40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  OMC elog, Page 9 of 9  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categorydown Subject
  316   Sat Feb 2 20:03:19 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationSummary: OMC(002) HOM structure recalculation (before mirror replacement)

OMC (002)
History:
Measurement date 2013/10/11, Installed to L1 2013/XX

  317   Sat Feb 2 20:28:21 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationSummary: OMC(003) HOM structure recalculation

OMC (003)
History:
Measurement date 2014/7/5, Stored for I1, Installed to H1 2016/8 upon damage on 002

  318   Sat Feb 2 20:35:02 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterization Summary: OMC(002) HOM structure recalculation (after mirror replacement)

OMC (002) after repair
History:
Mirror replacement after the damage at H1. Measurement date 2019/1/10

  319   Tue Mar 19 17:30:25 2019 KojiGeneralCharacterizationOMC (002) Test items

OMC #002 Optical tests

  • FSR measurement (done, 2019/1/8-9, 2019/4/1)
  • TMS measurement (done, 2019/1/9)
  • TMS measurement (with DC voltage on PZTs) (done, 2019/1/10)
  • Cleaning (done, 2019/3/19)
  • Power Budget (done, 2019/3/19, 2019/4/1)
  • PZT DC response (done, 2019/3/27)
  • PZT AC response (done, 2019/3/27)
  • QPD alignment (done, 2019/4/5)
  • DCPD alignment (done, 2019/4/4)
  • Beam quality check (done, 2019/4/4)

(Backscattering test)

(Cabling / Wiring)

  • (Attaching cable/mass platforms)
  • (PZT cabling)
  • (DCPD cabling)
  • (QPD cabling)

(Baking)
(First Contact)
(Packing / Shipping)

  320   Thu Mar 28 16:36:52 2019 KojiMechanicsCharacterizationOMC(002) PZT characterization

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.

  322   Fri Apr 5 01:07:18 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(002): transmitted beam images

There was a concern that the transmission from CM1 has additional fringes. The shape of the transmitted beams from CM1, CM2, and FM2 (main) werecaptured with WinCamD.
Indeed CM1 and CM2 have the fringes, but it does not exist in the main transmission. So it seems that the fringes are associated with the curved mirrors. But how???

  323   Fri Apr 5 01:08:17 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(002): DCPD / QPD alignment

The beam height in the cavity became totally different from the previous one and the shims needed to be much thicker than before. This is probably because of the alignment of the newly-glue curved mirror.

As the beam height is 2~2.5mm higher, two shims need to be stacked. The preliminary check of the heights using the alignment disks (dummy PDs) suggested the following combinations.

QPD1(SHORT)  D1201467-03 (SN 007) + D1201467-03 (SN 008) (2.0 mm + 2.0 mm = 4 mm)
QPD2(LONG)   D1201467-01 (SN 001) + D1201467-01 (SN 002) (1.5 mm + 1.5 mm = 3 mm)
DCPD1(TRANS) D1201467-02 (SN 006) + D1201467-03 (SN 005) (1.75mm + 2.0 mm = 3.75 mm)
DCPD2(REFL)  D1201467-02 (SN 002) + D1201467-03 (SN 006) (1.75mm + 2.0 mm = 3.75 mm)

This resulted that the fixing button head socket screws for the PD housings to be replaced from 5/16" to 7/16". Stephen kept CLASS A spare screws from Jeff's time.

For the DCPD alignment, a cap-removed Excelitas 3mm InGaAs PD is used. -> This needs to be returned to the PD stock next time.

- DCPD1 was aligned using the zoomed CCD image (Attachment 1). Once the beam is aligned, the angle was tweaked to have the reflection nicely dumped by the glass beam dump (Attachment 2).

- DCPD2 was aligned too. (Attachment 2/3)

- The two housings were fastened by a torque wrench at 2 inch lb.

Next step:

Continue with the QPDs. The QPD amp was already set.

Notes:
The cable of the CCD monitor has a problem -> need to check what's wrong
The servo box probably have large offset at the output stage or somewhere (but not input stages).

  324   Fri Apr 5 20:50:54 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(002): QPD alignment

QPD#              QPD1       QPD2
Housing#          #004       #008
Diode#            #44        #46
Shim              (see OMC ELOG 323)

-------------------------------------
Power Incident    252.3 uW  266.0 uW
Sum Out           174.2 mV  176.0 mV   +0.3
Vertical Out      + 4.7 mV  +19.0 mV   +0.2
Horizontal Out    -16.1 mV  - 8.0 mV   +0.0
SEG1              -52.4 mV  -53.  mV   -0.1
SEG2              -37.6 mV  -47.  mV   -0.1
SEG3              -41.8 mV  -34.  mV   -0.1
SEG4              -43.7 mV  -36.  mV   -0.1

-------------------------------------
Spot position X   +39   um  +15. um  (positive = more power on SEG1 and SEG4)
Spot position Y   - 8.1 um  -56. um  (positive = more power on SEG3 and SEG4)
-------------------------------------

Responsivity[A/W] 0.69      0.66
Q.E.              0.80      0.77
-------------------------------------

Arrangement of the segments
View from the beam
/ 2 | 1 X
|---+---|
\ 3 | 4 /


---------------

I(w,x,y) = Exp[-2 (x^2 + y^2)/w^2]/(Pi w^2/2)

(SEG_A+SEG_B-SEG_C-SEG_D)/(SEG_A+SEG_B+SEG_C+SEG_D) = Erf[sqrt(2) d/w]

d: distance of the spot from the center
w: beam width

  336   Mon Apr 15 21:11:49 2019 PhilipOpticsCharacterizationOMC(004): PZT testing for spare OMC

[Koji, Philip]

Today we tested the functionality of the four remaining PZTs (11,12,13 and 22) .  Each PZT was placed within a collimated 500um beam.
Roughly half of the beam was blocked by the PZT. The PZT and a PD then acted as shadow sensor. Each PZT was tested with 0 and
150 V. The resulting power change then could be converted into a displacement of the PZT using the beam diameter.

