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

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

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



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

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



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



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

The items:

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

- Retroreflector (corner cube)

- Two V grooves borrowed from the 40m

Procedure:

- Autocollimator calibration

o Install the AC on a optical table

o Locate the corner cube in front of the AC.

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

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

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

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

o Repeat the process until total four coordinates are obtained.

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

- Wedge angle measurement

To be continued

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

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

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

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

Method:

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

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

Measurement:

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

Analysis:

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

Measurement:

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

Analysis:

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

 [Jeff, Yuta, Koji]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Measurement:

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

Analysis:

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

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

More information about the power-dependent visibility measurement:

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

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

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

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

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

Now, the traces

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the sweep measurement:

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

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

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

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

Diode testing

o Purpose of the measurement

- Test Si QPDs (C30845EH) for ISC QPDs Qty 30 (i.e. 120 elements)

- Test InGaAs PDs (C30665GH) for OMC Qty 10 (i.e. 10 elements)

o Measurement Kit

- Inherited from Frank.

- Has relays in it.

- D0 and D1 switches the measurement instrument connected to an element

- D2 and D3 switches the element of the QPDs

- Digital switch summary

d0 d1 0 0 - ln preamp
d0 d1 1 0 - dark c
d0 d1 0 1 - omc preamp
d0 d1 1 1 - impedance

d2 d3 0 0 - A x x x
d2 d3 1 0 - C x o x
d2 d3 0 1 - B o x o
d2 d3 1 1 - D o o o

- The universal board in the box is currently configured for C30845.
  Pin1 - Elem A. Pin3 - B, Pin7 - C, Pin9 - D, Pin 12 - Case&Bias

o Labview interface

- Controls NI-USB-6009 USB DAQ interface and Agilent 82357B USB-GPIB interface

o Dark current measurement

- Borrowed Peter's source meter KEITHLEY 2635A

- For C30845GH the maxmum reverse bias is set to -20V. This drops the voltage of the each element to the bias voltage.

o Spectrum measurement

- The elements are connected to FEMTO LN current amp DLPCA-200.

- Bias voltage is set to +10V. This lifts up the outside of the amplifier input to +10V.

o Impedance measurement

- Agilent 4395A at PSL lab with impedance measurement kit

- For C30845GH the maxmum reverse bias is set to -15V. This drops the voltage of the each element to the bias voltage.

- Calibration: open - unplug the diode from the socket, short - use a piece of resister lead, 50Ohm - a thin metal resister 51Ohm

- Freq range: 30-50MHz where the response of the cables in the setup is mostly flat.

- Labview VI is configured to read the equivalent circuit parameters in the configuration "D" (series LCR).

- Labview fails to read the series resistance. This was solved by first read the equiv circuit param and then read it with Sim F-CHRST.
  F-CHRST does nothing on the parameters so the second request successfully acquires the first ones.

- For the dark noise measurement, the lid of the die-cast case should also contact to the box for better shielding. This made the 60Hz lines almost completely removed, although unknown 1kHz harmonics remains.

- The precise impedance of the setup can not be obtained from the measurement box; the cable in between is too long. The diode impedance should be measured with the impedance measurement kit.

- With the impedance measurement kit, the bias voltage of +5V should be used, in stead of -5V.

- diode characteristics measured at 10-100MHz

- Typical impedance characteristics of the diodes

Excelitas (Perkin-Elmer) C30665GH Rs=9Ohm, Cd=220pF, L=0~1nH (Vr=5V)

Excelitas (Perkin-Elmer) C30642G Rs=12Ohm, Cd=100pF, L=~5nH (Vr=5V) longer thin wire in a can?

Excelitas (Perkin-Elmer) C30641GH Rs=8Ohm, Cd=26pF, L=12nH (Vr=5V) leg inductance? (leg ~30mm)

- PD serial

C30665GH, Ls ~ 1nH

  1 - 0782 from PK, Rs=8.3Ohm, Cd=219.9pF
  2 - 1139 from PK, Rs=9.9Ohm, Cd=214.3pF
  3 - 0793 from PK, Rs=8.5Ohm, Cd=212.8pF
  4 - 0732 from PK, Rs=7.4Ohm, Cd=214.1pF
  5 - 0791 from PK, Rs=8.4Ohm, Cd=209.9pF
  6 - 0792 from PK, Rs=8.0Ohm, Cd=219.0pF
  7 - 0787 from PK, Rs=9.0Ohm, Cd=197.1pF
  8 - 0790 from PK, Rs=8.4Ohm, Cd=213.1pF
  9 - 0781 from PK, Rs=8.2Ohm, Cd=216.9pF
10 - 0784 from PK, Rs=8.2Ohm, Cd=220.0pF
11 - 1213 from the 40m, Rs=10.0Ohm, Cd=212.9pF
12 - 1208 from the 40m, Rs=9.9Ohm, Cd=216.8pF
13 - 1209 from the 40m, Rs=10.0Ohm, Cd=217.5pF

