The plastic containments along the south and north walls of B111B (the GQuEST cleanroom lab) have been taken down, which suggests repair efforts ('remediation') on those walls is complete.
I noticed some fine white dust (plaster?) on the floor near these walls. This suggests the work produced dust, which was hopefully contained within the plastic containments. Wet cleaning the floor before we recommission the lab to clear this dust and other dirt would be good.
Particle counts near the cavities are all 0s.
[Alex, Daniel]
I tried to make the stainless steel bushing today with some improved G-Code and methods from this.
According to FS Wizard, I should use a spindle speed between 991 and 1322 rpm and a feed rate 4.73 and 6 in/min, depending on the radius of the cut. I ended up using a spindle speed of 830 rpm and a feed rate of 5 in/min, with a finish feed rate of 2.5 in/min. I took 10 thou (0.01") per cut; I could be more aggresive here but it would not save very much time considering how long everything else takes.
The program ran well and the diameter matched the existing bushing to within 1 thou. There may have been some bumps, so lowering the lead-in feed rate would be appropriate.
The program did take off some of the inside instead of letting the drill do all of it, leaving a nub, so used what I thought was a spot drill but what was a tailstock support. The drilling (at 640 rpm), partially because of this issue and partially because the drill got way too hot, did not go very well. The diameter was around 0.244" at the start of the part and down to 0.237" at the end of the part. The drill bit may be damaged.
Chamfering/countersinking (at 120 rpm) was "too easy" and I took a bit too much material, but this is a mostly cosmetic concern.
Tapping the part was very exhausting. There are 100 threads per inch (tpi), meaning Alex and I would have to do hundreds of total turns to tap the part while breaking the chips. I eventually had to redrill the part.because of the reduced diamter issue. I was able to tap the part almost to completion, leaving only a few threads left on the tap before the part.
The parting operation (at 170 rpm) went very well. I used a pencil-like tool to catch the part so that it didn't fall, of course ensuring this tool did not extend too deeply as to be cut. I could potentially go even slower with the spindle next time.
The parting operation did leave some material, so I clamped the 0.374" diameter portion and took off the material with the carbide insert and faced off the surface. The 1/4-100 screw we had did not go into the hole all the way or the "back way" at all. I tried to clean up the thread from the back outside of the lathe, but this ended up ruining the thread.
Things to change for next time:
Drill better, potentially in the Haas VF-2 CNC Mill. This mill will allow for constant pressure and more importantly, a ton of coolant direclty on the part and drill bit
Tap the part from the "back side" so that we are tapping a thru hole. I don't know why I think to do this today.
Instead of using a tap, I could use a thread mill. A thread mill that can make a 0.7" deep, 1/4-100 thread does not seem to exist.
Another option is to have someone, like Thorlabs, 3D Hubs, or Xometry make the part. Newport will not make this part. Some people in Nick Hutzler's group recommend silver (or gold) plating.
Another note: we also are considering making this part out of copper. Copper is difficult to work with as it is gummy and it will be weak in the end, considering how little material makes up the threads.
It seems that Alex has it handled, but I want to jot down some notes for next time for making custom parts to hold stainless steel screws in vacuum at cryogenic temperatures (and be held by stainless steel):
Copper 101, while it has a similar thermal contraction to stainless, is probably too weak to make good threads, especially for a 1/4-100 tap.
It's probably best to then use stainless steel. To avoid seizing, the parts should be made of nitronic 60 or coated, maybe in silver, gold, or nickel. Alternatively, a lubricant like Krytox LVP (what Siskiyou uses for UHV mirror mounts) or Aerodag (Nick Hutzler has used it in similar applications). I don't know about the performance of Krytox LVP when it gets cold. I asked.
The office space HVAC systems remain aggressively blowing air. I have one facilities request on record, and in addition have brought it up with some of the rennovation/facilities folks. The temperature is consistently below the setpoint, and the airflow is always high, causing a loud noise and windy conditions in the office.