The open light value for each of these tests was 3.25 V.

PZT 11:
0 V supply voltage     --> 1.717 V on PD
150 V supply voltage --> 1.709 V on PD
delta = 0.008 V

PZT 12:
0 V supply voltage     --> 1.716 V on PD
150 V supply voltage --> 1.709 V on PD
delta = 0.007 V

PZT 13:
0 V supply voltage     --> 1.702 V on PD
150 V supply voltage --> 1.694 V on PD
delta = 0.008 V

PZT 22:
0 V supply voltage     --> 1.770 V on PD
150 V supply voltage --> 1.762 V on PD
delta = 0.008 V

0.008 V --> 0.24% change in power on PD --> about  3.8 um displacement assuming no light which is blocked
by the PZT is hitting the PD.

 

We further started to drive all four PZTs over night with 100 V (half of their range) at 100 Hz.
We additionally display the impedance to ensure none of them degrades.

All four PZTs seem to be connected to Teflon coated wires. It needs to be checked if these
fulfill the vacuum compatibility requirements.

  337   Tue Apr 16 11:36:36 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(004): PZT testing for spare OMC

Attachment 1: Shadow sensor setup for the PZT displacement test

Attachment 2: PZT endurance test. 4 PZTs were shaken at once.

Attachment 3~5: Function generator setup 100Hz, 3.5Vpp 1.75Voffset (meant be displayed for 50Ohm load)

Attachment 6: The above setting yields 7Vpp unipolar signal @Hi-Z load

Attachment 7: The output was monitored with a 1/10 probe with the PZTs connected. This shows 10Vmax 0Vin -> Good. This photo was taken at 17:35.

Attachment 8: The test is going well @9:15 next day. (t=15.7hours = 5.6Mcycles)

Attachment 9: The test went well. The modulation was stopped @15:35. (t=21hours = 7.6Mcycles)

  342   Tue Apr 16 21:16:11 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(004): PZT testing for spare OMC

After having dug into the past email, it turned out that these wires were the ones already replaced from the original teflonwires. The length of them were confirmed to be ~19" (480mm). 

Quote:

All four PZTs seem to be connected to Teflon coated wires. It needs to be checked if these
fulfill the vacuum compatibility requirements.

 

  350   Sat Apr 20 00:50:12 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(004): Spot positions

Similarly to OMC ELOG 349 the spot positions after the replacement of CM2 were measured (Attachment 1)
Also, the spot positions after the realignment were measured. (Attachment 2)

  354   Wed Apr 24 13:58:51 2019 JoeOpticsCharacterizationOMC power budget and UV Epoxy Bonding of BS1

[koji,philip,joe,liyuan,stephen]

need to add spot positions.

Mirrors: PZT11,PZT22, A14, A5

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

Mode matching = 97.72%

15.66-> 15.30mW coupled.

~100uW for QPD

->15.2mW in cavity

Trans = 14.55mW -> 95.7% transmission

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

We measured the power budget again.

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

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

same p_normalise so

15.66-> 15.34mW coupled.

~15.24mW in cavity

transmission = 14.45, so 94.8% transmission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so it looks ok still.

 

 

 

  355   Thu Apr 25 15:05:19 2019 JoeOpticsCharacterizationLooking at PZT HOM spacing dependance and thinking about workflow

[koji, joe]

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

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

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

did measurements of FSR, = 2.64835MHz

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

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

 

  356   Wed May 1 15:40:46 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(004): Spot positions and the scattering

Tried a few things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

  357   Fri May 3 11:06:28 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(004): Spot positions and the scattering

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

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

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

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

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

Improvement of the transmission from 93.9%->95.3%


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

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

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

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

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

Transmission 95.4%

- Tweaked the CM1 angle

Transmission 95.3%

=> A1 mirror does not improve the transmission much.


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

  360   Thu May 9 18:10:24 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationOMC(004): Spot position scan / power budget

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

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

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

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

  365   Thu May 23 01:42:46 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationC30665 high power test

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

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

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

- No visible change of the surface observed.

 

  366   Thu May 23 23:27:38 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationIGHQEX3000 high power test

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

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

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

- No visible change of the surface observed.

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

  369   Mon Jul 1 12:38:49 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationA and M prisms perpendicularity measurement

[Stephen, Koji]

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

Results

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

Setup

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

  370   Mon Jul 1 12:49:42 2019 KojiOpticsCharacterizationScattering measurement of A and C mirrors

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

  371   Thu Aug 22 12:35:53 2019 StephenOpticsCharacterizationWedging of the debonded PZTs 2019 August

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

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

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

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

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

 

Quote:

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

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

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



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

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



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



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

 

  372   Fri Aug 23 11:11:44 2019 shrutiOpticsCharacterizationFinding the curvature bottom

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

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

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

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

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

 

The distance from the curvature bottom is calculated as 

d = \frac{rR}{2L}

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

R: radius of curvature of the mirror 

L: Distance between mirror and CCD

 

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

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

 

  373   Thu Aug 29 11:51:49 2019 shrutiOpticsCharacterizationWedging of the debonded PZTs - Calculation

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

For PZT 12, PZT 13 respectively:

Avg. height = 2.0063 mm, 2.0035 mm

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

Wedge angles = 45.8 arcsec, 30.6 arcsec

 

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

 

Quote:

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

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

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



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

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



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



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

 

 

