Brewster calcite PBS (eLIGO Squeezer OFI)

Loss L = 3600 +/- 200ppm
Angular dependence: Attachment 1

In the first run, a sudden rise of the loss by 1% was observed for certain angles. This is a repeatable real loss.
Then the spot position was moved for the second run. This rise seemed disappeared. Is there a defect or a stria in the crystal?

Wave plate (eLIGO Squeezer OFI?)

Loss L = 820 +/- 160ppm
Angular dependence: Attachment 2

Initially I had the similar issue to the one for the brewster calcite PBS. At the 0 angle, the loss was higher than the final number
and high asymmetric loss (~2%) was observed in the negative angle side. I checked the wave plate and found there is some stain
on the coating. By shifting the spot, the loss numbers were significantly improved. I did not try cleaning of the optics.

The number is significantly larger than the one described in T1400274 (100ppm).

Thin Film Polarlizer (aLIGO TFP)

Loss L = 3680 +/- 140ppm @59.75 deg
Angular dependence: Attachment 3

0deg was adjusted by looking at the reflection from the TFP. The optics has marking saying the nominal incident angle is 56deg.
The measurement says the best performance is at 59.75deg, but it has similar loss level between 56~61deg.

Glasgow PBS

It is said by Kate that this PBS was sent from Glasgow.

Loss L = 2500 +/- 600ppm
Angular dependence: Attachment 4

For the Glasgow PBS, the measurement has been repeated with different size of beams.
In each case, the PBS crystal was located at around the waist of the beam.
Otherwise, the measurement has been done with the same way as the previous entries.

Beam radius [um]  Loss [ppm]
 160              5000 +/-  500
 390              2700 +/-  240
1100              5300 +/-  700
1400              2500 +/-  600 (from the previous entry)
2000              4000 +/-  350

The dimensions of a high QE PDs was measured as well as the ones for C30665. (Attachment 4, Unit in mm)
They seemed to be very much compatible.

The PDs came with the designated case (Attachment 1). The bottom of the case has a spongy (presumably conductive) material.

Diodes have no window. Each came with an adhesive seal on it. (Attachment 2)
There is a marking of a serial at the side.

I opened one (Attachment 3). The sensitive area looks just beautiful. The seal was reapplied to avoid possible contamination.

On friday, I removed a glass cover of a G30655 with a PD can cutter.

When a beam shoots a Perkin Elmer/Excelitas PD, we usually observe three reflections.
We always wonder what these are.

When the glass window is illuminated by a beam, I could see two reflections. So they are the front and rear reflection from the glass windows.

Direct comparison of the PD responsibities

We can expect 5% increase of the QE with the new PD.

P-pol 10deg incident

Power meter Ophir RM9C (Systematic error +/-5%)
Vbias = 6V

C30665GH (#07)
Incident: 7.12mW
Reflection: 0.413mW (=> R=5.8%)
PD output: 5.690+/-0.006V
=> Responsibity 0.799+/-0.001 A/W
=> QE = 0.931+/-0.001

HQE PD (A1-23)
Incident: 7.15mW
Reflection: 0.020+/-0.1mW (=> R=0.28%)
PD output: 6.017+/-0.007V
=> Responsibity 0.842+/-0.001 A/W
=> QE = 0.981+/-0.001

Note that there is a 5% systematic error with the power meter.

Calibration of the transimpedance

Use KEITHLEY 2450 as a calibrated current source. Model 2450 has the current source accuracy of 0.020%+1.5uA at 10mA range. For 6mA current output, the error is 3uA (0.05%).

The output of the current amp at 10³ Ohm setting was 6.0023V when -6.000mA current was applied. i.e R_trans = 1000.4 +/- 0.5 Ohm. This is a negligible level.

QE of the diodes (As of 07/30/2016)

Refer E1800372

1. Calum and GariLynn checking the CM1 defect from the front side.
2. Same as above
3. Close up of the defect
4. Using dino-lite microscope to get a close up view of the defect from the front surface.
5. Same as 4
6. Finished for the day and setting up a safefy clamp
7. Finally a tefron cover was attached.

Initial inspection results by Calum, et al.
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-E1600268

D1102211 OMC Diode Mount Glass Block (11pcs) have been given to Calum@Downs

- About 1.5 month ago, an 700mW LWE NPRO has been brought to OMC Lab.

