I've cleared the small optical table and wondered how to move it out of the room. Fortunately, the north side of the big table had wide enough clearance and let the 36" wide table go through. This was easy without moving other heavy stuff.
From here to the door, a bit of work is required. A possibility is to roll the laser blocking wall to the south side of the big table. This will require moving the shelving in the entrance area but it's not a lot of work compared to disassembling a part of the wall.
If this does not work somehow, we will consider removing the last panel of the wall and it will definitely allow the table to get out from the door.
The table width was an inch too large compared to the door width. We need to tilt the table and it seemed too much for us. Let's ask the transportation for handling.
Photo courtesy by Juan
- The lab is chilly (18degC)
- Cleaned the lab and the optical table a bit so that the delicate work can be done. The diode test rig (borrowed from Downs - see OMC ELOG 408 and OMC ELOG 409) was removed from the table and brought to the office (to return on Monday)
- The rack electronics were energized.
- The OMC mirrors in use were returned to the cases and stored in the plastic box.
- The optical table was also cleaned. Removed the old Al foils. The table was wiped with IPA
- The OMC #4 was moved to the other part of the table, and then OMC #2 was placed in the nominal place (Attachment 1). Note that the "legs" were migrated from #4 to #2. There are three poles that defines the location of the OMC Transportation
- The lid was removed and the OMC was inspected (Attachment 2). Immediately found some more delamination of the epoxy beneath the cable bracket (Attachment 3). This needs to be taken care of before shipment.
- The cavity was already flashing as usual, and a bit of alignment made the TEM00 flashing.
- The locking was a little tricky because the LB unit seemed to have a gain-dependent offset. After some adjustment, robust locks were achieved. The cavity was then finely adjusted. Attachment 4 shows the CCD image of the reflection. The core of the spot is more or less axisymmetric as usual. There is also a large helo around the spot. I was not aware of this before. I may need to wipe some of the mirrors of the input path.
- As the satisfactory lock was achieved, I called a day by taking a picture of the table (Attachment 5).
== Initial Preparation ==
== Measurements ==
== Repair / Preparation ==
== Shipping ==
o Power Budget (2022/07/18)
NPRO ADJ -50 (min)
Fiber incident 62.8mW
Fiber output 45.1mW
Matching to the fiber 72%
DCPD T = 8.90 +/- 0.01 mW
REFPD = 3.760 +/- 0.001 V
DCPD R = 8.82 +/- 0.01 V
REFPD = 3.760 +/- 0.001 V
CM1 = 81.4 +/- 0.1 uW
REFPD = 3.767 +/- 0.001 V
CM2 = 86.6 +/- 0.1 uW
REFPD = 3.767 +/- 0.001 V
OFS = -6.214 +/- 0.001 mV (beam blocked)
LOCKED = 57.5 +/- 0.5 mV
REFPD = 3.970 +/- 0.003 V
UNLOCK = 2.816 +/- 0.003 V
REFPD = 3.943 +/- 0.001 V
P_Inc = 20.04 +/- 0.01 mW
REFPD = 3.946 +/- 0.001 V
- Cavity coupling 0.989 (1.1% junk&sidebands)
- Cavity R&T: R=756ppm, T=0.946
- OMC Throughput (Cavity T x First BS R): T=0.939
- Cavity loss per mirror 90 ppm / Round Trip Loss 432ppm
o Power Budget after FirstContact cleaning (2022/07/20)
NPRO ADJ -50 (min)
Fiber incident --.-mW
Fiber output --.-mW
Matching to the fiber ??%
DCPD T = 8.62 +/- 0.01 mW
REFPD = 3.549 +/- 0.001 V
DCPD R = 9.46 +/- 0.01 V
REFPD = 3.562 +/- 0.001 V
CM1 = 74.5 +/- 0.1 uW
REFPD = 3.585 +/- 0.001 V
CM2 = 81.7 +/- 0.1 uW
REFPD = 3.585 +/- 0.001 V
vOFS = -6.197 +/- 0.001 mV (beam blocked)
LOCKED = 47.6 +/- 0.2 mV
REFPD = 3.596 +/- 0.003 V
UNLOCK = 2.700 +/- 0.003 V
REFPD = 3.590 +/- 0.001 V
P_Inc = 19.36 +/- 0.001 mW
REFPD = 3.594 +/- 0.001 V
- Cavity coupling 0.980 (2.0% junk&sidebands)
- Cavity R&T: R=229ppm, T=0.970 (previous T=0.946, 2.4% UP!)