  395   Thu Oct 8 19:55:22 2020 KojiGeneralCharacterizationPower Measurement of Mephisto 800NE 1166A

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

  402   Sat Nov 21 13:58:30 2020 KojiElectronicsCharacterizationDark Current Measurement for InGaAs QPDs

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

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

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

  403   Sun Nov 22 13:49:12 2020 KojiElectronicsCharacterizationImpedance Measurement for InGaAs QPDs

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

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

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

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

Impedance of the QPD segments:

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

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

  404   Mon Nov 23 23:17:19 2020 KojiElectronicsCharacterizationThe dark noise of the Q3000 QPDs

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

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

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

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

  405   Tue Nov 24 10:45:07 2020 gautamElectronicsCharacterizationThe dark noise of the Q3000 QPDs

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

Quote:

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

  406   Tue Nov 24 12:27:18 2020 KojiElectronicsCharacterizationThe dark noise of the Q3000 QPDs

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

  224   Wed Jul 15 22:23:17 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverE1400445 first look

This is not an OMC related and even not happening in the OMC lab (happening at the 40m), but I needed somewhere to elog...


E1400445 first look

LIGO DCC E1400445

Attachment 1: Record of the original state

Attachment 2: Found one of the SMA cable has no shield soldering

  225   Sat Jul 18 11:37:21 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverD0900848 power board ~ oscillation issue solved

Power Supply Board D0900848 was oscillating. Here is the procedure how the issue was fixed.

PCB schematic: LIGO DCC D0900848

0. Extracting the power board.

The top lid and the front panel were removed. Top two modules were removed from the inter-board connection.
Some of the SMA cables were necessary to be removed to allow me to access to the botttom power board.

1. D1~D4 protection diodes

Daniel asked me to remove D1, D2, D3, D4 as the power supply sequence is controlled by the relays.
This was done.

2. Power supply oscillation
Since the power supply systems are entagnled, the oscillation of the transister boosted amps had to be checked one by one.

2.1 VREFP (U5)

First of all, the buffering stage of the positive voltage reference (U5) was oscillating. Attachment 1 is the observed voltage at "VREFP" at D13.
The oscillation was at 580kHz with 400mVpp. This was solved by replacing C20 with 1.2nF. (0805 SMD Cap)

2.2 VREFN (U6)

Then the buffering stage of the negative voltage reference (U6) was checked. Attachment 2 is the observed voltage at "VREFN" at D16.
The oscillation was at 26MHz with 400mVpp. This seemed to have a different mechanism from the U5 oscillation. This oscillation frequency is
higher than the GBW of OP27. So there must be some spurious path to the transister stage. This amplifier stage is a bit unique.
The input is VREFP, but the positive supply is also VREFP. And the feedback path between R31 and C24 is very long. I was afraid that this oscillation
was caused by some combination of L and stray C by the long feedback path and the output to power VREFP coupling, although I could not reproduce
the oscillation on LTSpice. 

After some struggles, adding a 100pF cap between the output of U6 op27 (PIN6) and VREFP (PIN7) stopped the oscillation.
I think this changes the loop function and fullfills the stability condition. I confirmed by a LTSpice model that additional cap does not
screw up the original function of the stage at audio frequencies when everything is functioning as designed.

2.3 Positive supply systems (U10, U11, U12)

Even after fixing the oscillations of U5 and U6, I kept observing the oscllative component of ~600kHz at U10 (+21V), U11 (+15V), and U12 (+5V) stages.
Among them, U11 had the biggest oscillation of 400mVpp at the opamp out (Attachment 3). The other two had small oscillation like 20mVpp at the opamp outputs.
The solution was the same as 2.1. C50, C51, and C52 were replaced to 1.2nF. After the modification I still had the 600kHz component with 2mVpp.
I wanted to check other channels and come back to this.

2.3 Negative supply systems (U7, U8, U9)

Similarly the outputs of U7, U8, and U9 had the oscillation at 600kHz with 40~80mVpp. Once C35, C36, and C37 were replaced with 1.2nF,
I no longer could see any 600kHz anywhere, including U10~U12.

2.4 -24V system (U13)

Last modification was U13. It had a noise of 50mVpp due to piled-up random pulses (Attachment 4). I just tried to replace C63 with 1.2nF
and remove a soldering jumber of W1
. There still looks random glitches there. But it's no longer the round shaped pulses but a sharp gliches
and the amplitude is 20mV each (Attachment 5). In fact, later I noticed that Q9 is not stuffed and W2 is closed. This means that the +24V external supply is
directly connected to +24AMP. Therefore U13 has no effect to the 24V suppy system.

3. Restoring all connections / final check of the voltages

Restore the middle and top PCBs to the intra-PCB connector board. Attach the front panel. Restore the SMA connections.

The missing soldering of the SMA cable (reported in the previous entry) was soldered.

Once all the circuits are connected again, the power supply voltages were checked again. There was no sign of oscillation.

All the above modifications are depicted in Attachment 6.

  227   Wed Jul 22 09:43:01 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverPower supply test of the EOM/AOM Driver

Serial Number of the unit: S1500117
Tester: Koji Arai
Test Date: Jul 22, 2015

1) Verify the proper current draw with the output switch off:

+24 Volt current: 0.08 A Nom.
-24 Volt current: 0.07 A Nom.
+18 Volt current: 0.29 A Nom.
-18 Volt current: 0.24 A Nom.

2) Verify the proper current draw with the output switch on:
+24 Volt current: 0.53 A Nom.
-24 Volt current: 0.07 A Nom.
+18 Volt current: 0.21 A Nom.
-18  Volt current: 0.26 A Nom.

3) Verify the internal supply voltages:

All look good.