- The SOP can be found here.

- The base was made for the beam elevation of 3" height. Four 1" pedestals were attached to rise the beam elevation to 4".

- The output from the laser is ~740mW

- After the faraday and the BB EOM, the output is ~660mW

- After the usual struggle, the beam was coupled to the SM fiber. The output is 540mW. The coupling efficiency is >80%.

- Will proceed to the OMC cavity alignment.

FIber Input Mount 132deg
Fiber output mount 275deg
-> 525mW P: 517mW S: 8mW extinction ratio: 0.016

Working on the SN002 OMC fix. Checked the inventory. I think I am using C8 mirror as the new temporary CM1 and PZT24 as the new temporary CM2.

[Alena, Koji]

Jun 21: Alena and Koji worked on gluing of the CM1 mirror on the OMC breadboard #002. This is an irregular procedure. Usually, the PZT mirror subassembly is prepared before the mounting prism is glued on the breadboard. In this occasion, however, a PZT and a mirror are bonded on an existing prism because only the damaged mirror and still functional PZT were debonded from the mouting prism.

For this purpose, the mirror and the PZT were fixed on the mounting prism with the modified fixture set (D1600338). The original PZT was reused, and the new mirror #8 was used. The alignment of the mirror was checked OK using the cavity beam before any glue was applied. The arrow of the CM mirror is facing up.

We mixed 8g EP30-2 (it was almost like 3~4 pushes) and 0.4g glass sphere bond lining. Along with EP30-2 procedure, the bond was mixed in an Al pot and tested with 200degF (~93degC) preheated the oven for 15min. The cured bond showed perfect dryness and crispness. The bond was painted on the PZT and the PZT was placed on the fixture. Then more bond was painted on the other side of the PZT. The mirror was placed in the fixture. The spring-loaded front plate was fixed, and the breadboard was left for a day. (Attachment 1~3)

Jun 22: The fixture was removed without causing any visible delamination or void. The attachment 4~6 show how wet the joint is (before baking). There were some excess of EP30-2, which bonded the fixture and the mounting prism as usual. The fixture was detached by prying the front piece against the rear piece with a thin allen key. Some of the excess bond on the mounting prism was removed by scratching.

The alignment of the cavity was checked with the cavity beam and it is still fine.

More photos can be found here: Link to Google Photos Album "OMC #002 Repair - CM1 gluing"

I wondered why the black glass beam dumps looked not as shiny as before. It was in fact a layer of dusts (or contaminants) accumulated on the surface.
The top part of the internal surface of the black glass was touched by a piece of lens tissue with IPA. The outer surface was already cleaned. IPA did not work well i.e. Required multiple times of wiping. I tried FirstContact on one of the outer surface and it efficiently worked. So I think the internal surfaces need to be cleaned with FC.

[Alena, Koji]

Report of the work on June 30.

1. Cleaning of the black glass beam dumps

As reported in the previous entry, the beam dumps on the OMC breadboard exhibited accumulation of dusts or contaminants on the black glass surfaces. We worried about transfer of the dusts over a period or of the contaminant during baking. It was already known that the contaminants are persistent and not easy to remove only by drag wiping with IPA. So Alena brought a set fo tools to try. Here is the procedure described.

- Inventory (Attachment 1): A small glass beaker, TX715 Alpha® Sampling Swab, plastic brushes, syringes with pure IPA, inspection flash light, Vectra IPA soaked wipes

- Apply clean IPA on a brush. Some IPA should be removed by the IPA soaked wipe so as not to splash IPA everywhere. Rub a glass surface with the brush while the surface is inspected by the flash light. The strokes migrate the contaminants to the direction of wiping. So the brush should be moved outward. This does some cleaning, but it is not enough to remove smudges on the surface. Occasionally clean the brush with IPA poured in the small beaker.

- Apply clean IPA on a swab. Rub the surface with the swab outward. This removes most of the visible smudges.

We decided not to apply FirstContact on the beam dumps at this occasion. In any case, we need to apply FC on all the optical surfaces after the baking. We judged that the current cleanliness level of the beam dump does not affect the over all contamination of the OMC considering the FC application after the baking.

2. Gluing of the reinforcement Al bars on the delaminated Invar mounting brackets
One of the mounting bracket (=invar shim) on the top side (= suspension I/F side) showed the sign of delamination (Attachment 3). This invar is the one at the beam entrance side (Attachment 2).

