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
I have ordered a small roll of solder for the OMC piezos.
The alloy is: Sn96.5 Ag3.0 Cu0.5
- Forgot to close the cylinder valve...
v HEPA prefilter (20"x20"x1" MERV 7)
- Replace the filter for the air conditioning
v Texwipe TX715 SWAB http://www.texwipe.com/store/p-817-tx715.aspx
v Gloves ~3 bags
VWR GLOVE ACCTCH NR-LTX SZ7.0 PK25 79999-304 x3
VWR GLOVE ACCTCH NR-LTX SZ7.5 PK25 79999-306 x1
v Vectra IPA soaked cloths
v Sticky mats
ORDERED AUG 9, 2017
Applying First Contact for the optics cleaning
PD alignment / scattering photos
Fundamental: 12.3kHz Secondary: 16.9kHz
Fundamental: 2.9kHz Secondary: 4.1kHz
Fundamental: 5.6kHz Secondary: 8.2kHz
Measurement Order: DCPD2->DCPD1->QPD1->QPD2
DCPD1: 1.50mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.027mm too low
DCPD2: 1.75mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.051mm too high (...less confident)
QPD1: 1.25mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.077mm too low
QPD2: 1.25mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.134mm too low
or 1.00mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.116mm too high
Remeasured the spot positions:
DCPD1: 1.50mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.084mm too high
DCPD2: 1.50mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.023mm too high
QPD1: 1.25mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.001mm too low
QPD2: 1.25mm+0.085mm => Beam 0.155mm too low
After the PZT test, the curved mirrors were aligned to the cavity again.
In order to check the height of the cavity beam, the test DCPD mount was assembled with 2mm shim (D1201467-3)
The spot position was checked with a CCD camera.
According to the analysis of the picture, the spot height is about 0.71mm lower than the center of the mount.
Spot positions on CM1 and CM2 scanned according to the recipes provided by the previous entry.
The best result obtained was:
Transmission from FM2: 32.7mW
Incident on BS1: 34.4mW
Reflection (Unlocked): 5.99V
Reflection (Locked): 104mV
Reflection (Dark): -7.5mV
to accomodate the spot on BS1 it had to be about a mm moved from the template.
This gives us:
- Portion of the TEM00 carrier: R = 1-(104+7.5)/(5990+7.5) = 0.981
- Raw transmission: 32.7/34.4 = 0.950
- TEM00 transmission 0.950/R = 0.969
- Excluding the transmission of BS1: 0.969/0.9926 = 0.976
=> loss per mirror ~40ppm
A sprinkler head was installed on the HEPA enclosure. The head is covered with a plastic cap.
Structural analysis of the PZT mirror with COMSOL.
Inline figures: Eigenmodes which involves large motion of the tombstone. In deed 10kHz mode is not the resonance of the PZT-mirror joint, but the resonance of the tombstone.
Attached PDF: Simulated transfer function of the PZT actuation. In order to simulate the PZT motion, boundary loads on the two sides of the PZT were applied with opposite signs.
10kHz peak appears as the resonance of the tombstone dominates the mirror motion. At 12kHz, the PZT extension and the backaction of the tombstone cancells each other and
the net displacement of the mirror becomes zero.
Each peak of the transfer function measurement was fitted again with a complex function:
History: Measurement date 2013/5/31, Installed to L1 2013/6/10~
History: Measurement date 2013/10/11, Installed to L1 2013/XX
History: Measurement date 2014/7/5, Stored for I1, Installed to H1 2016/8 upon damage on 002
PTOUCH TAPE (12mm white) x 2
Clean Supply Ordered
To spare some room on the optical table, I wanted to mount the two TFT monitor units on the HEPA enclosure frame.
I found some Bosch Rexroth parts (# 3842539840) in the lab, so the bracket was taken for the mount. This swivel head works very well. It's rigid and still the angle is adjustable.
BTW, this TFT display (Triplett HDCM2) is also very nice. It has HDMI/VGA/Video/BNC inputs (wow perfect) and the LCD is Full-HD LED TFT.
The only issue is that one unit (I have two) shows the image horizontally flipped. I believe that I used the unit with out this problem before, I'm asking the company how to fix this.