C30642G, Ls ~ 12nH

20 - 2484 from the 40m EG&G, Rs=12.0Ohm, Cd=99.1pF
21 - 2487 from the 40m EG&G, Rs=14.2Ohm, Cd=109.1pF
22 - 2475 from the 40m EG&G glass crack, Rs=13.5Ohm, Cd=91.6pF
23 - 6367 from the 40m ?, Rs=9.99Ohm, Cd=134.7pF
24 - 1559 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer GH, Rs=8.37Ohm, Cd=94.5pF
25 - 1564 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer GH, Rs=7.73Ohm, Cd=94.5pF
26 - 1565 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer GH, Rs=8.22Ohm, Cd=95.6pF
27 - 1566 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer GH, Rs=8.25Ohm, Cd=94.9pF
28 - 1568 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer GH, Rs=7.83Ohm, Cd=94.9pF
29 - 1575 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer GH, Rs=8.32Ohm, Cd=100.5pF

C30641GH, Perkin Elmer, Ls ~ 12nH

30 - 8983 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.19Ohm, Cd=25.8pF
31 - 8984 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.39Ohm, Cd=25.7pF
32 - 8985 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.60Ohm, Cd=25.2pF
33 - 8996 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.02Ohm, Cd=25.7pF
34 - 8997 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.35Ohm, Cd=25.8pF
35 - 8998 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer, Rs=7.89Ohm, Cd=25.5pF
36 - 9000 from the 40m Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.17Ohm, Cd=25.7pF

Note:
  1mm Au wire with dia. 10um -> 1nH, 0.3 Ohm
20mm BeCu wire with dia. 460um -> 18nH, 0.01 Ohm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quantum efficiencies of the C30665GH diodes were measured. 

- The diode was biased by the FEMTO preamplifier.

- Diode Pin 1 Signal, Pin 2 +5V, Pin 3 open

- Preamp gain 10^3 V/A

- Beam power was measured by the thorlabs power meter.

PD #1
Incident: 12.82 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.161 +/- 0.0005 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.404 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.168 mW

PD #2
Incident: 12.73 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.457 +/- 0.0005 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.364 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 0.937 mW

PD #3
Incident: 12.67 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.1139 +/- 0.01 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.383 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.272 mW

PD #4
Incident: 12.71 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.3065 +/- 0.0005 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.393 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.033 mW

PD #5
Incident: 12.69 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.1071 +/- 0.005 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.401 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.183 mW

PD #6
Incident: 12.65 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.0310 +/- 0.01 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.395 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.306 mW

PD #7
Incident: 12.67 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.0590 +/- 0.0005 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.411 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.376 mW

PD #8
Incident: 12.63 +/- 0.01 mW
Vout: 9.0790 +/- 0.0005 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.420 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.295 mW

PD #9
Incident: 12.67 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.2075 +/- 0.0005 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.384 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.091 mW

PD #10
Incident: 12.70 +/- 0.01 mW
Vout: 9.0880 +/- 0.001 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.414 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.304 mW

PD #11
Incident: 12.64 +/- 0.01 mW
Vout: 9.2861 +/- 0.0005 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.416 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.152 mW

PD #12
Incident: 12.68 +/- 0.02 mW
Vout: 9.3650 +/- 0.001 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.419 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.057 mW

PD #13
Incident: 12.89 +/- 0.01 mW
Vout: 9.3861 +/- 0.001 V
PD Reflection (Prompt): 0.410 mW
PD Reflection (Total): 1.047 mW

PD serial number
 1 - 0782
 2 - 1139
 3 - 0793
 4 - 0732
 5 - 0791
 6 - 0792
 7 - 0787
 8 - 0790
 9 - 0781
10 - 0784
11 - 1213
12 - 1208
13 - 1209