TP13 -5.001V
TP12 -15.00
TP11 -21.05
TP10 -10.00
TP5  -18.19
TP6  -24.22
TP2  +24.15
TP3  +18.22
TP9  + 9.99
TP17 +24.15
TP14 +21.04
TP15 +15.00
TP16 + 4.998

4) Verify supply OK logic:
All look good. This required re-disassembling of the PCBs...

Check then pin 5 on U1 (connected to R11) and U4 (connected to R23):

U1 3.68V (=Logic high)
U4 3.68V (=Logic high)

5) Verify the relays for the power supply sequencing: OK

Turn off +/-24 V. Confirm Pin 5 of K1 and K2 are not energized to +/-18V. => OK
Turn on +/-24 V again. Confirm Pin 5 of K1 and K2 are now energized to +/-18V. => OK

6) Verify noise levels of the internal power supply voltages:

TP13 (- 5V) 13nV/rtHz@140Hz
TP12 (-15V) 22
nV/rtHz@140Hz
TP11 (-21V) 32
nV/rtHz@140Hz
TP10 (-10V) 16nV/rtHz@140Hz
TP9  (+10V)  9
nV/rtHz@140Hz
TP14 (+21V) 21nV/rtHz@140Hz
TP15 (+15V) 13nV/rtHz@140Hz
TP16 (+ 5V) 11nV/rtHz@140Hz

 

Note that the input noise of SR785 is 9~10nV/rtHz@140Hz with -50dBbpk input (AC)

 

  228   Wed Jul 22 10:15:14 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverRF test of the EOM/AOM Driver S1500117

7) Make sure the on/off RF button works,
=> OK

8) Make sure the power output doesn't oscillate,

Connect the RF output to an oscilloscope (50Ohm)
=> RF output: there is no obvious oscillation

Connect the TP1 connector to an oscilloscope
=> check the oscillation with an oscilloscope and SR785 => OK

Connect the CTRL connector to an oscilloscope
=> check the oscillation with an oscilloscope and SR785 => OK

9) EXC check
Connect a function generator to the exc port.
Set the FG output to 1kHz 2Vpk. Check the signal TP1
Turn off the exc switch -> no output
Turn on the exc switch -> nominally 200mVpk

=> OK

10) Openloop transfer function

Connect SR785 FG->EXC TP2->CHA TP1->CHB
EXC 300mV 100Hz-100kHz 200 line

Network Analyzer (AG4395A)
EXC 0dBm TP1->CHA TP2->CHB, measure A/B
801 line
CHA: 0dBatt CHB: 0dBatt
1kHz~2MHz
UGF 133kHz, phase -133.19deg = PM 47deg

11) Calibrate the output with the trimmer on the front panel

13dB setting -> 12.89dBm (maximum setting)

12) Check MON, BIAS and CTRL outputs,
CTRL:    2.95V
MON(L):    6.5mV
BIAS(L):    1.81V
MON(R):    10.7mV
BIAS(R):    1.85V

13) Output check
4+0dB    3.99dBm
6    5.89
8    7.87
10    9.87
12    11.88
14    13.89
16    15.89
18    17.92
20    19.94
22    21.95
24    24.00
26    26.06

4dB+
0.0    3.99
0.2    4.17
0.4    4.36
0.6    4.56
0.8    4.75
1.0    4.94
1.2    5.13
1.4    5.32
1.6    5.53
1.8    5.73
2.0    5.92
2.2    6.10

16dB+
0.0    15.82
0.2    16.11
0.4    16.31
0.6    16.51
0.8    16.72
1.0    16.92
1.2    17.12
1.4    17.32
1.6    17.53
1.8    17.72
2.0    17.92
2.2    18.13

26dB+
0.0    26.06
0.2    26.27
0.4    26.46
0.6    26.58
0.8    26.68
1.0    26.69
1.2    26.70
1.4    3.98
1.6    3.99
1.8    3.99
2.0    3.99
2.2    3.99

 

 

 

  229   Sat Jul 25 17:24:11 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverRF test of the EOM/AOM Driver S1500117

(Calibration for Attachment 5 corrected Aug 27, 2015)


Now the test procedure fo the unit is written in the document https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1500404

And the test result of the first unit (S1500117) has also been uploaded to DCC https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-S1500117

Here are some supplimental information with plots

Attachment 1: OLTF of the AM amplitude stabilization servo.

Attachment 2: CLTF/OLTF of the 2nd AM detector self bias adj servo

The secondary RF AM detector provides us the out-of-loop measurement. The secondary loop has an internal control loop to adjust the DC bias.
This loop supresses the RF AM error signal below the control bandwidth. This has been tested by injecting the random noise to the exc and taking
the transfer function between the primary RF AM detector error (MON1) and the secondary one (MON2).

Then the closed loop TF was converted to open loop TF to see where the UGF is. The UGF is 1Hz and the phase margin is 60deg.

Above 10Hz, the residual control gain is <3%. Therefore we practically don't need any compensation of MON2 output above 10Hz.

Attachment 3: Comparison between the power setting and the output power

Attachment 4: Raw power spectra of the monitor channels

Attachment 5: Calibrated in-loop and out-of-loop AM noise spectra

Attachment 6: TFs between BNC monitor ports and DAQ differential signals

BIAS2 and CTRL look just fine. BIAS2 has a gain of two due to the differential output. The TF for CTRL has a HPF shape, but in fact the DC gain is two.
This frequency response comesfro that the actual CTRLis taken after the final stage that has LPF feature while the CTRL DAQ was taken before this final stage.

MON1 and MON2 have some riddle. I could not justify why they have the gain of 10 instead of 20. I looked into the issue (next entry)

Attachment 7: TF between the signals for the CTRL monitor (main unit) and the CTRL monitor on the remote control test rig

The CTRL monitor for the test rig is taken from the CTRL SLOW signal. There fore there is a LPF feature together with the HPF feature described above.
This TF can be used as a reference.