The image flipping of the display unit was fixed. The vendor told me how to fix it.
- Open the chassis by the four screws at the side.
- Look at the pass-through PCB board between the mother and display boards.
- Disconnect the flat flex cables from the pass-through PCB (both sides) and reconnect them (i.e. reseat the cables)
That's it and it actually fixed the image flipping issue.
[Camille, Koji] Log of the work on Dec 15, 2023
The vertical and horizontal TMSs for OMC #4 were measured with the PZT voltages scanned from 0V to 200V.
We concluded that this alignment nicely avoids the higher-order mode structure up to ~19th order. We are ready for the cavity mirror bonding.
The RF transfer functions to the trans RF PD from the modulation on the BB EOM were taken with the presence of the vertical misalignment of the incident beam and the vertical clipping of the beam on the RFPD.
The typical measurement results and the fitting results are shown in Attachments 1/2.
The TFs were taken with the voltage 0, 50, 100, 150, and 200V applied to PZT1 while PZT2 were left open. The measurement was repeated with the role of PZT1 and PZT2 swapped.
The ratio between the TMS and FSR was evaluated for each PZT voltage setting. (Attachment 3)
When the PZTs are open, the first coincident resonance is the 19th-order mode of the 45MHz lower sideband. (Attachment 4)
When the PZT2 voltage is scanned with PZT1 kept at ~0V, no low-order sidebands come into the resonance (Attachment 5) until the PZT1 voltage is above 100V.
We found that the high voltage on PZT1 misaligns the cavity in yaw and the spot (presumably) moves to an undesirable area regarding the cavity loss.
This does not happen to PZT2. Therefore the recommendation here is that the PZT2 is used as the high voltage PTZ, while PZT1 is for the low voltage actuation.
I consulted with Margot about the cleaning of the optics
Details of the Ionized N2 system
Last night (Tuesday), I finished setting up and aligning most of the input optics for the OMC characterization setup. See the diagram below, but the setup consists of:
Today, we placed some lenses into the setup, in two places:
We (Koji, Lisa, and myself) had significant trouble getting more than ~0.1% coupling through the fiber, and after a while we decided to go to the 40m to get the red-light fiber illuminator to help with the alignment.
Using the illuminator, we realigned the input to the coupler and eventually got much better---but still bad---coupling of ~1.2% (0.12 mW out / 10 mW in). Due to the multi-mode nature of the illuminator beam, the output cannot be used to judge the collimation of the IR beam; it can only be used to verify the alignment of the beam.
With 0.12 mW emerging from the other end of the fiber, we could see the output quite clearly on a card (see photo below). This can tell us about the required input mode. From the looks of it, our beam is actually focused too strongly. We should probably replace the 75mm lens again with a slightly longer one.
Lisa and I concurred that it felt like we had converged to the optimum alignment and polarization, which would mean that the lack of coupling is all from mode mismatch. Since the input mode is well collimated, it seems unlikely that we could be off enough to only get ~1% coupling. One possibility is that the collimator is not well attached to the fiber itself. Since the Rayleigh range within it is very small, any looseness here can be critical.
I think there are several people around here who have worked pretty extensively with fibers. So, I propose that we ask them to take a look at what we have done and see if we're doing something totally wrong. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel.
The 3rd (LIO) OMC was shipped out to LHO on Friday (Jul 18) Morning.
- All of the on-breadboard cables should be attached and tied down.
- Peel First Contact paint and pack the OMC for storage.
The OMC #002 was packed for the transportation to Downs.
===> And transported to Downs 227 on Jul 6th.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Qty1 1/2 mounts
Qty2 prism mounts
Qty6 gluing fixures
Qty1 Rotary stage
Qty1 2" AL mirror
Qty1 Base for the AL mirror
=> Handed to Stephen -> Camille on Jan 27, 2023.
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.
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
Measured the thickness of a curved mirror:
Took three points separated by 120 degree.