{
  {1, 12.82, 9.161, 0.404, 1.168},
  {2, 12.73 , 9.457, 0.364 , 0.937} ,
  {3, 12.67 , 9.1139, 0.383 , 1.272 },
  {4, 12.71 , 9.3065, 0.393 , 1.033 },
  {5, 12.69, 9.1071, 0.401 , 1.183 },
  {6, 12.65, 9.0310, 0.395 , 1.306} ,
  {7, 12.67, 9.0590, 0.411 , 1.376} ,
  {8, 12.63 , 9.0790, 0.420 , 1.295} ,
  {9, 12.67 , 9.2075, 0.384 , 1.091} ,
  {10, 12.70, 9.0880, 0.414 , 1.304 },
  {11, 12.64 , 9.2861, 0.416 , 1.152} ,
  {12, 12.68 , 9.3650, 0.419 , 1.057} ,
  {13, 12.89 , 9.3861, 0.410 , 1.047}
};

We want to make sure the responses of the PZT actuator does not change after the EP30-2 gluing.

A shadow sensor set up was quickly set-up at the fiber output. It turned out the ring PZTs are something really not-so-straightforward.
If the PZT was free or just was loosely attached on a plane by double-sided tape, the actuation response was quite low (30% of the spec).
After some struggle, I reached the conclusion that the PZT deformation is not pure longitudinal but some 3-dimensional, and you need to
use a "sandwitch" with two flat surfaces with some pressue.

I turned the setup for horizontal scans to the vertical one, and put the PZT between quarter-inch spacers.
Then two more spacers are placed on the stack so that the weight applies the vertical pressure on the PZT.
This is also use ful to adjust the height of the shadow.

The calibration plot is attached. It gives us ~21k V/m.
Voltage swing of 150V results the output voltage change of ~50mV.  This is pretty close to what is expected from the spec (16nm/V).
The PZT#3 (which had the mirror glued on) showed significantly large response.

Test PZT #1: 17.4nm/V
Test PZT #2: 17.2nm/V
Test PZT #3: 30.6nm/V
UHV PZT #24: 17.6nm/V

These numbers will be checked after the heat cure of EP30-2

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

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

[Zach, Koji]

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

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

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

  The offset of the power meter was -0.58uW

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

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

 cf. The specification is 7931ppm

We attached fused silica windows on the test PZTs. http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/OMC_Lab/93

The glued assemblies were brought to Bob's bake lab for the heat cure. There they are exposed to 94degC heat for two hours (excluding ramp up/down time).

After the heat cure, we made the visual inspection.
The photos are available here.

Pre-bake
Test PZT #1: 17.4nm/V
Test PZT #2: 17.2nm/V
Test PZT #3: 30.6nm/V

Post-bake
Test PZT #1: 27.2 nm/V
Test PZT #2: 26.9 nm/V
Test PZT #3: 21.4 nm/V

Measurement precision is ~+/-20%
Spec is 14nm/V

More Ts of the mirrors were measured.

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

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

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

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

Test result of the PZTs by Valera and Ryan

PZT  Length Angle
 #   [nm/V] [urad/um]
 11  14.5   17.6
 12  13.8   17.8
 13  11.2   25.0
 14  14.5    6.6
 15  12.5   10.6

 21  14.5    9.7
 22  13.8   28.8
 23  14.5    6.8  ==> Assembly #2
 24  18.5   51.7  ==> Used for prototyping
 25  17.1   13.8
 26  14.5    6.6  ==> Assembly #1

[Zach Koji]

The first attempt not to touch the curved mirrors did not work. (Not surprising)
The eigenmode is not found on the mirror surface.

We decided to touch the micrometers and immediately found the resonance.
Then the cavity alignment was optimized by the input steering mirrors.

We got the cavity length L and f_TMS/f_FSR (say gamma, = gouy phase / (2 pi) ) as
    L=1.1347 m        (1.132m nominal)
    gamma_V = 0.219176    (0.21879 nominal)
    gamma_H = 0.219418    (0.21939 nominal)

This was already sufficiently good:
- the 9th modes of the carrier is away from the resonance 10-11 times
  of the line width (LW)
- the 13th modes of the lower f2 sideband are 9-10 LW away
But
- the 19th modes of the upper f2 sideband are 1-3 LW away
  This seems to be the most dangerous ones.
and
- The beam spots on the curved mirrors are too marginal

So we decided to shorten the cavity round-trip 2.7mm (= 0.675mm for each micrometer)
and also use the curved mirrors to move the eigenmode toward the center of the curved mirrors.