[Alex, Daniel]
I got two aluminum KF50 Centering Rings from Nick Hutzler's group and machined them in the lathe to remove one of their lips so that they can hold a PCB that interfaces with the inside and outside of the Dewer. I clamped them on the outside lip with a 6 jaw chuck. I used a moderate amount of clamping force (~90 degrees of rotation with the chuck key) to hold them. I slowly increased the spindle speed to ensure the rings wouldn't fly off; I used a final spindle speed of 1700 rpm, which is pretty standard for aluminum and a carbide tool. I kept the x-axis of the lathe at around 1.93" and slowly moved the tool in the z-axis to remove the lip. I needed to take off 0.080" of material. For the last few thousands of an inch, I moved the tool in the x-axis instead of the z-axis. I then used a deburring tool by hand to remove any burrs from machining. I could not see any markings from the clamping jaws.
Tomorrow, I will clean and start to bake out these centering rings.
We cleaned the centering rings with the normal aluminum procedure of successive 3 minute baths and scrubs of 1:30 Simple Green:DI water, DI water, and isopropanol. We put it in the vacuum oven to bake out at 120° for 48 hours since we don't know the alloy of aluminum.
I turned off the vacuum pump and closed the valve to the vacuum pump around noon today. According to the vacuum oven, the bakeout lasted 49-50 hours. We can store these parts under vacuum unitl we need them or the vacuum oven.
I machined 3 more aluminum KF50 centering rings exactly like I did the first 2.
We moved the two cleaned centering rings out of the oven and put them in UHV foil and an antistatic bag. We repeated the cleaning process for the three dirty rings and are baking them out.
I turned off the vacuum pump and closed the valve to the vacuum pump
I mostly assembled an 80-20 Structural Framing Structure to support the vacuum chambers of the Laser Filter Cavity. I still need to glue the rubber to the metal and place the structure.
I have moved all of our code which was previously hosted on Ian's gitlab and on my github to the Gquest lab-utils repository
Both auxillary remote repositories have been deleted for sanity.
Nick Hutzler and Eric Hudson proposed that conversion of 775 nm light into 1550 nm photons in our last output filter cavity would pose a problem on our SNSPD since we are shining 2*10^14 photons/second within the cavity and trying to keep this noise source to ~10^-4 Hz to be safe, 18 orders of magnitude of isolation. I propose the following rough model for the number of photons incident on the SNSPD from conversion of 775 nm light to 1550 nm photons.
\[ \dot{N}_{\text{formerly 775nm light on SNSPD}} = \int_0^\infty d\lambda \frac{\lambda}{hc} F(\lambda) P_{\text{775 nm light}} M \big[\text{Absorb}_{\text{HR Coating}} \cdot C(\lambda; \text{HR coating} ; \text{775 nm}) + \text{Trans}_{\text{HR Coating}} \cdot \text{Absorb}_{\text{Mirror Substrate}} \cdot C(\lambda; \text{Mirror Substrate} ; \text{775 nm}) \big] \]
Here, \lambda is wavelength, h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, F(\lambda) is the filter in wavelength in front of the SNSPD, P is intercavity power, M is the mode matching between the converted light and the fiber to the SNSPD, Absorb is the fractional power absorbed, Trans is the fractional power transmitted, and C is the fractional power distribution over wavelength of emitted light from a given power absorbed. Its integral over wavelength is unitless and should integrate to less than or equal to 1 by energy conservation.
We can assign some numbers:
\lambda = 1550 nm; P = 5 mW, Absorb_{HR Coating} = 10^-5, Trans_{HR Coating} = 10^-6, Absorb_{Mirror Substrate} = 10^-3. For florescence, we can roughly model M as a fraction of the area of the fiberoptic cable over the surface of the sphere the fiber's distance from the mirror
\[ M \approx \frac{\pi~(100~\mu\text{m})^2}{4\pi~(0.2~\text{m})^2} \]
M is more complicated than this and maybe much more complicated for 2nd order Raman scattering, another process.
We can assume F(\lambda) is a bandpass filter around 1550 nm with a width of 3 nm and assume C is constant in this range. Given the very small fraction of power transmitted by the HR coating and absorbed by the substrate and that half of the HR coating is also made of SiO2, we can ignore the substrate's contribution. We then get that
\[ \dot{N}_{\text{formerly 775nm light on SNSPD}} = 24 kHz \cdot 3~\text{nm} \cdot C(1550~\text{nm}; \text{HR coating} ; \text{775 nm}) \]
To meet our 10^-4 Hz "requirement", less than 4 parts in 10^9 of the absorbed power on the HR coating can be emmited in this 3 nm range about 1550 nm. This feels a bit marginal.