 

  230   Tue Jul 28 18:36:50 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverRF test of the EOM/AOM Driver S1500117

Final Test Result of S1500117: https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-S1500117


After some staring the schematic and checking some TFs, I found that the DAQ channels for MON2 have a mistake in the circuit.
Differential driver U14 and U15 of D0900848 are intended to have the gain of +10 and -10 for the pos and neg outputs.
However, the positive output has the gain of +1.

Daniel suggested to shift R66 and R68 by one pad, replace with them by ~5.5K and add a small wire from the now "in air" pad to
the GND near pad 4.

The actual modification can be seen on Attachment 1. The resulting gain was +10.1 as the resisters of 5.49k were used.

The resulting transfer function is found in the Attachment 2. ow the nominal magnitude is ~x20.

You may wonder why the transfer function for MON1 is noisy and lower at low freq (f<1kHz). This is because the input noise of the FFT analizer
contributed to the BNC MON1 signal. High frequency part dominated the RMS of the signal and the FFT analyzer could not have proper range
for the floor noise. The actual voltage noise comparison between the BNC and DAQ signals for MON1 and MON2 can be found in Attachment 3.
 

  231   Mon Aug 10 02:11:47 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverRF AM Measurement Unit E1500151

This is an entry for the work on Aug 3rd.

LIGO DCC E1500151

Power supply check

- Removed the RF AM detector board and exposed the D0900848 power board. The board revision is Rev. A.

- The power supply voltage of +30.2V and -30.5V were connected as +/-31V supplies. These were the maximum I could produce with the bench power supply I had. +17.2V and -17.1V were supplied as +/-17V supplies.

- Voltage reference: The reference voltages were not +/-10V but +/-17V. The cause was tracked down to the voltage reference chip LT1021-10. It was found that the chip was mechanically destroyed (Attachment 1, the legs were cut by me) and unluckily producing +17V. The chip was removed from the board. Since I didn't have any spare LT1021-10, a 8pin DIP socket and an AD587 was used instead. Indeed AD587 has similar performance or even better in some aspects. This fixed the reference voltage.

- -5V supply: After the fix of the reference voltage, I still did not have correct the output voltage of -5V at TP12. It was found that the backpanel had some mechanical stress and caused a leg of the current boost transister cut and a peeling of the PCB pattern on the component lalyer (Attachment 2). I could find some spare of the transister at the 40m. The transister was replaced, and the pattern was fixed by a wire. This fixed the DC values of the power supply voltages. In fact, +/-24V pins had +/-23.7V. But this was as expected. (1+2.74k/2k)*10V = 23.7V .

- VREFP Oscillation: Similarly to the EOM/AOM driver power supply board (http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/225), the buffer stage for the +10V has an oscillation at 762kHz with 400mVpp at VREFP. This was fixed by replacing C20 (100pF) with 1.2nF. The cap of 680pF was tried at first, but this was not enough to completely elliminate the oscilation.

- VREFN Oscillation: Then, similarly to the EOM/AOM driver power supply board (http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/225), the amplifier and buffer stage for the -10V has an oscillation at 18MHz with 60mVpp at VREFN. This was fixed by soldering 100pF between pin6 and pin7 of U6.

- Voltage "OK" signal: Checked the voltage of pin5 of U1 and U4 (they are connected). Nominally the OK voltage had +2.78V. The OK voltage turned to "Low (~0V)" when:
The +31V were lowered below +27.5V.
The +31V were lowered below -25.2V.
The +17V were lowered below +15.2V.
The +17V were lowered below -15.4V.

- Current draw: The voltage and current supply on the bench top supplies are listed below

+30.2V 0.09A, -30.5V 0.08A, +17.2V 0.21A, -17.1V 0.10A

- Testpoint voltages:

TP12(-5V) -5.00V
TP11(-15) -14.99V
TP10(-24V) -23.69V
TP9(-10V) -9.99V
TP5(-17V) -17.15V
TP6(-31V) -30.69

TP2(+31V) +30.37V
TP3(+17V) +17.24V
TP8(+10V) +10.00V
TP16(+28V) +28.00V
TP13(+24V) +23.70V
TP14(+15V) +15.00V
TP15(+5V) +5.00V

 

  232   Mon Aug 10 11:39:40 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverRF AM Measurement Unit E1500151

Entry for Aug 6th, 2015

I faced with difficulties to operate the RF AM detectors.

I tried to operate the RF AM detector. In short I could not as I could not remove the saturation of the MON outputs, no matter how jiggle the power select rotary switches. The input power was 10~15dBm.

D0900761 Rev.A
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-D0900761-v1

I've measured the bias voltage at TP1. Is the bias such high? And does it show this inversion of the slope at high dBm settings?

Setting Vbias
 [dBm]   [V]

   0    21.4
   2    21.0
   4    20.5
   6    19.8
   8    18.8
  10    17.7
  12    16.3
  14    14.2
  16    11.9
  18    10.6
  20    11.8
  22    15.0


The SURF report (https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1000574) shows monotonic dependence of Vbias from 0.6V to 10V (That is supposed to be the half of the voltage at TP1). 
I wonder I need to reprogram FPGA?

But if this is the issue, the second detector should still work as it has the internal loop to adjust the bias by itself.
TP3 (Page 1 of D0900761 Rev.A) was railed. But still MON2 was saturated.
I didn't see TP2 was also railed. It was ~1V (not sure any more about the polarity). But TP2 should also railed.

