ti) )
   • Equivalently, coupling = [ (total input power) - (total reflected power on resonance) ] ./ (input power in carrier mode)
3. Visibility: How much of the light that is coupled into the cavity is emerging from the transmitted port? This is what Sam and Sheon call "throughput" or "transmission" and is what is reported in the majority of their plots.
   • visibility = TRANS ./ ( REFL_UL * (1 - Ti) - REFL_L )
   • Equivalently, visibility = (transmitted power) ./ [ (total input power) - (total reflected power on resonance) ]
   • Also equivalently, visibility = trans_raw ./ coupling

The error bars in the measurement were dominated, roughly equally, by 1) systematic error from calibration of the PDs with the power meter, and 2) error from noise in the REFL_L measurement (since the absolute AC noise level in TRANS and REFL_L is the same, and TRANS >> REFL_L, the SNR of the latter is worse).

(1) can be helped by making ALL measurements with a single device. I recommend using something precise and portable like the power meter to make measurements at all the necessary ports. For REFL_L/UL, we can place a beam splitter before the REFL PD, and---after calibrating for the T of this splitter very well using the same power meter---both states can be measured at this port.

(2) can probably be helped by taking longer averaging, though at some point we run into the stability of the power setting itself. Something like 30-60s should be enough to remove the effects of the REFL_L noise, which is concentrated in the few-Hz region in the LLO setup.

One more thing I forgot was the finite transmission of the steering mirror at the OMC input (the transmission of this mirror goes to the QPDs). This will add a fixed error of 0.3%, and I will take it into account in the future.

I found that, in fact, I had lowered the modulation depth since when I measured it to be 0.45 rads --> Psb = 0.1.

Here is the sweep measurement:

This is Psb = 0.06 --> gamma = 0.35 rads.

This changes the "raw transmission" and "coupling", but not the inferred visibility:

I also measured the cavity AMTF at three powers today: 0.5 mW, 10 mW, and 45 mW input.

They look about the same. If anything, the cavity pole seems slightly lower with the higher power, which is counterintuitive. The expected shift is very small (~10%), since the decay rate is still totally dominated by the mirror transmissions even for the supposed high-loss state (Sam and Sheon estimated the roundtrip loss at high power to be ~1400 ppm, while the combined coupling mirrors' T is 1.6%). I have not been able to fit the cavity poles consistently to within this kind of error.

 For various reasons, I had to switch NPROs (from the LightWave 126 to the Innolight Prometheus).

I installed the laser, realigned the polarization and modulation optics, and then began launching the beam into the fiber, though I have not coupled any light yet.

A diagram is below. Since I do not yet have the AOM, I have shown that future path with a dotted line. Since we will not need to make AMTFs and have a subcarrier at the same time, I have chosen to overload the function of the PBS using the HWP after the AEOM. We will operate in one of two modes:

1. AMTF mode: The AOM path is used as a beam dump for the amplitude modulation setup. A razor dump should physically be placed somewhere in the AOM path.
2. Subcarrier mode: The AEOM is turned off and the HWP after it is used to adjust the carrier/subcarrier power ratio. I chose a 70T / 30R beamsplitter for the recombining, since we want to be able to provide ~100 mW with the carrier for transmission testing, and we don't need a particularly strong subcarrier beam for probing.

One thing that concerns me slightly: the Prometheus is a dual-output (1064nm/532nm) laser, with separate ports for each. I have blocked and locked out the green path physically, but there is some residual green light visible in the IR output. Since we are planning to do the OMC transmission testing with a Si-based Thorlabs power meter---which is more sensitive to green than IR---I am somewhat worried about the ensuing systematics. I *think* we can minimize the effect by detuning the doubling crystal temperature, but this remains to be verified.

 EDIT (ZK): Valera says there should be a dichroic beam splitter in the lab that I can borrow. This should be enough to selectively suppress the green.

Received black glass beam dumps from MIT

- gluing by EP30-2 looks pretty fine. Enough sturdy.