Raman scattering involves the exchange of energy between the photon and the material, so I imagine light is preferentially scattered away from its incident angle. This would help us if the 775 nm and 1550 nm intercavity beams are co-circulating in the same direction. If the beams were circulating in opposite directions, I am not sure of the effects.
In ACME (see figures 4.2, 4.6, and appendix C), a 1 W excitation laser at 1090 nm was used and around 15 * 10^4 photons/s were observed in a 10 nm wide band around 690 nm. This photon level was not attenuated by adding additional filters, making it seem like this light was indeed around 690 nm. Factoring in a 10% light collection and 10% quantum efficiency of the ACME photodetector, Nick estimates 10^7 photons/s are generated in this band by the 1090 nm laser. In Nick's thesis (section A.2.2), they assume 4% of the light is assumed by the ITO coating.
Making the big assumption that the density of photons converted into different wavelengths is the same from this process as ours (even though we are looking at a wavelength increase), this would yield C to be 10^-11 /nm. This would make this noise source subdominant, giving an photon rate of 10^-7 Hz. Nevertheless, there are a lot of assumptions that go into this estimate.
Instead of the mode matching M, we should do a cooperativity (which I will still call M for consistency). We couple the outgoing cavity mode to the fiber, so this approach looking back at the cavity should be equivalent. Perhaps we now need to consider all 4 mirrors, but we don't have the precision to be concerned with factors of 4.
The cavity cooperativity is equal to the following according to Lee:
\[ M = \frac{\frac{\pi}{2}\theta_{\text{div}}^2}{4\pi} \]
Where \theta_div is the beam divergence angle. The beam grows around 1 mm in size over half the cavity's length, so \theta_div ≈ 1 mm/1 m ≈ 10^-3.
This gives M = 10^-7, which is miraculously only a factor of 2 larger than my previous work, rendering the above work unchanged (within our level of precision)
[Alex, Lee, Daniel]
Alex and I cut some rails to make twelve 50 cm long pieces for Lee. We initially used the horizontal saw which was working well and made clean cuts, but eventually the saw grabbed a rail because we couldn't clamp the part very well. We then used a circular saw. The circular saw left a worse finish and more burrs. We used the belt sander, a file, and a deburring tool to clean up the cut end of the rails. They are now in B108.
[Alex, Daniel]
A bushing for a Newport 100 thread per inch (tpi) AJS screw is made of brass and therefore cannot be used to hold (and be held by) stainless steel because it thermally contracts when the dewer cools down (this part will be around 40 K). This has been experimentally seen by Alex. Instead of brass, Alex and I think we should use a 304 stainless steel or copper 101. The advantage to using stainless steel for the bushing is the identical thermal contraction to parts around it. Stainless steel 304 is cheap and fairly easy to machine compared to other alloys. The disadvantage of stainless steel is cold/vacuum welding to the surrounding parts, so copper is a good alternative with a nearly identical thermal contraction. Copper contracts 0.322% from room temperature to 40 K compared to stainless steel's 0.296%; brass is 0.380%. Beryllium copper contracts at 0.315% but is much more expensive than (nearly) pure copper, so we chose copper. All data from here, appendix A6.4
To test the fit and the G-Code, I made the bushing out of aluminum, except the threads because we are waiting on the tap. I also used a slightly oversized drill because we are waiting on the correct drill size. Attached are the SolidWorks CAD/CAM file and G-Code file.
The part I made looks good. I tweaked the G-Code from what I ran to what is attached to account for some issues with the cut and changing the material. Changing the material may require me to change the spindle speed, cutter feed rate, and depth of cut.
Alex has also enquired about Thorlabs or Newport making the bushing, but I doubt it would be quick and affordable.
[Alex, Daniel]
I cleaned the bushing and we tested its fit. The bushing does not fit, I think because I calibrated the lathe diameter incorrectly. The diameter to be clamped is 0.381" instead of 0.374". For the real part, I will be sure to check the diameter before the parting operation.