Needs further investigation

  233   Mon Aug 10 11:57:17 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverRF AM Measurement Unit E1500151

Spending some days to figure out how to program CPLD (Xilinx CoolRunner II XC2C384).

I learned that the JTAG cable which Daniel sent to me (Altium JTAG USB adapter) was not compatible with Xilinx ISE's iMPACT.

I need to use Altium to program the CPLD. However I'm stuck there. Altium recognizes the JTAG cable but does not see CPLD. (Attachment 1)

Upon the trials, I followed the instruction on awiki as Daniel suggested.
http://here https://awiki.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLIGO/TimingFpgaCode

Altium version is 15.1. Xilinx ISE Version is 14.7

  234   Mon Aug 10 12:09:49 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverRF AM Measurement Unit E1500151

Still suffering from a power supply issue!

I have been tracking the issues I'm having with the RF AM detector board.

I found that the -5V test point did not show -5V but ~+5V! It seemed that this pin was not connected to -5V but was passive.

I removed the RF AM detector board and exposed the power board again. Pin 11 of P3 interboard connector indeed was not connected to TP12 (-5V). What the hell?

As seen in the attached photo, the PCB pattern for the Pin 11 is missing at the label "!?" and not driven. I soldered a piece of wire there and now Pin11 is at -5V.


This fix actually changed several things. Now the bias setting by the rotary switches works.

Setting BIAS1
 [dBm]   [V]

   0    0.585
   2    0.720
   4    0.897
   6    1.12
   8    1.42
  10    1.79
  12    2.25
  14    2.84
  16    3.60
  18    4.56
  20    5.75
  22    7.37

This allows me to elliminate the saturation of MON1 of the first RF AM detector. I can go ahead to the next step for the first channel.

Now the bias feedback of the second detector is also behaving better. Now TP2 is railing.

Still MON2 is saturated. So, the behavior of the peak detectors needs to be reviewed.

  237   Fri Aug 28 01:08:14 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverRF AM Measurement Unit E1500151 ~ Calibration

Worked on the calibration of the RF AM Measurement Unit.

The calibration concept is as follows:

  • Generate AM modulated RF output
  • Measure sideband amplitude using a network anayzer (HP4395A). This gives us the SSB carrier-sideband ratio in dBc.
  • Measure the output of the RF AM measurement unit with the same RF signal
  • Determine the relationship between dBc(SSB) and the output Vrms.

The AM modulated signal is produced using DS345 function generator. This FG allows us to modulate
the output by giving an external modulation signal from the rear panel. In the calibration, a 1kHz signal with
the DC offset of 3V was given as the external modulation source. The output frequency and output power of
DS345 was set to be 30.2MHz (maximum of the unit) and 14.6dBm. This actually imposed the output
power of 10.346dBm. Here is the result with the modulation amplitude varied

                 RF Power measured             Monitor output
Modulation       with HP4395A (dBm)           Measure with SR785 (mVrms)
1kHz (mVpk)   Carrier    USB      LSB          MON1       MON2
   0.5        9.841    -72.621  -73.325          8.832      8.800
   1          9.99     -65.89   -65.975         17.59      17.52
   2          9.948    -60.056  -59.747         35.26      35.07
   3          9.90     -56.278  -56.33          53.04      52.9
   5          9.906    -51.798  -51.797         88.83      88.57
  10          9.892    -45.823  -45.831        177.6      177.1
  20          9.870    -39.814  -39.823        355.3      354.4
  30          9.8574   -36.294  -36.307        532.1      531.1
  50          9.8698   -31.86   -31.867        886.8      885.2
 100          9.8735   -25.843  -25.847       1772       1769
 150          9.8734   -22.316  -22.32        2656       2652
 200          9.8665   -19.819  -19.826       3542       3539
 300          9.8744   -16.295  -16.301       5313       5308

The SSB carrier sideband ratio is derived by SSB[dBc] = (USB[dBm]+LSB[dBm])/2 - Carrier[dBm]

This measurement suggests that 10^(dBc/20) and Vrms has a linear relationship. (Attachment 1)
The data points were fitted by the function y= a x.

=> 10^dBc(SSB)/20 = 108*Vrms (@10.346dBm input)


Now we want to confirm this calibration.

DS345 @30.2MHz was modulated with the DC offset + random noise. The resulting AM modulated RF was checked with the network analyzer and the RFAM detector
in order to compare the calibrated dBc/Hz curves.

A) SR785 was set to produce random noise
B) Brought 2nd DS345 just to produce the DC offset of -2.52V (Offset display -1.26V)
Those two are added (A-B) by an SR560 (DC coupling, G=+1, 50 Ohm out).
The output was fed to Ext AM in DS345(#1)

DS345(#1) was set to 30.2MHz 16dBm => The measured output power was 10.3dBm.

On the network analyzer the carrier power at 30.2MHz was 9.89dBm

Measurement 1) SR785     1.6kHz span 30mV random noise (observed flat AM noise)
Measurement 2) SR785   12.8kHz span 100mV random noise (observed flat AM noise)
Measurement 3) SR785 102.4kHz span 300mV random noise (observed cut off of the AM modulation due to the BW of DS345)

The comparison plot is attached as Attachment 2. Note that those three measurements are independent and are not supposed to match each other.
The network analyzer result and RFAM measurement unit output should agree if the calibration is correct. In fact they do agree well.

 

  238   Fri Aug 28 02:14:53 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverRF AM Measurement Unit E1500151 ~ 37MHz OCXO AM measurement

In order to check the noise level of the RFAM detector, the power and cross spectra for the same signal source
were simultaneously measured with the two RFAM detectors.


As a signal source, 37MHz OCXO using a wenzel oscillator was used. The output from the signal source
was equaly splitted by a power splitter and fed to the RFAM detector CHB(Mon1) and CHA(Mon2).