After the movement the new cavity length was 1.13209 m.
The spot positions on the curved mirrors are ~1mm too close to the outside of the cavity.
So we shortened the outer micrometers by 8um (0.8 div).
This made the spot positions perfect. We took the photos of the spots with a IR sensor card.

The measured cavity geometry is (no data electrically recorded)
    L=1.13207 m        (1.132m nominal, FSR 264.8175MHz)
    gamma_V = 0.218547    (0.21879 nominal, 57.8750MHz)
    gamma_H = 0.219066    (0.21939 nominal, 58.0125MHz)
- the 9th modes of the carrier is 11-13 LW away
- the 13th modes of the lower f2 sideband are 5-8 LW away
- the 19th modes of the upper f2 sideband are 4-8 LW away

The raw transmission is 94.4%. If we subtract the sidebands and
the junk light contribution, the estimated transmission is 97.6%.

Note:
Even if a mirror is touched (i.e. misaligned), we can recover the good alignment by pushing the mirror
onto the fixture. The fixture works pretty well!
 

T&Rs of the B mirrors and some of the E mirrors are measured.

I found that these BSs have high loss (1%~3%) . As this loss will impact the performance of the squeezer
we should pick the best ones for the DCPD path. B5, B6, and B12 seems the best ones.

Mirror | P_Incident   P_Trans     P_Refl      | T             R             loss          |
       | [mW]         [mW]        [mW]        |                                           |
-------+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
B1     | 13.80+/-0.05 7.10+/-0.05 6.30+/-0.05 | 0.514+/-0.004 0.457+/-0.004 0.029+/-0.005 |
B2     | 14.10+/-0.05 6.50+/-0.05 7.15+/-0.05 | 0.461+/-0.004 0.507+/-0.004 0.032+/-0.005 |
B3     | 13.87+/-0.05 7.05+/-0.05 6.55+/-0.05 | 0.508+/-0.004 0.472+/-0.004 0.019+/-0.005 |
B4     | 13.85+/-0.05 6.78+/-0.05 6.70+/-0.05 | 0.490+/-0.004 0.484+/-0.004 0.027+/-0.005 |
B5     | 13.65+/-0.05 6.93+/-0.05 6.67+/-0.05 | 0.508+/-0.004 0.489+/-0.004 0.004+/-0.005 |
B6     | 13.75+/-0.05 6.70+/-0.05 6.92+/-0.05 | 0.487+/-0.004 0.503+/-0.004 0.009+/-0.005 |
B7     | 13.83+/-0.05 7.00+/-0.05 6.60+/-0.05 | 0.506+/-0.004 0.477+/-0.004 0.017+/-0.005 |
B8     | 13.90+/-0.05 6.95+/-0.05 6.68+/-0.05 | 0.500+/-0.004 0.481+/-0.004 0.019+/-0.005 |
B9     | 13.84+/-0.05 6.95+/-0.05 6.70+/-0.05 | 0.502+/-0.004 0.484+/-0.004 0.014+/-0.005 |
B10    | 13.97+/-0.05 6.98+/-0.05 6.72+/-0.05 | 0.500+/-0.004 0.481+/-0.004 0.019+/-0.005 |
B11    | 13.90+/-0.05 7.05+/-0.05 6.70+/-0.05 | 0.507+/-0.004 0.482+/-0.004 0.011+/-0.005 |
B12    | 13.90+/-0.05 6.98+/-0.05 6.78+/-0.05 | 0.502+/-0.004 0.488+/-0.004 0.010+/-0.005 |
-------+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

Mirror | P_Incident   P_Trans         P_Refl       | T            R             loss          |
       | [mW]         [uW]            [mW]         | [ppm]                                    |
-------+-------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------+
E4     | 13.65+/-0.05 0.0915+/-0.0005 13.50+/-0.05 | 6703+/-44ppm 0.989+/-0.005 0.004+/-0.005 |
E12    | 13.75+/-0.05 0.0978+/-0.0005 13.65+/-0.05 | 7113+/-45    0.993+/-0.005 0.000+/-0.005 |
E16    | 13.90+/-0.05 0.0975+/-0.0005 13.30+/-0.05 | 7014+/-44    0.957+/-0.005 0.036+/-0.005 |
-------+-------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------+

Since the previous measurement showed too high loss, the optical setup was checked.
It seemed that a PBS right before the T&R measurement setup was creating a lot of scattering (halo) visible with a sensor card.

This PBS was placed to confirm the output polarization from the fiber, so it was ok to remove it.