EP30-2 was mixed as usual: 6g of EP30-2 was mixed with 0.3g glass sphere. The glue was tested with a cooking oven and the result was perfect. The glue was applied to two Al bars and the bars were attached on the long sides of the invar shim with the beveled corner down (to avoid stepping on the existing original epoxy) (Attachments 4, 5). The photo quality by my phone was not great. I will take better photos with a better camera next week.

Glue condition was checked on Monday Jul 3rd. It was all good. New photos were taken. OMC #002 Repair - Gluing of reinforcement AL bars

POSTED to 40m ELOG

2nd optical test http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/13725

The 3IFO EOM test performed at the 40m. Result: 40m ELOG 13819

Qs' were estimated with a lorentzian function (eye fit)

Current LHO EOM (final version, modulation depth measurement 2018/4/5)
f0=9.1MHz, Q=18
f0=45.38MHz, Q=46
f0=118.05MHz, Q=30

Prev LHO EOM (RF transmission measurement 2018/4/13)
f0=9.14MHz, Q=53
f0=24.25MHz, Q=55
f0=45.565MHz, Q=62;

3IFO EOM (RF transmission measurement 2018/4/23)
f0=8.627MHz, Q=53
f0=24.075MHz, Q=60
f0=43.5MHz, Q=65

3IFO EOM dark microscope images courtesy by GariLynn and Rich

Attachment1/2: Hole #1
Attachment3/4: Hole #2
Attachment5: Hole #2

[Koji Gautam]


With Gautam's help, I ran a coating design code for an HR mirror with the standard quarter-wave design. The design used here has 17 pairs of lambda/4 layers of SiO₂ and Ta₂O₅ (=34 layers) with the fused silica as the substrate to realize the transmission of tens of ppm. At the AOI (angle of incidence) of 4 deg (=nominal angle for the aLIGO OMC), there is no significant change in the reflectivity (transmissivity). With 95% of the case, the phase difference at the AOI of 4 deg is smaller than 0.02 deg for given 1% fluctuation (normal distribution) of the layer design and the refractive indeces of the materials. Considering the number of the OMC mirrors (i.e. 4), the total phase shift between P and S pols is less than 0.08 deg. This makes P and S resonances matched well within 1/10 of the cavity resonant width (360/F=0.9deg, F: Finesse=400).

Of course, we don't know how much layer-thickness fluctuation we actually have. Therefore, we should check the actual cavity resonance center of the OMC cavity for the polarizations.

Attachment 1 shows the complex reflectivity of the mirror for P and S pols between AOIs of 0 deg and 45 deg. Below 30 deg there is no significant difference. (We need to look at the transmission and the phase difference)

Attachment 2 shows the power transmissivity of the mirror for P and S pols between AOIs of 0 deg and 45 deg. For the purpose to check the robustness of the reflectivity, random fluctuations (normal distribution, sigma = 1%) were applied to the thicknesses of each layer, and the refractive indices of Silica and Tantala. The blue and red bands show the regions that the 90% of the samples fell in for P and S pols, respectively. There are median curves on the plot, but they are not well visible as they match with the ideal case. This figure indicates that the model coating well represents the mirror with the transmissivity better than 70ppm.

Attachment 3 shows the phase difference of the mirror complex reflectivity for P and S pols between AOIs of 0deg and 45deg. In the ideal case, the phase difference at the AOI of 4deg is 1x10^-5 deg. The Monte-Carlo test shows that the range of the phase for 90% of the case fell into the range between 5x10^-4 deg and 0.02 deg. The median was turned to be 5x10^-3 deg.

Attachment 4 shows the histogram of the phase difference at the AOI of 4deg. The phase difference tends to concentrate at the side of the smaller angle.

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:

• I considered the polarization-separated OMC in several configurations. I have plots of DARM referred noise (measured free-running and controlled noise for the current OMC, thermal theoretical noise curve, scattered light) for the case of such an OMC with one lambda/2 waveplate oriented at 45 degrees. This is the base case.
• I also considered such an OMC with a lambda/2 both before and after the OMC, where their respective polarization axes can be arbitrary (I look at parameter space near the previous case's values).
  • I optimize the BHD angle to balance the homodyne (minimize the E_LO^2 term in the homodyne readout).
  • I then optimize the rotations of the lambda/2 polarization axes to minimize the noise
  • For the optimum that is closest to the base case, I also plotted DARM referred length noise.