The error signal for CHB (Mon1) were monitored by an oscilloscope to find an appropriate bias value.
The bias for CHA are adjusted automatically by the slow bias servo.

The spectra were measured with two different power settings:

Low Power setting: The signal source with 6+5dB attenuation was used. This yielded 10.3dBm at the each unit input.
The calibration of the low power setting is dBc = 20*log10(Vrms/108). (See previous elog entry)

High Power setting: The signal source was used without any attenuation. This yielded 22.4dBm at the each unit input.
The calibration for the high power setting was measured upon the measurement.
SR785 was set to have 1kHz sinusoidal output with the amplitude of 10mVpk and the offset of 4.1V.
This modulation signal was fed to DS345 at 30.2MHz with 24.00dBm
The network analyzer measured the carrier and sideband power levels
30.2MHz 21.865dBm
USB    -37.047dBm
LSB    -37.080dBm  ==> -58.9285 dBc (= 0.0011313)

The RF signal was fed to the input and the signal amplitude at Mon1 and Mon2 were measured
MON1 => 505   mVrms => 446.392 Vrms/ratio
MON2 => 505.7 mVrms => 447.011 Vrms/ratio
dBc = 20*log10(Vrms/446.5).


Using the cross specrum (or coherence)of the two signals, we can infer the noise level of the detector.

Suppose there are two time-series x(t) and y(t) that contain the same signal s(t) and independent but same size of noise n(t) and m(t)

x(t) = n(t) + s(t)
y(t) = m(t) + s(t)

Since n, m, s are not correlated, PSDs of x and y are

Pxx = Pnn + Pss
Pyy = Pmm+Pss = Pnn+Pss

The coherence between x(t) and y(t) is defined by

Cxy = |Pxy|^2/Pxx/Pyy = |Pxy|^2/Pxx^2

In fact |Pxy| = Pss. Therefore

sqrt(Cxy) = Pss/Pxx

What we want to know is Pnn

Pnn = Pxx - Pss = Pxx[1 - sqrt(Cxy)]
=> Snn = sqrt(Pnn) = Sxx * sqrt[1 - sqrt(Cxy)]

This is slightly different from the case where you don't have the noise in one of the time series (e.g. feedforward cancellation or bruco)


Measurement results

 

Power spectra:
Mon1 and Mon2 for both input power levels exhibited the same PSD between 10Hz to 1kHz. This basically supports that the calibration for the 22dBm input (at least relative to the calibration for 10dBm input) was corrected. Abobe 1kHz and below 10Hz, some reduction of the noise by the increase of the input power was observed. From the coherence analysis, the floor level for the 10dBm input was -178, -175, -155dBc/Hz at 1kHz, 100Hz, and 10Hz, respectively. For the 22dBm input, they are improved down to -188, -182, and -167dBc/Hz at 1kHz, 100Hz, and 10Hz, respectively.

 

  240   Tue Sep 8 10:55:31 2015 KojiElectronicsAM Stabilized EOM DriverRF AM Measurement Unit E1500151 ~ 37MHz OCXO AM measurement

Test sheet: https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-E1400445

Test Result (S1500114): https://dcc.ligo.org/S1500114

  346   Thu Apr 18 20:47:54 2019 JoeOptics OMC initial alignment and locking

[Joe, Phillip, Koji, Stephen]

*draft post, please add anymore info if I missed something*

  • made initial alignment of the cavity. To do this we used the periscope mirrors to aim the incoming beam at the centre of the first mirror and second (1st curved mirror) mirror. Using the micrometers (initial positions was 0.20mm), we moved the first curved mirror so that it hit the third mirror. We then used a combination of the periscope and first curved mirror movements to start seeing 2 or 3 round trips. micrometer was set to roughly 0.11mm. We then only used  periscope mirrors to align the beam into the cavity.
  • We set up a wincam at the transmission of the cavity. This was a useful was of seeing what mode was being transmitted through the cavity. We walked the beam with the periscope mirrors until we saw flashes of the TM00 mode.
  • Once the cavity was transmitting TM00 modes, we started to lock it. Once it was locked we looked at the the spot positions of beam on the mirrors. Phillip looked with an IR viewer and could see that the spots were too high on both the curved mirrors
  • We set up a CCD to capture an image of this. Two post holders have been left in place for easy movement of the CCD.

General notes about working with this set up. The lens on the CCD can come off quite easily, as you just change how much its screwed on to change the focus. Care should be taken that you don't know the template with this as well, as the camera is quite close to the template (and near the edge of the bench!). Also be mindful of the PZT wires, as they can pull the mirrors out of position.

Attachment 1 shows the position of the spots on the mirrors A14 and PZT11. The spots are about 3mm ish from the centre of the curved mirror in the vertical and horizontal direction. 

Attachment 2 sketch of mirror positions.

Attachment 3 shows the postion of the spot on PZT13. The spot is less near the edge than on PZT11, but its still 2mm ish from the centre of the curved mirror in both directions.

To move the beam horizontally we can use the alignment matrix in appendix C of T1500060. However since we don't have control over the pitch of the mirrors, moving the spots down could require us to inspect the glass breadboard/prisms for dust. We suspect that PZT could be the culprit, as we could not see newtonian rings between its base and the glass breadboard. One way to test this idea is just to clean the bottom of the PZT with acetone, and see if that improves the spot position. If we don't have to do any work to realign it, then this was not the issue.

Koji pointed out that the spot in attachment 1 is very near the edge of the optic, so shifting the beam horizontally could also fix the vertical issue. 