- some gap visible between the glass => incident angle should be considered so that the first beam does not exit from the gap

- Dusts are visible on the glass surface. Some have a lot, the other have less. But every piece still needs to be wiped.

Prototype PZT assembly

Motivation:

Before we glue the PZT assembly, we need to build a prototype. This is to confirm the heat cure process
does not cause any cracking of the PZT or glass components. The CTE of the PZT is 2~3ppm
(depends on the direction) while the one for Fused Silica is 0.55ppm.

Materials:

- A fused silica substrate, 1/2" in dia. Supplied from Garilynn. I defined the chamfered side as the front side.

- PZT: Noliac NAC2124, serial #24, this is a spare PZT as this has the worst length to angle coupling.

- Mounting Prism: D1102069 SN22. This has the worst perpendicularity among the prisms.

- Fixtures:

D1300185 aLIGO OMC CURVED MIRROR BONDING FIXTURE ASSY
D1300186 aLIGO OMC CURVED MIRROR BONDING FIXTURE FRONT
D1300187 aLIGO OMC CURVED MIRROR BONDING FIXTURE BACK
D1300188 aLIGO OMC CURVED MIRROR BONDING FIXTURE RING

Procedure:

- Wipe all of the components with the isopropanol.

- Attach the back piece of the fixture on the Al wrapped bracket.
(The current 4-40 screws for the middle piece are too long and stick out from the back side of the back piece.
Therefore a 1/16" shim for a 1/2" rod is inserted between the bracket and the back piece)

- Brought a glue package to the lab (10:40PM)

- Loosely attach the middle piece to the back piece with four 4-40 screws.

- Insert the mounting prism in the fixture. Insert the PZT in the fixture too.

- Insert a dummy substrate in the fixture.

- Attach the front piece with spring loaded screws.

- Align the PZT and the optic in the fixture. (Basically apply downward force to them)

- Test the rigidity of the assembly (11:30PM)

- Remove the PZT and the mirror. Apply UV epoxy.
(A single dub was applied for each PZT surface of the PZT but this was too much.)

- Make sure the PZT and the optic are aligned by applying the downward force.

- Illuminate UV light from the front.

- Illuminate UV light from the back. (11:50PM)

Procedural issues:

- Long 4-40 screws (described above)
(Circumvented)

- As the PZT is not constrained with the middle piece, it tends to move vertically and rotationally
because of the wire tension. (This is not a mistake but the design so that the PZT is constrained by the optic.)
Therefore after applying glue on the PZT, the motion of the PZT spreads the glue on the back surface of
the curved mirror.
(Solution to be tried) Our solution is to glue the PZT and the mounting prism first with a dummy optics (made of SF2).
The wires should be tacked somewhere on the mount 

- The amount of glue on the PZT was too much. I gave one dub of glue for each side.
As a result, excess glue leaks out along the ring.

- The front plate has a chamfered hole but this tends to slip and move the mirror vertically.
Later I used the flat side of the plate to hole the mirror.
(Circumvented) It seems that this hold the mirror in a better way as the plate can't rock

- Spring load for the front plate was too strong. This was because the natural length of the spring was too long.
(Circumvented) The spring was cut at the length of the 4-40 screw. Then attaching the screws became completely fine.

Result:

Slide show:

[Koji Jeff Zach]

AAA

BBB

CCC

DDD

[Lisa, Zach]

Last night (Tuesday), I finished setting up and aligning most of the input optics for the OMC characterization setup. See the diagram below, but the setup consists of:

• Faraday isolator/polarization definition
• HWP+PBS for power splitting into two paths:
  • EOM path
    • Resonant EOM for PDH sideband generation
    • Broadband EOM for frequency scanning
  • AOM path
    • Double-passed ~200-MHz Isomet AOM for subcarrier generation. NOTE: in this case, I have chosen the m = -1 diffraction order due to the space constraints on the table.
• Recombination of paths on a 50/50 beam splitter---half of the power is lost through the unused port into a black glass dump
• Coupler for launching dual-field beam into a fiber (to OMC)

Today, we placed some lenses into the setup, in two places:

1. In the roundabout section of the AOM path that leads to the recombination, to re-match the AOM-path beam to that of the EOM path
2. After the recombination beam splitter, to match the combined beam mode into the fiber

We (Koji, Lisa, and myself) had significant trouble getting more than ~0.1% coupling through the fiber, and after a while we decided to go to the 40m to get the red-light fiber illuminator to help with the alignment.