S/N: C2, (0.2478, 0.2477, 0.2477) in inch => (6.294, 6.292, 6.292) in mm
Masks / Wipes => done
Cabling / Wiring
Packing / Shipping
Shipping, storage etc
- Lab renovtion
- Mechanics design
- Glue training
- Mirror delivery
- Basic optics test
- Cavity test
- Suspending test
- Shipping to LLO
Two optical designs
Clamp design / stencil design
Started July 15, 2022 and finished Aug 30. So it took ~1.5 months (with a couple weeks of break)
Class B special tools
First Contact Kit
Bonding kit (excl EP30-2 bond)
Power meters (excl Power meter controller)
Cable bracket replacement kit
Optics / Optomechanics
=== Action done on Aug 30 ===
Fiber MM setup / Fiber coupler mount
Glass Beamdumps (for optical testing)
Thorlabs fiber coupler tool
General bent nose plier for fiber
Thorlabs collimator tiny allen
Spare High QE PDs
Spare OMC bags / Zip bags
Balance Mass 10g Qty 8 (Different Type D11*** 1.25" dia), 20g Qty 10 / Mass damper D1700301 -04 / Mass damper screws SHCS 1/4-20 x 1.25 Qty 25 / 1" screws and 1 1/8" screws
Shipping request: https://services1.ligo-la.caltech.edu/FRS/show_bug.cgi?id=25002
=== Low supply! ===
EDIT (ZK): All the plots here were generated using my MATLAB cavity modeling tool, ArbCav. The utility description is below. The higher-order mode resonance plots are direct outputs of the function. The overlap plots were made by modifying the function to output a list of all HOM resonant frequencies, and then plotting the closest one as a function of cavity length. This was done for various values of highest mode order to consider, as described in the original entry.
This function calculates information about an arbitrary optical cavity. It can plot the cavity geometry, calculate the transmission/reflection spectrum, and generate the higher-order mode spectrum for the carrier and up to 2 sets of sidebands.
The code accepts any number of mirrors with any radius of curvature and transmission, and includes any astigmatic effects in its output.
As opposed to the previous version, which converted a limited number of cavity shapes into linear cavities before performing the calculation, this version explicitly propagates the gouy phase of the beam around each leg of the cavity, and is therefore truly able to handle an arbitrary geometry.
I expressed concern that arbitrarily choosing some maximum HOM order above which not to consider makes us vulnerable to sitting directly on a slightly-higher-order mode. At first, I figured the best way around this is to apply an appropriate weighting function to the computed HOM frequency spacing. Since this will also have some arbitrariness to it, I have decided to do it in a more straightforward way. Namely, look at the spacing for different values of the maximum mode number, nmax, and then use this extra information to better select the length.
Below are the spacing plots for the bowtie (flat-flat-curved-curved) and non-bowtie (flat-curved-flat-curved) configurations. Points on each line should be read out as "there are are no modes of order N or lower within [Y value] linewidths of the carrier TEM00 transmission", where N is the nmax appropriate for that trace. Intuitively, as more orders are included, the maxima go down, because more orders are added to the calculation.
*All calculations are done using my cavity simulation function, ArbCav. The mode spacing is calculated for each particular geometry by explicitly propagating the gouy phase through each leg of the cavity, rather than by finding an equivalent linear cavity*
Since achievable HOM rejection is only one of the criteria that should be used to choose between the two topologies, the idea is to pick one length solution for EACH topology. Basically, one maximum should be chosen for each plot, based on how how high an order we care about.
For the bowtie, the nmax = 20 maximum at L = 1.145 m is attractive, because there are no n < 20 modes within 5 linewidths, and no n < 25 modes within ~4.5 linewidths. However, this means that there are also n < 10 modes within 5 linewidths, while they could be pushed (BLUE line) to ~8.5 linewidths at the expense of proximity to n > 15 modes.
Therefore, it's probably best to pick something between the red and green maxima: 1.145 m < L < 1.152 m.
By manually inspecting the HOM spectrum for nmax = 20, it seems that L = 1.150 m is the best choice. In the HOM zoom plot below and the one to follow, the legend is as follows
Following the same logic as above, the most obvious choice for the non-bowtie is somewhere between the red maximum at 1.241 m and the magenta maximum at 1.248 m. This still allows for reasonable suppression of the n < 10 modes without sacrificing the n < 15 mode suppression completely.