- OMC Throughput (Cavity T x First BS R): T=0.963
- Cavity loss per mirror 42.8 ppm / Round Trip Loss 238ppm
The Windows laptop for WincamD/Beam'R2 (DELL Vostro3300) was not functional.
- Windows 7 got stuck in the starting up process (Google "startup repair loop")
- The battery can't charge and the adapter connection is flaky
I decided to newly install Win10.
I made a new bootable Win10 DVD from the ISO downloaded from IMSS. The ISO file was converted to CDR using Disk Utility on Mac.
This deleted the past disk partitions. The installation process has no trouble and Win10 ran successfully. The machine is slow but still acceptable for our purpose.
Dataray Version 7.1H25Bk was downloaded from the vendor website https://dataray.com/blogs/software/downloads and installed successfully.
The devices ran as expected by connecting the heads and selecting the proper device in the software.
Then, the Win10 fell into "Hibernation Loop" and "Shutdown loop" (after disabling hibernation in the safe mode).
This is probably the combination of extremely slow windows update (feature update i.e. beta OS update) and the occasional shutdown due to the flakiness of the AC connection
Win10 was reinstalled and automatic Win update was disabled via windows policy manager or something like that. Still, it tries to download and update some of the updates (what's happening there!?
Here are my strong recommendations on how to use this laptop
Bond reinforcement blocks for the invar brackets:
The backscatter beam is supposed to appear in the backpropagation path. The transmission of the OMC has a couple of optics, it's not easy to access that beam.
To try to deflect the beam either horizontally or vertically, small optical pieces were made. (Attachment)
These are the combination of the optics
- Thorlabs PF05-03 Fused Silica Mirror Blank (dia12.7mm x t 6.0mm) + Thorlabs 1/2"sq BB Dielectric Mirror BBSQ05-E03
- Thorlabs PF05-03 Fused Silica Mirror Blank (dia12.7mm x t 6.0mm) + Thorlabs ME05-G01 Protected Al Mirror (dia12.7mm x t 3.2mm) + Thorlabs MRA10-K13 Right-Angle Prism Nd:YAG 10mm
Torr seal was used as the bonding epoxy. It uses a 1:2 volume mixture (not easy because of the viscosity) and is relatively fast to cure (in a couple of hours).
The test piece showed some softness after 3~4 hours so I left the parts cured overnight at room temp (i.e. 18degC)
The profile of the beam incident on the fiber input
The fiber input was deflected by a 45deg mirror. The beam profile was measured with WincamD. The beam was too strong (~60mW) even at the smallest pump power (ADJ -50) of the NPRO. So the two ND20 filters were added to the lens right before the 45 deg mirror and the camera.
The measured profile had some deviation from the nice TEM00 particularly around the waist. This could be a problem of the too small beam on the ND filter and the CCD.
This is not an issue as we just want to know the approximate shape of the beam.
For the fiber coupling, if we have the beam waist radius of ~200um it is sufficient for decent coupling.
Measure the power ratio between the forward-propagating and reverse-propagating beams.
- To increase the incident laser power, NPRO Current ADJ was set to be 0 (increased from -50)
- 1st: Without the baffle 0.373 +/- 0.001 uW / With the baffle 0.318 +/- 0.001 uW
- 2nd: Without the baffle 0.370 +/- 0.001 uW / With the baffle 0.318 +/- 0.001 uW
- 3rd: Without the baffle 0.370 +/- 0.001 uW / With the baffle 0.317 +/- 0.001 uW
==> 53.3 +/- 0.6 nW
- The main transmission was 84.0mW
==> Backpropagation ratio was 0.634+/-0.007 ppm
- Direct measurement of the OMC was after BS 96.6mW
==> Backpropagation power from the cavity: 61.3 +/- 0.7 nW
- Cavity transmission for the matched beam is Tcav RinputBS = 0.963
==> Incident resonant TEM00 power 100.3mW
- Reflection 61.3+/-0.7 nW x RinputBS = 60.8+/-0.7 nW
-> The effective reflectivity for the mode-matched resonant TEM00 beam incident on the OMC (1st steering mirror) is 0.606+/-0.007 ppm
SRS LCR meter SRS720 was returned to Downs as before.
OMC Reinforcement blocks
1. P/N D1600316; Version v4; Type 01; Qty 30; Source Chemistry Machine Shop
2. P/N D1600316; Version v4; Type 02; Qty 15; Source Chemistry Machine Shop
3. P/N D1600316; Version v4; Type 01; Qty 40; Source Resource MFG PO S422806
4. P/N D1600316; Version v4; Type 02; Qty 40; Source Resource MFG PO S422806
Stephen asked Srinath for the ICS entry.