Using the illuminator, we realigned the input to the coupler and eventually got much better---but still bad---coupling of ~1.2% (0.12 mW out / 10 mW in). Due to the multi-mode nature of the illuminator beam, the output cannot be used to judge the collimation of the IR beam; it can only be used to verify the alignment of the beam.

With 0.12 mW emerging from the other end of the fiber, we could see the output quite clearly on a card (see photo below). This can tell us about the required input mode. From the looks of it, our beam is actually focused too strongly. We should probably replace the 75mm lens again with a slightly longer one.

Lisa and I concurred that it felt like we had converged to the optimum alignment and polarization, which would mean that the lack of coupling is all from mode mismatch. Since the input mode is well collimated, it seems unlikely that we could be off enough to only get ~1% coupling. One possibility is that the collimator is not well attached to the fiber itself. Since the Rayleigh range within it is very small, any looseness here can be critical.

I think there are several people around here who have worked pretty extensively with fibers. So, I propose that we ask them to take a look at what we have done and see if we're doing something totally wrong. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel.

My hypothesis about the input-side collimator turned out to be correct.

I removed the fiber from the collimator and mount at the input side, and then injected the illuminator beam from this side. Since we already saw a nice (but dim) IR beam emerging from the output side the other night, it followed that that collimator was correctly attached. With the illuminator injected from the input side, I also saw a nice, collimated red beam emerging from the output. So, the input collimator was not properly attached during our previous attempts, leading to the abysmal coupling.

The problem is that the mount does not allow you to remove and reattach the fiber while the collimator is already attached, and the dimensions make it hard to fit your fingers in to tighten the fiber to the collimator once the collimator is in the mount. I disassembled the mount and found a way to attach/reattach the fiber that preserves the tight collimator contact. I will upload a how-to shortly.

With this fix, I was able to align the input beam and get decent coupling:

EOM path: ~70%

AOM path: ~50%

[Koji, Jeff, Zach, Lisa]

We glued a test PZT-mirror assembly last week in order to make sure the heat cure of the epoxy does not make any problem
on the glass-PZT joints. The assembly was sent to Bob for the heat treatment. We received the assembly back from Bob on Wednesday.

We noticed that the assembly after the heat cure at 100degC had some voids in the epoxy layer
(looking like the fused silica surface was only 70% "wetted" by the epoxy).
The comparison of the assembly before and after the heat treatment is found in the slideshow at the bottom of the entry.

Initially our main concern was the impact to the control and noise performance.
An unexpected series resonance on the PZT transfer function and unwanted noise creation by the imperfect bonding may terribly ruin the IFO sensitivity.
In reality, after repeated poking by fingers, the PZT-prism joint was detached. This isn't good at all.
Note that there is no sign of degradation on the glass-glass joint.

We investigated the cause of this like:
- Difference of thermal expansion (3ppm/C PZT vs 0.55ppm/C fused silica)
- Insufficient curing of epoxy by UV (but this is the motivation of the heat cure)

Our resolution up to this point is to switch the glue to EP30-2. This means we will go through the heat cure test again.
Unfortunately there is no EP30-2 in stock at Caltech. We asked MIT to send us some packets of EP30-2.