Upon inspection, I suggest L = 1.246 m
I reiterate that these calculations are taking into account modes of up to n ~ 20. If there is a reason we really only care about a lower order than this, then we can do better. Otherwise, this is a nice compromise between full low-order mode isolation and not sitting directly on slightly higher modes.
One complication that arises is that all of these are highly dependent on the actual RoC of the mirrors. Unfortunately, even the quoted tolerance of ±1% makes a difference. Below is a rendering of the RED traces (nmax = 20) in the first two plots, but for R varying by ±2% (i.e., for R = 2.45 m, 2.50 m, 2.55 m).
The case for the non-bowtie only superficially seems better; the important spacing is the large one between the three highest peaks centered around 1.24 m.
Also unfortunately, this strong dependence is also true for the lowest-order modes. Below is the same two plots, but for the BLUE (nmax = 10) lines in the first plots.
Therefore, it is prudent not to pick a specific length until the precise RoC of the mirrors is measured.
Assuming the validity of looking at modes between 10 < n < 20, and that the curved mirror RoC is the design value of 2.50 m, the recommended lengths for each case are:
HOWEVER, variation within the design tolerance of the mirror RoC will change these numbers appreciably, and so the RoC should be measured before a length is firmly chosen.
- DC output of the trans RF PD was connected to the BNC patch panel. => Now CH4 of the scope is monitoring this signal
- The RF sweep signal from the network analyzer is connected to the power combiner for the EOM drive via the SMA patch panel.
- The trans RF PD was aligned first to the leakage beam. It turned out that this signal is too weak. Then the PD was aligned to one of the main OMC transmission. For this purpose, the OMC DCPD (T) was removed from the OMC breadboard.
- It seems that there is a significant amount of RF AM from the EOM. I suspect it is associated with the residual S-pol and birefringence of the steering mirrors (45deg HR). But the HWP at the output of the Faraday is fixed on the Faraday body with a screw and cumbersome for fine adjustment. A PBS and an HWP are added right before the EOM. This made the fiber coupler slightly misaligned. I suppose this new setup still has S&P on the fiber too. Thus, readjustment of the fiber rotations at the input is necessary.
- Input power to the fiber should be determined before the EOM. Otherwise, touching the HWP before the EOM causes too much power change at the optics of the OMC side.
- Precise adjustment of the RFAM is still necessary.
- The OMC curved mirror should be held by the new fixture.
- Check the beam spots
- Measure cavity parameters. (transmission/FSR/HOM/etc)
==> Then the curved mirror and the PZT will be glued on the prism
Last week, I further worked on the RF system to install 20dB coupler on the agilent unit and setup the R channel. This allowed me to make the FSR/TMS measurement of the OMC.
And today several optical improvement has been done.
- The input/output fiber couplers were adjusted to have the maximum transmission through the PBS right before the OMC.
- The HWP on the output side of the faraday was adjusted to have ~40mW input to the OMC.
Then, the OMC curved mirror is now held by the new in-situ gluing fixture instead of the conventional fixture attached upside down.
The OMC was ocked again and the input alignment was adjutsed. The fixture is blocking the QPD path, so it's not possible to confirm the proper alignment of the cavity (w.r.t. the QPD paths).
The precise positions of the spots could not be confirmed as the battery of the IR viewer was empty. Quick check of the spots by the card tells that the spot on the CM2 (PD side) is slightly too close to FM2 (output coupler). I wonder if this could be solved by rotating the curved mirror.
Otherwise everything look good. Let's try to glue the curved mirror tomorrow.
Note: Spot on CM2 is too close to the edge of the hole on the mounting prism. The meausrementof CM1 is telling that the curverture center is located 2.7mm upper side of the center of the mirror if the HR side arrow is up (and it is the case). If we move the arrow to the QPD path side (90deg CW viewed from the face side), this corresponds to ~1.1mrad CCW tilt in Yaw (viewed from the top of the prism). According to the matrix calculation (T1500060) this will induce ~1.5mm shift of the beam. This should be tried before gluing.
- Replaced the PZT with the one used from the beginning. This must be PZT #21. After the replacement, the spot positions look very good. I even went up. So I decided this is the configuration to proceed to the gluing. The CM1 mirror has the HR arrow at the top.
- The input beam was realigned w.r.t. the OMC.
