Ch1 = 3 Vpp offset from a SRS function generator C2:OMS-SUS_TOP1_OUT_2048
Ch2 = 50 Ohms C2:OMS-SUS_TOP2_OUT_2048
Ch6 = ISS SENSE PD DC output C2:OMS-SUS_SIDE_OUT_2048
- Redo the FE diagram to get rid of OMC SUS and make a PSL diagram.
- Get the trending working right.
- Up the FE sample rate to 32768 Hz
A 121307 161942 0100 0.3 000000 0.5 000000 TMP 000680 R/H 000130 LOC 000000 C/S 000E54
A 121307 164641 0100 0.3 000000 0.5 000000 TMP 000680 R/H 000130 LOC 000000 C/S 000E53
A 121307 171340 0100 0.3 000000 0.5 000000 TMP 000685 R/H 000130 LOC 000000 C/S 000E52
A 121307 174039 0100 0.3 000000 0.5 000000 TMP 000680 R/H 000200 LOC 000000 C/S 000E53
A 121307 180738 0100 0.3 000000 0.5 000000 TMP 000680 R/H 000210 LOC 000000 C/S 000E57
A 121307 183437 0100 0.3 000000 0.5 000000 TMP 000680 R/H 000210 LOC 000000 C/S 000E56
A 121307 190136 0100 0.3 000000 0.5 000000 TMP 000680 R/H 000195 LOC 000000 C/S 000E5C
A 121307 192835 0100 0.3 000000 0.5 000000 TMP 000685 R/H 000195 LOC 000000 C/S 000E69
% Polarizer calibration / Rana's lab
% Tobin Fricke 2007-10-26
% Experimental setup:
% +-------+ |
% | Laser |-------|lambda/2|----|PBS|----[Power Meter]
This post will host plots and trends from this radiative cooling run (QIL/2704).
Preliminarily, it looks like the reconfiguration to remove a hardware mistake or two led to a healthier run. The comparison below clarifies the two runs:
Run ended with cryocooler shutdown at 12:27 pm (actual duration just under 92 hours). System will warm up with pumps on for the rest of the break, unless I am inspired to come in and run one of the next intended runs discussed in QIL/2704. I did not run any heat input test for this data set, as I am not planning to come in frequently enough to monitor the heating safely.
Attachment 1 compares QIL/2704 (solid) to QIL/2702 (dashed). As expected, the outer shield temperature from the latter run stays warm since the conductive short was resolved. Due to the reduction of the inner shield's thermal load, the inner shield is able to cool faster and plateau at a colder temperature. As Stephen pointed out, however, the test mass is not cooled as efficiently compared to when the outer shield was conductively cooled.
Attachment 2 is a current model diagram of the various components being considered, and their thermal couplings. Attachment 3 plots the fitted model (dashed) over the temperature data (solid). The fit parameters were the following emissivities: aluminum foil, rough aluminum, and aquadag. Notes from the fit:
1. With the conductive shorting of the outer shield resolved, the model (which considers only radiative cooling of the OS) is well fit to the OS temperature data.
2. The inner shield model is missing some key term(s) affecting its time constant and steady state temperature.
3. The above error propagates to the test mass model (I believe).
Given these caveats, the fit results are as follows: aquadag e = 0.92, Al foil e = 0.04, rough Al e = 0.19. These all initially seem reasonable, and I'm happy to see that the aquadag emissivity is higher than previously estimated.
1. Separate the cold plate from the inner shield, and model their conductive and radiative link. Also model the radiative link between the cold plate and the test mass.
2. Cover the test mass in foil (to best of our ability) to refine the radiative link between the test mass and inner shield. Doing so will mean both elements have the same emissivity, so there is only one unknown parameter.