Hardness of the epoxies is another concern. Through the epoxy investigation, we learned from Noliac that the glue for the PZT
should not be too hard (stiff) so as not to constrain the deformation of the PZT. EP30-2 has Shore D Hardness of 75 or more,
while Optocast UV epoxy has 88, and EPOTEK Epoxies, which Noliac suggested for gluing, has ~65. This should also be
confirmed by some measurement.  We will also ask Master Bond if they have information regarding the effect of curing
temperature on the hardness of the epoxy.  EP30-2 can be cured anywhere between RT and 200F (it's service range is up to 300F).
However, the entire breadboard, with the curved mirror sub-assemblies, will need to be baked at 110C to cure the UV Bond epoxy. 
We hope that exposure to relatively higher temps doesn't harden the EP30-2. The EP30-2 data sheet recommends an epoxy
thickness of 80-120 microns which is much thicker than we would like.

We also don't have a way tocontrol the thickness; though we could add glass spheres to the epoxy to control the thickness.
The thickness of the EP30-2 used to bond the metal wire guide prism on the core optics is much thinner at 15-25 microns.

[Koji Lisa Jeff Zach]

Eric G bought a UV power meter from American Ultraviolet.

Our UV illuminator was calibrated by this power meter.

The first blast (i.e. cold start): 3.9W/cm^2

After many blasting: 8.3W/cm^2

The spec is 20W/cm^2

Locations of the curvature minimum on the OMC curved mirrors have been measured.

Motivation:

When a curved mirror is misaligned, the location of the curvature center is moved.
Particularly, our OMC mirror is going to be attached on the PZT and the mounting prism with the back surface of the mirror.
This means that a curved mirror has inherent misalignment if the curvature minimum of the curved mirror is shifted from the center of the mirror.
Since we have no ability to control mirror pitch angle once it is glued on the prism, the location of the curvature minima
should be characterized so that we can oush all of the misalignment in the horizontal direction.

Measurement technique:

When a curved mirror is completely axisymmetric (in terms of the mirror shape), any rotation of the mirror does not induce change on the axis of the refected beam.
If the curvature minimum is deviated from the center of the mirror, the reflected beam suffer precession. As we want to precisely rotate the mirror, we use the gluing
fixture for the PZT assembly. In this method, the back surface of the curved mirror is pushed on the mounting prism, and the lateral position of the mirror is precisely
defined by the fixture. As you rotate the mirror in clockwise viewing from the front, the spot moves in counter clockwise on the CCD.

Setup and procedure:

The mounting prism (#21) is placed on the gluing fixture. A curved mirror under the test is loaded in the fixture with no PZT.
i.e. the back surface is aligned by the mounting prism. The fixing pressure is applied to the curved mirror by the front plate
with spring loads. The mirror needs be pushed from the top at least once to keep its defined position in the fixture.
The incident beam is slightly slated for the detection of the reflected spot. The beam is aligned and hits the center of the mirror as much as possible.

The position of the spot on the CCD (WinCamD) is recorded, while the mirror is rotated 90deg at once. The rotation of the mirror is defined as shown in the figure below.
The angle origin is defined by the arrow mark of the mirror and rotated in clockwise being viewed from the front face. The mirror is rotated 540deg (8points) to check
the reproducibility.

Measurement result:

8 point for each mirror is fitted by a circle. The fitting result provides the origin and radius of the circle, and the angle correspond to mirror angle of 0deg.

Analysis:

d: distance of the curvature minimum and the mirror center (quantity to be delived)

D: distance of the prove beam spot from the center of the mirror

R: Radius of curvature of the mirror

theta_R: angle of incidence/reflection

The interesting consequence is that precession diameter (X-X') on the CCD does not depend on the spot position on the mirror.
This ensures the precision of the measurement. In the measurement, the radius of the precession (r = (X-X')/2) is obtained.

Therefore,

d = r R / (2 L)

Mirror name, distance[mm]
C1: 0.95
C3: 1.07
C4: 1.13
C5: 0.97
C6: 0.73
C7: 1.67
C8: 2.72
C9: 1.05
C10: 0.41
C11: 0.64
C12: 0.92
C13: 0.14

Resolution:
The angle to be rotated is depicted in the following plot for each mirror.