Stephen made the C&B request https://cleanandbake.ligo.caltech.edu/clean_and_bake/request/1708/
Madeline was asked to take care of the C&B.
Also, the Torr Seal box was returned to Madeline.
More epoxy delamination check:
DCPD R (Attachment 1): Found half delaminated
DCPD T (Attachment 2): Found half delaminated
QPD1/QPD2 (Attachment 3): Looks fine
In total we need to fix bonding of three invar bases (including the one for the cable bracket)
- Installed the High QE PDs to OMC #002
Upon the installation, the legs of the PDs were cut by 3mm. Also, the tab of the PD could not be embedded in the DCPD housing. Therefore, the tabs were cut.
The alignment looked just fine. The weak reflections are directed to the black glass beam dumps.
- After the installation, the QEs were measured.
It is so confusing. So I decided to make the QE test setup.
Ophir RM9 with chopper (+/-5%): 8.97mW
Thorlabs S140C integrating sphere (+/-7%): 9.11mW
Thorlabs S130C PD power meter (+/-7%): 9.15mW
Thorlabs S401C thermal power meter (+/-3%): 8.90mW
So there looks ~3% discrepancy between S130C and S401C
Then tried to measure the QE of C1-03@Cage B3 with Ophir RM9
- Initial state: QE=0.95
- First FirstContact application: QE went up to 0.973
- Second FirstContact application: QE = 0.974, basically no change
- Calibrate the trans-impedance amp with Keithley
- Apply FC to B1-22 and B1-23 to see if there is an improvement
- The power should be measured with S401C because the accuracy seems better (+/-3%).
- Take photos of the PD FC process
General To Do:
- Backscatter test 2nd trial
- Start applying the first contact to the optical surfaces
- Beam dump cleaning
- Apply FC cap to the PDs
- Delamination repair (light side)
- Delamination repair (dark side)
- Cable bracket replace (dark side)
- 4 CLASS A wire clamp obtained from the OMC spare
- 4 more DIRTY wire clamp obtained from WB experiments (they no longer use these)
Once the later ones are C&Bed, we have enough.
- DLPCA-200 trans-impedance amplifier was calibrated.
Keithley source meter 2450 was connected to the amp. Provide current and read the output voltage with the precision digital voltage meter (Agilent/Keysight).
Gain: 999.7V/A@7mA, 999.6V/A@8mA
- From the power meter spec, Thorlabs S401C seemed the best (+/-3%). So the QEs of the 9 PDs were checked with this power meter again.
- All PDs exhibited the QE of 0.95~0.96. It's all relative as the power meter has a systematic error.
- Tried to clean B1-22 and B1-23 PDs. They didn't show significant improvement after the cleaning. To avoid the unnecessary risk of damaging the PDs, further cleaning was not performed. (Some photos were attached)
- What we can do is use this result as the relative measurements.
- For OMC#2, B1-22 is the DCPD(T) and B1-23 is the DCPD(R). C1-03 and C1-12 are the spares, according to this latest result.
- At LLO, we track down the source of the throughput reduction (-10%). The QEs of the PDs are going to be tested in the same setup at once to compare their PDs and our PDs.
The optical surfaces were coated with FirstContact to keep them clean / somewhat protected during the transportation.
The PD aperture was sealed with FirstContact "caps" (made by Kate in 2016?).
- D1300052-V3 SN001 is going to be used (Attachment 1)
- This is the PEEK version of the cable bracket (Attachment 2). The side thread holes have no Helicoils inserted. This needs to be done!
Connector arrangement check / cable routing check
Attachment 3: Connector Arrangement from the Northside
Attachment 4: Connector Arrangement from the South side
Attachment 5: Cable routing (Northside down)
At this point, the delamination of the V shape beam dumps was visible. This is the subject of bonding reinforcement.
- (Attachment 1) The connector nut rings were removed using an angled needle nose plier. The connector shell has a tight dimension relative to the hole on the bracket. But of course, they could be extracted.
- The 4 screws mounting the bracket to the invar blocks were successfully removed. No extra damage to the bonding.
- (Attachment 2) The plan was to remove the cable pegs by unfastening the button head 1/4-20 screws from the bracket and then just replace the bracket with the new one. However, these screws were really tight. The two were successfully removed without cutting the PEEK cable ties. Two cable ties were necessary to be cut to detach the bracket+pegs from the fragile OMC. Then one screw was removed. However, the final one could not be unfastened. This is not a problem as we are not going to recycle the metal cable bracket... as long as we have spare parts for the new bracket.