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. 

OMC SN002 = Former LHO OMC which CM1 was destroyed by the lock loss pulse in 2016. This OMC needs to be optically tested before storage.

The test items:

• [done] FSR measurement with offset PDH locking (FM->AM conversion)
• [done] FSR/finesse measurement with the EOM RFAM injection
• [done] TMS measurement with input miaslignment and the trans RFPD misalignment: with no PZT offset
• [done] TMS measurement with input miaslignment and the trans RFPD misalignment: with PZT offsets
   
• PZT response
• Mirror cleaning
• Power budget
• Diode alignment: shim height
• PD/QPD alignment

As OMC SN002 already has the PZTs connected to the Mighty-Mouse connector, a test cable with a female mighty-mouse connector was made.

A small imperfection: When the cable was inserted to the connector shell, I forgot to mirror the pin out. Therefore the color and pin number do not match.

Mode cleaning capability of an optical fiber was measured. The conclusion is that the leakage of the non-fiber mode to the fiber output is insignificant and also practically negligible.

The tested fiber was Thorlabs 5-m Polarization Maintaining Single-Mode fiber (P3-1064PM-FC-5, PM Patch Cable, PANDA, 1064 nm, FC/APC, 5m).

The output mode cleaner was used as a mode analyzer. The fiber input was aligned and the misaligned so that the amount of higher order mode for the fiber is changed. The fiber output has been mode matched to an output mode cleaner. Therefore excess mode mismatch when the fiber input was misaligned, was accounted as the leakage higher order mode.

For each alignment state, the OMC transmission (in V), the OMC reflection (in V), and the OMC reflection with the OMC unlocked were measured. The voltages were measured with a digital multimeter (non-portable unit). With the fiber input beam aligned to the fiber, the fiber input and output powers were measured with a power meter.

With the input beam aligned
- Fiber input: 52.5 +/- 0.2 [mW]
- Fiber output: 35.5 +/- 0.2 [mW] (~68% coupling)
- Reflection PD offset: -0.00677 +/- 0.00001 [V]

- Refl PD reading with the OMC unlocked: 6.32 +/- 0.01 [V]
- Refl PD reading with the OMC locked: 0.133 +/- 0.002 [V]
- OMC Trans PD with the OMC locked: -1.72 +/- 0.01 [V] 

With the input beam misaligned
- Refl PD reading with the OMC unlocked: 3.63 +/- 0.01 [V]
- Refl PD reading with the OMC locked: 0.0752 +/- 0.001 [V]
- OMC Trans PD with the OMC locked: -1.00 +/- 0.01 [V] 

The naive mode matching was 0.9779 +/- 0.0003 and 0.9775 +/- 0.0003 without and with misalignment. We initially had roughly 17mW of non-fiber mode incident. And it was increased by roughly 15mW. For the misaligned case, the amount of the OMC-matched carrier was also reduced due to the misalignment. So the actual fiber mode cleaning effect needs more careful quantitative analysis.

The power budget at each part of the setup was modeled as shown in Attachment 1. The blue numbers are the measured values.
The factor a is the ratio of the leakage non-fiber mode into the fiber transmission.
The factor (1-b) is the mode matching of the fiber mode into the OMC mode.

and

With the calibration between the refl PD and the power meter measurement,
 

The solution of the equations is

So, the leakage of the non-fiber mode to the fiber output is insignificant. Moreover, the number is practically negligible because the mismatching between the fiber and OMC modes is of the order of percent and dominated by the aberration of the collimator (i.e. the OMC reflection looks like concentric higher-order LG modes) with the order of 1~2%.
 

Each peak of the transfer function measurement was fitted again with a complex function:

OMC (001)
History: Measurement date 2013/5/31, Installed to L1 2013/6/10~

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

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

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

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???

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).

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

[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.

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)

D1200105 SN006 was selected as the breadboard for OMC(004).
The reason is the best parallelism among the unused ones.

The attached is the excerpt from T1500060 with the #006 highlighted.

We are going to use B6 for the DCPD BS (BS2), and B1 for the QPD BS (BS3). Their role can not be swapped.