EP30-2 gluing test

[Koji, Zach]

We installed the MMT that matches the fiber output to the OMC on a 6"x12" breadboard. We did this so that we can switch from the "fauxMC" (OMC mirrors arranged with standard mounts for practice locking) to the real OMC without having to rebuild the MMT.

The solution that Koji found was:

z = 0: front face of the fiber output coupler mount

z = 4.8 cm: f = 35mm lens

z = 21.6 cm: f = 125mm lens

This should place the waist at z ~ 0.8 m. Koji has the exact solution, so I will let him post that.

The lenses are on ±0.5" single-axis OptoSigma stages borrowed from the TCS lab. Unfortunately, the spacing between the two lenses is very close to a half-integer number of inches, so I had to fix one of them using dog clamps instead of the screw holes to preserve the full range.

Koji also built the periscope (which raises the beam height by +1.5") using a vertical breadboard and some secret Japanese mounts. Part of it can be seen in the upper left corner of the photo below---sorry for not getting a shot of it by itself.

The fiber output was matched with the lenses on a small bread board.
The detailed configuration is found in the following elog link.

http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/105

[Zach, Koji]

The measurement setup for the transmission measurement has been made at the output of the fiber.

- First, we looked at the fiber output with a PBS. It wasn't P-pol so we rotated the ourput coupler.
  What we found was that it wasn't actually linearly polarized.
  So the input coupler was rotated to correct it. This terribly misaligned the input coupling.
  After some iteration of rotating and aligning the input/output couplers, we obtained reasonable
  extiction ratio like 10mW vs 100uW (100:1) with 11mW incidence. (Where is the rest 0.9mW!?)

- The P-pol (transmission) out of PBS goes into the mirror. Here we tested mirror A1.
  The mirror is mounted on the prism mount supported by a rotational stage for precise angle adjustment
  We limited the input power down to 5mW so that we can remove the attenuator on the power meter.
  The reading of the power meter was fluctuating, indeed depending on MY position.
  So we decided to turn off the lighting of the room. This made the reading very stable.

  The offset of the power meter was -0.58uW

  The transmitted power for the normal incidence was 39.7uW with the incident 4.84mW.
  [39.7-(-0.58)] / [4.84*1000-(-0.58)] *10^6 = 8320 ppm

  The transmitted power for the 4deg incidence was 38.0uW with the incident 4.87mW.
  [38.0-(-0.58)] / [4.87*1000-(-0.58)] *10^6 = 7980 ppm

 cf. The specification is 7931ppm

We had to move our flipper mirror to share the beam between Peter's setup and ours as our flipper is at the place where the ISS PD array base is supposed to be!
There was no place to insert the flipper in the setup. We (Peter and Koji) decided to move the laser back for ~2".

This entirely changed the alignment of the setup. The fiber coupler was my reference of the alignment.
Once the beam is aligned, I check the coupling to the fiber. It was 50%.

I tweaked the lens and eventually the coupling is improved to 83%. (24.7mW incident, 20.4mW obtained.)

Then, I started to check the AOM path. I noticed that the 1st (or -1st) order beam is very weak.
The deflection efficiency is ~0.1%. Something is wrong.
I checked the driver. The driver's coupler output (1:10) show the amplitude ~1V. (good)
I check the main output by reducing the offset. When the coupler output is 100mV, the main output was 1V. (good)
So is the AOM itself broken???

As Koji noticed that the AOM efficiency was very low, I figured I would try looking at it with a fresh set of eyes. The end result is that I have to agree that the AOM appears to be broken.

First, I measured the input impedance of the AOM using the AG4395A with the impedance test kit (after calibrating). The plot is below. The spec sheet says the center frequency is 200 MHz, at which Z_in should be ~50 ohms. It crosses 50 ohms somewhere near 235 MHz, which may be reasonable given that the LC circuit can be tuned by hand. However, it does surprise me that the impedance varies so much over the specified RF range of ±50 MHz. Maybe this is an indication that something is bad.