After the removal, the R&T measurement was redone.
This time the loss distributed from 0.2% to 0.8% except for the one with 1.3%. Basically 0.25% is the quantization unit due to the lack of resolution.

At least B7, B10, B12 seems the good candidate for the DCPD BS.

The AR reflection was also measured. There was a strong halo from the main reflection with an iris and sense the power at ~.5mm distance to separate the AR reflection from anything else. Now they are all somewhat realistic. I'll elog the measurement tonight.

33.6 +/- 0.2 uW out of 39.10+/-0.05 mW was observed. The offset was -0.236uW.
This gives us the AR reflectivity of 865+/-5ppm . This meets the spec R<0.1%

Mirror | P_Incident   P_Trans      P_Refl       | T             R             loss          |
       | [mW]         [mW]         [mW]         |                                           |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B1     | 39.10+/-0.05 19.65+/-0.05 19.25+/-0.05 | 0.503+/-0.001 0.492+/-0.001 0.005+/-0.002 |
B2     | 39.80+/-0.05 19.90+/-0.05 19.70+/-0.05 | 0.500+/-0.001 0.495+/-0.001 0.005+/-0.002 |
B4     | 39.50+/-0.05 19.70+/-0.05 19.30+/-0.05 | 0.499+/-0.001 0.489+/-0.001 0.013+/-0.002 |
B5     | 39.50+/-0.05 19.70+/-0.05 19.50+/-0.05 | 0.499+/-0.001 0.494+/-0.001 0.008+/-0.002 |
B6     | 39.55+/-0.05 19.50+/-0.05 19.95+/-0.05 | 0.493+/-0.001 0.504+/-0.001 0.003+/-0.002 |
B7     | 40.10+/-0.05 19.80+/-0.05 20.20+/-0.05 | 0.494+/-0.001 0.504+/-0.001 0.002+/-0.002 |
B8     | 40.15+/-0.05 19.80+/-0.05 20.20+/-0.05 | 0.493+/-0.001 0.503+/-0.001 0.004+/-0.002 |
B9     | 40.10+/-0.05 19.90+/-0.05 19.90+/-0.05 | 0.496+/-0.001 0.496+/-0.001 0.008+/-0.002 |
B10    | 40.10+/-0.05 19.70+/-0.05 20.30+/-0.05 | 0.491+/-0.001 0.506+/-0.001 0.002+/-0.002 |
B11    | 40.20+/-0.05 19.80+/-0.05 20.20+/-0.05 | 0.493+/-0.001 0.502+/-0.001 0.005+/-0.002 |
B12    | 40.20+/-0.05 19.90+/-0.05 20.20+/-0.05 | 0.495+/-0.001 0.502+/-0.001 0.002+/-0.002 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
 

[Koji / Jeff]

This is the elog about the work on May 9th.

We made two glass brackets glue on the junk 2" mirrors with the UV glue a while ago when we used the UV bonding last time.

On May 7th:

We applied EP30-2 to the glass brackets and glued invar shims on them. These test pieces were left untouched for the night
and brought to Bob for heat curing at 94degC for two hours.

On May 9th:

We received the test pieces from Bob.

First, a DCPD mount was attached on one of the test pieces. The fasteners were screwed at the torque of 4 inch lb.
It looked very sturdy and Jeff applied lateral force to break it. It got broken at once side of the bracket.

We also attached the DCPD mount to the other piece. This time we heard cracking sound at 2 inch lb.
We found that the bracket got cracked at around the holes. As the glass is not directly stressed by the screws
we don't understand the mechanism of the failure.

After talking to PeterF and Dennis, we decided to continue to follow the original plan: glue the invar shims to the brackets.

We need to limit the fastening torque to 2 inch lb.

Measurement for pitch

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

 D1300507

This is the analysis of the cavity finesse data taken on  Apr/13/2013 (before baking), May/30/2013 (after baking), and Jun/02/2013 (after cleaning).
If we believe this result, baking contaminated the cavity, and the first contact removed it. That agrees with the power measurement of the transmitted light.

Analysis of the PZT scan / TF data taken on May 31st and Jun 1st.

[DC scan]

Each PZT was shaken with 10Vpp 1Hz triangular voltage to the thorlabs amp.
The amp gain was x15. Abut 4 TEM00 peaks were seen on a sweep between 0 and 10V.