  347   Fri Apr 19 09:21:07 2019 PhilipOptics Cleaning of OMC optics

ach[Joe, Phillip, Koji, Stephen]

Work from 17.04.2019

First contact cleaning of OMC optics
We cleaned the OMC optic with first contact. After a first cleaning run all mirrors except for two looked
fine. One had some first contact residuals on the left at center height and another had some particle sitting
near the center area. As the ionized nitrogen gun didn't help we applied another round of first contact which resolved
the two issues. Unfortutanely the second run of cleaning again left some residuals of first contact at the edges.
We were able to peal these off with tweezers.

Placement of Optics at the breadboard
We cleaned the contact surfaces for the bonds using optic wipes and pure isopropanol. The placement wen't well for 3 of the 5 optics (low number of newtonian rings).
One was recleaned and placed on the breadboard again which seemed fine. For the 5th no newtonian rings could be seen (either verry ood or bad) we planed on trying it in the current set-up. Mirrors used can be seen in attachment 3.

 

  348   Fri Apr 19 09:35:28 2019 JoeGeneral Adjusting cavity axis, re-alignment of OMC and locking

[koji,philip, joe, liyuan, steven]

*still need to add photos to post*

PZT 11 was removed and inspected for so dust/dirt on the bottom of the prism. We saw a spot. We tried to remove this with acetone, but it stayed there. (Attachment 2, see the little white spec near the edge of the bottom surface of the prism)

current micrometer positions:

  • CM1: one closest to centre 11, close to edge 35 marking
  • CM2: both at 20 marking

Swapped PZT for PZT 22, cleaned the bottom and put it into position of CM1. We saw a low number of newton rings, so this is good.

We got a rough initial alignment by walking the beam with the periscope and PZT 22  mirrors. Once we saw a faint amount of transmission, we set up the wincam at the output. The reflected light from the cavity could also be seen to be flashing as the laser frequency was being modulated. 

Once it was roughly aligned, using the persicope we walked the beam until we got good 00 flashes. We checked the positions of the spots on the mirror with the beam card. This looked a lot better in the verticle direction (very near the centre) on both curved mirrors. We locked the cavity and contiued to align it better. This was done with the periscope until the DC error signal was about 0.6V. We switched to the fibre coupler after this. 

Once we were satisfied that he cavity was near where it would be really well aligned, we took some images of the spot positions. Using these we can work out which way to move the curved mirrors. Koji worked this out and drew some diagrams, we should attach them to this post. [Diagram: See Attachment 1 of ELOG OMC 350]

We made the corrections to the cavity mirrors

  • CM1: one closest to centre 11, close to edge 35+16 marking
  • CM2: I can't remember exactly, Koji created a diagram which would help explain this step [Diagram: See Attachment 2 of ELOG OMC 350]

The scatter from CM1 looked very small, it was hard to see with a viewer or CCD. We had to turn up the laser power by a factor of 3 to begin to see it, indicating that this is a good mirror.

Once this was done, the spot positions looked uch nearer the centre of each mirror. They look pitched 1mm too high, which might be because of the bottom surfaces of the prisms having a piece of dust on them? For now though it was good enough to try take the detuned locking FSR measurement and RFAM measurement. 

To see the higher order mode spacing, we misaligned them incoming beam in pitch and yaw so that the TM10 and TM01 modes were excited. The cavity transmission beam was aligned onto the photodiode such that we could make a transfer function measurement (i.e. shift the beam along the photodiode so that only half of the beam was on it, this maximises the amount of photocurrent).

attachment 1 shows the fitting of the detuned locking method for measuring FSR and cavity length/

I saved this data on my laptop. When I next edit this post (hopefully I will before monday, although I might be too tired from being a tourist in california...) I want to upload plots of the higher order mode spacing.

 

 

  349   Fri Apr 19 11:34:19 2019 KojiOptics OMC initial alignment and locking

The spot on CM1 was found displaced by 3.4mm (horiz.) and 3.0mm (vert.) in the upper right direction looking from the face side.
The spot on CM2 was found displaced by 1.2mm (horiz.) and 1.8mm (vert.) in the upper left direction looking from the face side.

The drawing on the left side of the attachment shows the estimated misalignment when we think they all come from the curved mirrors.
As for the yaw misalignment, CM1 and CM2 were 3.9mrad and 5.6mrad rotated (misaligned) in CW, respectively.
As for the pitch misalignment, CM1 and CM2 has 1.7mrad (narrowing) and 3.5mrad (widening), respectively. We have no adjustment for this.
Let's say if this comes from the dusts on the bottom of the prisms, CM1 has ~17um one, and CM2 has ~35um one beneath them. The question is if we can believe this or not? This should be checked with the Newton fringes we can see at the bottom of the prisms.

  351   Mon Apr 22 09:54:21 2019 JoeGeneral Shortening cavity (A5,A14,PZT11,PZT22) to get closer to design FSR

[Koji,Joe,Philip,stephen]

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

CM1 inner screw pos: 11.5

cm1 outer screw pos: 33.5

cm2 inner screw pos: 11

cm2 outer screw pos: 13

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

CM1 inner screw pos: 11.5+37.5 = 49

cm1 outer screw pos: 33.5+37.5= 71

cm2 inner screw pos: 11+37.5 = 48.5

cm2 outer screw pos: 13+37.5 = 50.5

The screws on the micrometers were adjusted to these values.

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

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

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

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

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

CM1:

  • inner = 0.405mm
  • outer = 0.67mm

CM2

  • inner = 0.507mm
  • outer = 0.42mm

want to increase by 1.7/4 = 0.425, so

CM1:

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

CM2

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

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

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

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

123-7699 = CM2

123-7697 = CM1

 

 

  352   Mon Apr 22 19:54:28 2019 KojiGeneral OMC(004): Spot positions at the end of Apr 22nd
ELOG V3.1.3-