I removed the cover of the modulator (which I think Koji did, as well) and all the connections looked as I imagine they should---i.e., there was nothing obviously broken, physically.

I then tried my hand at realigning the AOM from scratch by removing and replacing it. I was not able to get better than 0.15%, which is roughly what Koji got.

So, perhaps our best course of action is to decide what we expect the Z_in spectrum to look like, and whether that agrees with the above measurement.

More Ts of the mirrors were measured.

A mirror specification:
Request: 8300+/-800 ppm
Data sheet: 7931ppm

C mirror specification:
Request: 50+/-10 ppm
Data sheet: 51.48ppm or 46.40ppm

Mirror | P_Incident P_Trans  P_Offset | T_trans
       | [mW]       [uW]     [uW]     | [ppm]
-------+------------------------------+---------
A1     | 10.28    82.9       -0.205   | 8.08e3
A2     | -----     -----     ------   | ------
A3     | 10.00    83.2       -0.205   | 8.34e3
A4     | 10.05    80.7       -0.205   | 8.05e3
A5     |  9.94    81.3       -0.205   | 8.20e3
A6     | 10.35    78.1       -0.205   | 7.57e3
A7     | 10.35    77.8       -0.205   | 7.54e3
A8     | 10.30    78.0       -0.205   | 7.60e3
A9     | 10.41    84.1       -0.205   | 8.10e3
A10    | 10.35    77.3       -0.205   | 7.49e3
A11    | 10.33    77.9       -0.205   | 7.56e3
A12    | 10.34    78.7       -0.205   | 7.63e3
A13    | 10.41    85.4       -0.205   | 8.22e3
A14    | 10.34    84.4       -0.205   | 8.18e3
-------+------------------------------+---------
C1     | 10.30     0.279     -0.225   | 48.9
C2     | -----     -----     ------   | ------
C3     | 10.37     0.240     -0.191   | 41.6
C4     | 10.35     0.278     -0.235   | 49.6
C5     | 10.40     0.138     -0.235   | 35.9 => PZT assembly #2
C6     | 10.34     0.137     -0.235   | 36.0 => PZT assembly #1
C7     | 10.37     0.143     -0.229   | 35.9
C8     | 10.41     0.224     -0.237   | 44.3
C9     | 10.36     0.338     -0.230   | 54.8
C10    | 10.39     0.368     -0.228   | 57.4
C11    | 10.38     0.379     -0.209   | 56.6
C12    | 10.28     0.228     -0.238   | 45.3
C13    | 10.36     0.178     -0.234   | 39.8
-------+------------------------------+---------

• Mirror List
  http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/152
   
• Mirror T measurement:
  http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/100
  http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/112
  http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/114
   
• Curved mirror curvature center test:
  http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/91
   
• Curved mirror thickness:
  http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/50
   
• Curved mirror curvature measurement:
  http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/49
   
• Mirror A/B/E and mounting prism perpendicularity measurement
  http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/65
   
• Mirror A/B wedge measurement
  http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/60
   
• Mirror E wedge measurement
  http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/66
   
• PZT wedge measurement
  http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/53
   
• PZT actuator response & L2A coupling
  http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/102
   
• Diode test
  http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/73
   
• Diode QE measurement
  http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/78
   
• Breadboard dimension measurement
  http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/27
   
• Mirror list for L1OMC
  http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/113
   
• Mirror list for H1OMC
  http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/151
   

Assembly #1:

Mounting Prism #16
PZT #26
Mirror C6

Assembly #2:

Mounting Prism #20
PZT #23
Mirror C5

[Jeff, Zach, Koji]

PZT assembly gluing

Glue gun -> to be returned to MIT
Fixtures x2
Al bases, spacers
spare screws
mirrors / prisms / PZTs
IPA bottle
clean tools x2
first contact kit
gloves (7.5)