B6 has the best loss among the available ones, while the perpendicularity is not so critical due to the short arm.

B1 has the OK perpendicularity, while the loss is also moderately good.

The attachment is the excerpt from T1500060 with some highlighting.

We are going to use E6, E9, E11, and E14 for BS1, SM1, SM2, and SM3. They (and E18) are all very similar.

The attachment is the excerpt from T1500060 with some highlighting

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). 

[Joe, Koji, Liyuan, Philip, Stephen]
Work done on 16.04.2019

Finishing assembly of transport box
Assembly worked fine except for the clamping structure to clamp the lid of the transport box to the bottom part.
It seemed that some of the plastic of these clamps became brittle during the baking. The plastic was removed and the
clamps where wiped clean. It appears that the clamps can't be locked as they should. Still the transport box should be fine
as the long screws will mainly clamp the two parts together.

Preparing the transport box to mount the breadboard
The lid of the the transport box was placed upside down and clamped to the table. All peak clamping structures where pulled back as far as possible.

Preparation and cleaning of the breadboard
We unpacked the breadboard and found lots of dust particles on it (most likely from the soft paper cover which was used). We used the ionized nitrogen gun
at 25 psi to get rid of the majority of particles and cross-checked with a bright green flash light before and after blowing. The second stage of cleaning was done
below the clean room tent and included the wiping of all surfaces. The breadboard was then placed into the prepared lid of the transport box and clamped with peak
screws.

Unpacking of the template
The previously cleaned template was unpacked while the last layer of coverage was removed below the cleanroom tent.

Template adjustment on the breadboard
All peak screws of the clamping structure of the template where removed. The template was placed onto the breadboard only seperated by peak spacers.
All peak screws have been inserted for horizontal clapming. A calipper was used to measure the distance of each edge of the template to the edge of the
breadboard. For documentation the labeled side of the bradboard (facing away from the persons on the pictures) of the upside down breadboard is defined to 
be the south side, continuing clockwise with west, north and east. First rough alignment was done by shifting the template on the breadboard and then the 
peak screws where used for fine tuning. The caliper values measured where:
North   C 8.32mm     E 8.52 mm     W 8.41 mm
East     C 8.08 mm
South   C 8.32 mm
West    C 8.02 mm
(E indicating east side position, W indicating west side position and C indicating center position)

[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. 

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.

 

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.

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)

[Koji,Philip, Liyuan, Joe]

CM1:

We moved the curved mirrors to these positions:

inner = 0.807mm

outer = 0.983 mm

CM2:

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:

• turning anti clockwise on the fibre coupler and misalign the diode, we measured the modespacing.
• returned the alignment for the photodiode, and realign fibre couple.
• miss align the photodiode horizontally, and then used fibre coupler to maximise the peak higher order mode peak height. We then used the PD again to make the peak height bigger.
•  

[koji,philip,joe,liyuan,stephen]

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

• pre-cured = 47mV
• cured = 55 mV

so it looks ok still.

[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?

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.

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.

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)

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.

Notes on the OMC cavity alignment strategy

- x3=1.17 γ + 1.40 δ, x4=1.40 γ + 1.17 δ
- This means that the effect of the two curved mirrors (i.e. gouy phases) are very similar. To move x3 and x4 in common is easy, but to do differentially is not simple.
- 1div of a micrometer is 10um. This corresponds to the angular motion of 0.5mrad (10e-6/20e-3 = 5e-4). ~0.5mm spot motion.
- ~10um displacement of the mirror longitudinal position has infinitesimal effect on the FSR. Just use either micrometer (-x side).
- 1div of micrometer motion is just barely small enough to keep the cavity flashing. => Easier alignment recovery. Larger step causes longer time for the alignment recovery due to the loss of the flashes.

- After micrometer action, the first move should be done by the bottom mirror of the periscope. And this is the correct direction for beam walking.

- If x3 should be moved more than x4, use CM2, and vise versa.
- If you want to move x3 to +x and keep x4 at a certain place, 1) Move CM2 in (+). This moves x3 and x4 but x3>x4. 2) Compensate x4 by turning CM1 in (-). This returnes x4 to the original position (approximately), but leave x3 still moved. Remember the increment is <1div of a micrometer and everytime the cavity alignment is lost, recover it before loosing the flashes.