- (Attachment 3) Right now, the new bracket is waiting for the helicoils to be inserted. So the OMC lid was closed with the cables piled up. Just be careful when the lid is open.
Checking the spare parts
- Conclusion for OMC#2: need PEEK cable ties
- for more OMCs: need more BHCS / PEEK cable ties / Helicoils
[Joe, Phillip, Koji, Stephen]
*draft post, please add anymore info if I missed something*
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.
[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:
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
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.
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.
want to increase by 1.7/4 = 0.425, so
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
[Koji,Philip, Liyuan, Joe]
We moved the curved mirrors to these positions:
inner = 0.807mm
outer = 0.983 mm
inner = 0.92 mm
outer = 0.85 mm
To do this so that realignment was easier, we moved the screws in steps of 5um. We alternated which mirror we adjusted so that we could monitor with a wincam how well aligned the beam into the cavity was. We only moved the cavity mirrors a small amount so we could still see higher order mode flashes transmitted through the cavity (e.g.TM03 modes). We would then improve the input alignment, and then move the cavity mirrors some more. Once the mirrors were adjusted according to http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/190422_195450/misalignment4.pdf the spot positions looked near the middle of the curved mirrors (using a beam card). We began beam walking but we ran out of range of the bottom periscope screws in the yaw dof. We tried using the third screw to move the mirrror in both yaw and pitch, hopefully this will let move the mirror such that we can use the just the yaw screw. This screw also ran out of range, so we decided that the cavity needed a small adjustment.
The curved mirrors were moved slightly (>5um) and then we tried to get alignment. By using the fibre coupler translation stage, we move the beam side ways slightly, and then tried to get the periscope mirrors back to a position where the screws could move the mirrors. Once we had an ok alignment, we checked the beam. It looked like it was pretty close to the centre of the curved mirrors, which is where we wanted it to be.
We then tried locking the cavity, although the error signal was quite small. The adjusted the input offset and gain of the servo (there is apparently some problem to do with the input and output offsets). Once the cavity was locked we could make the final adjustments to aligning. We still ran out of range on the periscope. We decided to move the breadboard with the fibre coupler and mode matching lenses on it. Because we knew that the cavity was aligned such that the beam hits the centres of the curved mirrors, we could regain flashes quite quickly. We saw the error signal go down, but eventually this decrease was just to do with the beam clipping on the periscope mirrors. We moved the spot back to where we ok aligned, and slid the periscope so we were not clipping the mirror. This worked very well, and then optimised the alignment.
We then tried to improve the mode matching.
We took photos of the spot positions (quite near the center) and made the detuned locking measurement. The fitting of the data (attachment 1) wsa 1.1318m (what error should we put here?).
I think the order we did things in was:
need to add spot positions.
Mirrors: PZT11,PZT22, A14, A5
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.
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
so it looks ok still.
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?
Suspension cage and transportation box: 250.8lb
Suspension cage and transportation box: 150.2lb ==> 100.6lb ==> 45,630 g
Metal Breadboard: 7261 g
Glass Breadboard and transportation fixture: 16382 g
Transportation fixture only: 9432 g ==> 6950 g
Added mass (up to now): 300 g ==> 7250 g
That is an expanding fire pillow, also known as firebrick. It is used to create a fire block where holes in fire-rated walls are made and prevents lab fires from spreading rapidly to adjacent labs. I had to pull cable from B254 to our labs on either side during a rather narrow window of time. Some of the cable holes are partially blocked, making it difficult to reach the cable to them. The cable is then just guided to the hole from a distance. With no help, it's not possible to see this material getting shoved out of the hole. I can assure you that I took great pains not to allow the CYMAC coax to fall into any equipment, or drag against any other cables.
I started some analytic calculations of how OMC mirror motion would add to the noise in the BHD. I want to make some prettier plots, and am adding the interferometer so I can also compute the noise due to backscatter into the IFO. However, since I've pushed the notebook I wanted to post an update. Here's the location in the repo.
I used Koji's soft limit of 0.02 degrees additional phase accumulation per reflection for p polarization.
I'm still not satisfied/done with the solution to this, but this has gone too long without an update and anyway probably someone else will have a direction to take it that prevents me spinning my wheels on solved or basic questions.
The story will have to wait to be on the elog, but I've put it in the jupyter notebook. Basically:
It's clear to me that there is a way to optimize the OMC, but the normalization of my DARM referred noise is clearly wrong, because I'm finding that the input-referred noise is at least 4e-11 m/rt(Hz). This seems too large to believe.
Indeed, I was finding the noise in the wrong way, in a pretty basic mistake. I’m glad I found it I guess. I’ll post some plots and update the git tomorrow.