The input voltage where the peaks were seen was marked. Each peak was mapped on the
corresponding fringe among four. Then the each slope (up and down) was fitted by a iiner slope.
Of course, the PZTs show hystersis. Therefore the result is only an approximation.

PZT1: PZT #26, Mirror C6 (CM1)
PZT2: PZT #23, Mirror C5 (CM2)

PZT arrangement [ELOG Entry]

PZT1:
Ramp Up        13.21nm/V
Ramp Down   13.25nm/V
Ramp Up        13.23nm/V
Ramp Down   13.29nm/V

=> 13.24+/-0.02 nm/V

PZT2:
Ramp Up        13.27nm/V
Ramp Down   12.94nm/V
Ramp Up        12.67nm/V
Ramp Down   12.82nm/V

=> 12.9+/-0.1 nm/V

[AC scan]

The OMC cavity was locked with the fast laser actuation. Each PZT was shaken with a FFT analyzer for transfer function measurments.
(No bias voltage was given)

The displacement data was readout from the laser fast feedback. Since the UGF of the control was above 30kHz, the data was
valid at least up to 30kHz. The over all calibration of the each curve was adjusted so that it agrees with the DC response of the PZTs (as shown above).

The response is pretty similar for these two PZTs. The first series resonance is seen at 10kHz. It is fairly high Q (~30).

Alignment of the H1 OMC cavity mirrors

- The cavity mirrors as well as the first steering mirror were aligned on the cavity side template.

- The locking of the cavity was not so stable as before. Some high freq (several hundreds Hz) disturbance makes the cavity
  deviate from the linear range. This can be mitigated by turning off the HEPA units but this is not an ideal condition.

- FSR and TMS were measured.

FSR: 264.305MHz
TMS(V): 58.057MHz
TMS(H): 58.275MHz

These suggest the cavity length L and f_TMS/f_FSR (say gamma, = gouy phase / (2 pi) ) as
L=1.1343 m        (1.132m nominal)
gamma_V = 0.219659    (0.21879 nominal)
gamma_H = 0.220484    (0.21939 nominal)

- the 9th modes of the carrier is away from the resonance 6-9 times of the line width (LW)
- the 13th modes of the lower f2 sideband are 11-15 LW away
- the 19th modes of the upper f2 sideband are 0.6-7 LW away

We still need precise adjustment of the gouy phase / cavity length, this was enough for the gluing of the flat mirrors

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.

Cavity parameter was measured with 50V bias on PZT1 (CM1)

- PZT combination was changed: PZT1 #21 (PZT ASSY#6) / PZT2 #25 (PZT ASSY #4)

- 19th HOMs of the USB makes accidental resonance with the nominal cavity length.
  Because of the mirror astigmatism, HOMs spreads more than the design.
  In order to avoid these modes, the cavity length had to be moved from the nominal value (1.134m).

- The clearance between the fixture and the prism was limited. This prevents to shorten the cav length.
  The cavity length was made longer about 10mm.

-----

Cavity parameter obtained from the pitch misalignment

Free Spectral Range (FSR): 261.777947 +/− 0.000299 MHz
Cavity roundtrip length: 1.145217 +/− 0.000001 m
Lock offset: 1.636183 +/− 0.238442 kHz
Transverse mode spacing (TMS): 57.581950 +/− 0.000163 MHz
TMS/FSR: 0.219965 +/− 0.000001
Cavity pole (1st order modes, avg and stddev): 353.465396 +/− 0.657630 kHz
Finesse (1st order modes, avg and stddev): 370.302940 +/− 0.688585

Carrier 9th-order HOM: -8.1 line width away
Upper Sideband 13th-order HOM: 13.3 LW away
Lower Sideband 19th-order HOM: 2.2 LW away

-----

Cavity parameter obtained from the pitch misalignment

Free Spectral Range (FSR): 261.777106 +/− 0.000226 MHz
Cavity roundtrip length: 1.145220 +/− 0.000001 m
Lock offset: 0.215937 +/− 0.183434 kHz
Transverse mode spacing (TMS): 57.875622 +/− 0.000116 MHz
TMS/FSR: 0.221087 +/− 0.000000
Cavity pole (1st order modes, avg and stddev): 356.862001 +/− 0.448102 kHz
Finesse (1st order modes, avg and stddev): 366.776766 +/− 0.460598

Carrier 9th-order HOM: -4.1 line width away
Upper Sideband 13th-order HOM: 19.1 LW away
Lower Sideband 19th-order HOM: 10.8 LW away

-----

We could avoid hitting the 19th modes of the 45MHz sidebands.