- Tried to use the IR viewer with the new rechargable battery brought from the 40m. But the view still didn't work. The possibility is a) the viewer is broken b) the battery is empty.
- Tried to use the stainless clean regulartor for the UHP N2. The outlet has a short tube with a different diameter. The O.D. of the old tube is 6.3mm, while the new one is 9.5mm. If I insert the thinner tube in the new tube, it approximately fits. But I don't believe this is the way...
OMC Transmission measurement after the 2nd deep cleaning
The 2nd deep cleaning didn't improve the transmission. (See Attachment 2)
The measured loss was 0.044+/-0.002
Measurement for pitch
Measurement for yaw
The followings are the previous values before the bake
[from this entry]
- After everything was finished, more detailed measurement has been done.
- FSR&TMS (final)
FSR: 264.963MHz => 1.13145m
TMS(V): 58.0177MHz => gamma_V = 0.218966
TMS(H): 58.0857MHz => gamma_H = 0.219221
the 9th modes of the carrier is 10.8~11.7 LW away
the 13th modes of the lower f2 sideband are 7.3~8.6 LW away
the 19th modes of the upper f2 sideband are 2.6~4.5 LW away
- FS base + Mounting Prism
- FS or SF2 1/2" piece + FS or SF2 1/2" piece
- FS? plate + FS or SF2 1/2" piece + FS or SF2 1/2" piece + FS? plate
[Jeff, Yuta, Koji]
Gluing test with UV-cure epoxy Optocast 3553-LV-UTF-HM
- This glue was bought in the end of October (~3.5 months ago).
- The glue was taken out from the freezer at 1:20pm.
- Al sheet was laid on the optical table. We made a boat with Al foil and pour the glue in it (@1:57pm)
- We brought two kinds of Cu wires from the 40m. The thicker one has the diameter of 1.62mm.
The thinner one has the diameter of 0.62mm. We decided to use thinner one being cut into 50mm in length.
- The OMC glass prisms have the footprint of 10mmx20mm = 200mm^2. We tested several combinations
of the substrates. Pairs of mirrors with 1/2" mm in dia. (127mm) and a pair of mirrors with 20mm in dia. (314mm).
- Firstly, a pair of 1/2" mirrors made of SF2 glass was used. A small dub on a thinner Cu wire was deposited on a mirror.
We illuminated the glue for ~10sec. When the surfaces of the pair was matched, the glue did not spread on the entire
surface. The glue was entirely spread once the pressure is applied by a finger. Glue was cured at 2:15pm. 12.873mm
thickness after the gluing.
1. We should be careful not to shine the glue pot by the UV illuminator.
2. The gluing surface should be drag wiped to remove dusts on the surface.
- Secondly, we moved onto 20mm mirror pair taken from the remnant of the previous gluing test by the eLIGO people.
This time about 1.5 times more glue was applied.
- The third trial is to insert small piece of alminum foil to form a wedge. The thickness of the foil is 0.041mm.
The glue was applied to the pair of SF2 mirror (1/2" in dia.). A small dub (~1mm in dia) of the glue was applied.
The glue filled the wedge without any bubble although the glue tried to slide out the foil piece from the wedge.
So the handling was a bit difficult. After the gluing we measured the thickness of the wedge by a micrometer gauge.
The skinny side was 12.837mm, and the thicker side was 12.885mm. This is to be compared with the total thickness
12.823mm before the gluing. The wedge angle is 3.8mrad (0.22deg). The glue dub was applied at 2:43, and the UV
illumination was applied at 2:46.
- At the end we glued a pair of fused silica mirrors. The total thickness before the gluing was 12.658 mm.
The glue was applied at 2:59pm. The thickness after the gluing is 12.663 mm.
This indicates the glue thickess is 5um.
[Koji Lisa Jeff Zach]
Eric G bought a UV power meter from American Ultraviolet.
Our UV illuminator was calibrated by this power meter.
The first blast (i.e. cold start): 3.9W/cm^2
After many blasting: 8.3W/cm^2
The spec is 20W/cm^2
TEST Result: S1500118
- Checked the power supply. All voltages look quiet and stationary.