First accidental hit is the 28th order modes of the lower sideband.

Red: Carrier
Blue: Upper sideband (45MHz)
Green: Lower sideband (45MHz)

Beam heights on the diodes

DCPD1: 14.459mm -> With 1.5mm shim, the beam will be 0.038mm too low.

DCPD2: 14.221mm -> With 1.25mm shim, the beam will be 0.026mm too low.

QPD1: 14.691mm -> With 1.75mm shim, the beam will be 0.056mm too low.

QPD2: 14.379mm -> With 1.5mm shim, the beam will be 0.118mm too low.

Since the middle of September, the optical tests of H1 OMC were took place.
Here is summary of the progress.

TEST1: FSR/FINESSE measurement before applying First Contact
TEST2: Power budget

MIrror cleaning with First Contact

TEST3: FSR/FINESSE measurement after First Contact application
TEST4: Power budget

TEST5: N/A

TEST6: HOM measurement @PZT V=0
TEST7: HOM measurement @PZT V=0-200

TEST8: DC response of the PZT
TEST9: AC response of the PZT

TEST10: PD/QPD alignment / output check

LHO OMC power budget

1) Deburr the bottom surfaces of the QPD housings

2) Aligned the QPDs

QPD#              QPD1       QPD2
Housing#          #004       #008
Diode#            #44        #46
Shim              1.75mm 001 1.25mm 001
-------------------------------------
Power Incident    125.7 uW  126.4 uW
Sum Out            80.1 mV   78.9 mV
Vertical Out      + 3.4 mV    0   mV
Horizontal Out    -23.7 mV  -26   mV
SEG1              -15.6 mV  -13.2 mV
SEG2              -13.1 mV  -13.3 mV
SEG3              -29.0 mV  -26.4 mV
SEG4              -23.2 mV  -26.3 mV
-------------------------------------
Spot position X   -13   um  - 0.8 um  (positive = more power on SEG1 and SEG4)
Spot position Y   +93   um +107   um  (positive = more power on SEG3 and SEG4)
-------------------------------------
Responsivity[A/W] 0.64      0.62
Q.E.              0.74      0.73
-------------------------------------

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

 shim 1.5mm 001/002

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

Spot positions were inferred from the photos

Data analysis of the FSR/TSM measruement last week.

1. FSR was measured with "the golden arches" technique.

FSR = 263.0686 MHz +/- 900Hz

Lcav = 1.1396 m --> 7.6 mm too long! (nominal 1.132m)

2. Transverse mode spacings for the vertical and horizontal modes were measured.

TMS/FSR = 0.219366 (V) / 0.220230 (H) (Predicted value with the current cavity length 0.2196/0.2202 very close!)

We want to make this to be ~0.219 (~3% less)

With the current parameters, the 19th-order lower sideband make the coincident resonance.

1. FSR was adjusted and measured with "the golden arches" technique again.

FSR = 264.8412 MHz +/- 1400Hz => Lcav = 1.13197 m. (nominal 1.132m)

2. Transverse mode spacings for the vertical and horizontal modes were measured.

TMS/FSR = 0.218144 (V) / 0.219748 (H)

This is almost perfect!

The 19th-order lower sideband hit the resonance. Next step is to glue some of the flat mirrors.

BS1/FM1/FM2 for I1OMC were glued.

FM1 had to be intentionally rotated.
FM1 had to be intentionally shifted to avoid scattering spot.

Pin: 36.3 / Ptrans: 33.7 = Raw transmission 92.8%
Vunlock = 6.30 / Vlock = 0.120

Mode matching (estim) 0.98
Loss per mirror 84ppm
Cavity transmission 0.947

ummm

Tomorrow:
- Transmission needs to be optimized
- Apply 50V to a PZT
- Cavity FSR/HOM should be optimized
- gluing

Put a cover
Return power meter / DC supply

I1OMC cavity mirrors were glued.

FSR = 264.82MHz => Lcav = 1.132m (nominal 1.132m)

TMS/FSR for Vpzt1=Vpzt2=0: 0.2185 (V) and 0.2196 (H) (nominal 0.219)

aLIGO OMC: Power Budget 2014/5/16

<<<Measured Values>>>
Input Power: 35.7 [mW]
Transmitted Power through FM2: 33.5 [mW]
Transmitted Power through CM1: 0.188 [mW]
Transmitted Power through CM2: 0.192 [mW]
Reflection PD DC output (Unlocked): 6.2 [V]
Reflection PD DC output (Locked): 0.096 [V]
Reflection PD DC output (Dark Offset): -0.00745 [V]
Assumed cavity finesse : 400.