- Checked the internal RF cables too see if there is any missing shield soldering => Looked fine
- Noticed that the RFAM detector board has +/-21V for the +/-24V lines => It seems that this is nominal according to the schematic
- Noticed that the RFAM detector sensitivity were doubled fomr the other unit.
=> This is reated to the modification (E1500353) of "Controller Board D0900761-B Change 1" (doubling the monitor output gain)
- Noticed that the transfer function of the CTRL signal on the BNC and the DAQ output.
=> This is reated to the modification (E1500353) of "Servo Board D0900847-B Change 1" (servo transfer function chage)
=> The measured transfer function did not agree with the prediction from the circuit constants in this document
=> From the observation of the servo board it was found that R69 was not 200Ohm but 66.5 Ohm (See attachment 1).
This explained the measured transfer function. The actuator TF has: P 2.36, Z 120., K -1@DC (0.020@HF)
- Similarly, the TF between the CTRL port on the unit and the CTRL port on the test rig was also modified.
- The amplitude noise in dBc (SSB) was measured at the output of 27dBm. From the test sheet, the noise level with 13dBm output was also referred. From the coherence of the MON1 and MON2, the noise level was inferred. It suggests that the floor level is better than 180dBc/Hz. However, there is a 1/f like noise below 1k and is dominating the actual noise level of the RF output. Daniel suggested that we should check nonlinear downconversion from the high frequency noise due to the noise attenuator. This will be check with the coming units.
LIGO Document T0900383-v1
3mm Photodiode Characterization for Enhanced LIGO
LIGO Document P1000010-v1
Homodyne detection for laser-interferometric gravitational wave detectors
LIGO Document P1200052-v1
Techniques for Improving the Readout Sensitivity of Gravitational Wave Antennae
Wedge angle test
Result: Wedge angle of Prism A1: 0.497 deg +/- 0.004 deg
o Attach a rail on the optical table. This is the reference of the beam.
o A CCD camera (Wincam D) is used for reading out spot positions along the rail.
o Align a beam path along the rail using the CCD.
o Measure the residual slope of the beam path. (Measurement A)
o Insert an optic under the test. Direct the first surface retroreflectively. (This means the first surface should be the HR side.)
o Measure the slope of the transmitted beam. (Measurement B)
o Deflection angle is derived from the difference between these two measurements.
o An Al plate of 10" width was clamped on the table. Four other clamps are located along the rail to make the CCD positions reproducible.
o A prism (Coating A, SN: A1) is mounted on a prism mount. The first surface is aligned so that the reflected beam matches with the incident beam
with precision of +/-1mm at 1660mm away from the prism surface. ==> precision of +/- 0.6mrad
o In fact, the deflection angle of the transmission is not very sensitive to the alignment of the prism.
The effect of the misalignment on the measurement is negligible.
o Refractive index of Corning 7980 at 1064nm is 1.4496
Z (inch / mm), X (horiz [um] +/-4.7um), Y (vert [um] +/-4.7um)
0” / 0, -481.3, -165.1
1.375" / 34.925, -474.3, -162.8
3" / 76.2, -451.0, -186.0
4.375" / 111.125, -432.5, -181.4
6" / 152.4, -432.5, -181.4
7.375" / 187.325, -330.2, -204.6
9" / 228.6, -376.7, -209.3
With Prism / SN of the optic: A1
Z (inch / mm), X (horiz [um] +/-4.7um), Y (vert [um] +/-4.7um)
0” / 0, -658.3, -156.8
1.375" / 34.925, -744.0, -158.1
3" / 76.2, -930.0, -187.4
4.375" / 111.125, -962.6, -181.4
6" / 152.4, -1190.4, -218.6
7.375" / 187.325, -1250.9, -232.5
9" / 228.6, -1418.3, -232.5
Wedge angle of Prism A1: 0.497 deg +/- 0.004 deg
[Click for a sharper image]
The wedge angle of the prism "A1" was measured with the autocollimator (AC).
The range of the AC is 40 arcmin. This means that the mirror tilt of 40arcmin can be measured with this AC.
This is just barely enough to detect the front side reflection and the back side reflection.
The measured wedge angle of the A1 prism was 0.478 deg.
Ideally a null measurement should be done with a rotation stage.