<<<Results>>>
Input Power: 35.7 [mW]
Uncoupled light Power (Junk light + sidebands): 0.575698 [mW]
Input TEM00 Carrier Power: 35.1243 [mW]  (Ratio: 0.983874)
Cavity reflectivity (in power): 548.319 ppm
Cavity transmission (in power): 0.953756
Loss per mirror: 70.1183 ppm
FM1 power transmission: 7640.17 ppm
FM2 power transmission: 7640.17 ppm
CM1 power transmission: 43.2093 ppm
CM2 power transmission: 44.1337 ppm

3rd OMC power budget (2014/7/2)

Input power: 34.8mW

REFLPD dark offset:  -7.57mV
REFLPD unlocked: 6.22 V
REFLPD locked: 110mV

Transmitted Power: 16.8mW (T) and 15.9mW (R)
CM1 transmission: 0.176mW
CM2 transmission: 0.181mW

Cavity Finesse: 399.73

Junk light: 0.64mW (out of 34.8mW)
Coupled beam: 34.16 mW (out of 34.8mW)
Mode Matching: 0.982
Cavity reflectivity: 467ppm
Loss per mirror in ppm: 63.8ppm
Cavity transmission (for TEM00 carrier): 0.957

FM1: R = 0.992277, T = 7659.46
FM2: R = 0.992277, T = 7659.46
CM1: R = 0.999895, T = 41.5461
CM2: R = 0.999893, T = 42.7309

Compare the above number with the best result obtained during the alignment trials

Input power: 34.4mW

REFLPD dark offset:  -7.5mV
REFLPD unlocked: 5.99 V
REFLPD locked: 104mV

Transmitted Power: Total 32.7mW (T+R)
CM1 transmission: 0.194mW
CM2 transmission: 0.194mW

Cavity Finesse: 400

Junk light: 0.631mW (out of 34.4mW)
Coupled beam: 33.77 mW (out of 34.4mW)
Mode Matching: 0.982
Cavity reflectivity: 255ppm
Loss per mirror in ppm: 39.7ppm
Cavity transmission (for TEM00 carrier): 0.968

Cavity FSR/TMS measurement (2014/7/5) with PZT voltages swept from 0V to 200V (50V step)

3rd OMC, HOM diagram at PZT1=0V and PZT2=50V.

First coincidence with the carrier is the 32nd-order carrier mode. Very good.

Each PZT was swept with 0-150V 11Hz triangular wave.
Time series data for 0.2sec was recorded for each PZT.

The swept voltage at the resonances were extracted and the fringe number was counted.
Some hysteresis is seen as usual.

The upward/downward slopes are fitted by a linear line.

The average displacement is 11.3nm/V for PZT1 and 12.7nm/V.

The PZT response was measured with a FFT analyzer. The DC calibration was adjusted by the above numbers.

QPD#              QPD1       QPD2
Housing#          #006       #007
Diode#            #50        #51
Shim              1.25mm 03  1.25mm 02   (1.25mm = D1201467-10)
-------------------------------------
Power Incident    123.1-13.0 uW  124.5-8.0 uW
Sum Out            77.0 mV   82.5 mV
Vertical Out      -24.0 mV  - 8.8 mV
Horizontal Out      4.2 mV    9.0 mV
SEG1              -11.6 mV  -16.0 mV
SEG2              -12.6 mV  -18.0 mV
SEG3              -25.2 mV  -24.4 mV
SEG4              -21.4 mV  -21.4 mV
-------------------------------------
Spot position X   -21   um  -19   um  (positive = more power on SEG1 and SEG4)
Spot position Y   +102  um  +47   um  (positive = more power on SEG3 and SEG4)
-------------------------------------
Responsivity[A/W] 0.70      0.71
Q.E.              0.82      0.83
-------------------------------------

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

DCPD#             DCPD1      DCPD2
Housing#          #009       #010
Diode#            #07        #10
Shim              1.00mm 01  1.00mm 02   (1.00mm = D1201467-09)
-------------------------------------
Power Incident     11.1 mW   10.6 mW
Vout                7.65 V    7.33 V
Responsivity[A/W]   0.69      0.69
Q.E.                0.80      0.81
-------------------------------------
photo              2nd        1st

PD alignment confirmation