According to Newport, "The AJS100-0.5 uses 303 stainless steel, and the 9066-xy-m-v stage uses 440 and 420 stainless steel." Hopefully this is different enough to prevent cold vacuum welding to out 304 bushing.
After measuring the Thorlabs power supply I wanted to test some of the other supplies we have laying around, to get an idea of what is normal.
I measured the 15V supplies from amazon we previously purchased and found they had about a volt of ripple, at a frequency of 78 kilohertz.
[Everyone]
In order for the drywall to be accessed due to the flooding, we moved equipment out of B111B and B111D into B111A or into the middle of B111B. Some electronics equipment in B111D was moved North and away from the walls. The vacuum equipment in the white cabinets in B111B was moved into the North area of B111A. Much of the other equipment along the walls in B111B was moved into the middle.
[Torrey, Jeff, Daniel]
We moved the Thorlabs ULN15TK and TeraXion Seeder Lasers into the Thorlabs RBX32 19" Electronics Rack. We connected SMA Cables from the lasers to the RBX-SMA. We need another SMA cable (like this), and could use 3 more because the cables we got were a bit long.
We connected the fiber outputs from the seeders to a ADAFCB4 mating sleeve. We need a Fiber 50:50 Beam Splitter on the mating sleeve output and a Faraday Isolator on the TeraXion ouput before the mating sleeve. Torrey purchased both of these.
See attached photo.
We hope to get and install these parts before turning on the lasers after the lab is fixed from the flooding.
We had some trouble shutting the rack. We had to push in some buttons and fins on the rails. The buttons, which probably should be pushed in first, are on the outside. The fins are on the inside of the rails.
[Jeff, Daniel]
We added a 10" to 4.5" CF Zero Length Reducer Flange to what will be the south side of the Laser Filter Cavity (LFC) Input Vacuum Cube. We did a bit of cleaning of the cube face before placing the flange and gasket. We moved a 10" to 2.75" CF Zero Length Reducer Flange from the LFC Cube to the input side of the Demonstrator Interferometer (IFO), also after some cleaning of the cube face. We initially hand tightened the screws when the flange wasn't properly seated, but we loosened the screws to properly place the flange. I tightened the top and side of the LFC Vacuum Cube to 13.6 Nm twice and the IFO Vacuum Cube to 13.6 Nm once. I will finish tightening these 3 flanges later.
I tightened these flanges. The top flange of the LFC input vacuum cube, which used holes that Ian and I tapped, only required 27 Nm and fewer turns than usual. I think this is because I am lightly tapping the threads in other cases. The other two flanges required 34 Nm. Like in other cases, these two flanges are not flush around the entire cube.
Torrey asks here whether the Output Filter Cavity Offset Frequency can fluctuate from the Nominal Value of 17.6 MHz. If we assume 4 cavities have the same single cavity bandwidth of \Delta epsilon_1 and the same frequency offset, then the integrated transmission is around \Delta epsilon_1 / 2 (see section A.9 in our GQuEST paper). If we assume that 3 cavities have the same frequency offset and assume an allowable additional 5% signal transmission loss due to this mechanism, then the frequency can shift 16% of the bandwidth away from the nominal offset.
I derived this by integrating 4 Lorentizans, once with all 4 with the same offset and once with one with a deviated offset. I then figure out the deviation required so that the transmitted bandwidth is 95% of the no deviation case. For our bandwidth of 42 kHz, this is a value of 6.6 kHz.
If this single cavity had a fluctuating offset, then the RMS discrepancy between this cavity could probably be \sqrt{2} larger because it spends time near no offset deviation. I am assuming there are no dynamic effects of changing the offset when the round trip time in the cavity times the frequency fluctuation is much less than 1, which is the case becuase t_cav*f_bandwidth = 1/2pi.
If I make an assumption that at any given time the 4 cavities are randomly distributed, let's say "equally spaced" on a gaussian with z-scores of -0.84, -0.25, 0.25, and 0.84 (the integral from one value to the next, including +/- infinity, is 0.2), then the 1 sigma error for 95% transmission is 11% of the bandwidth away from the nominal offset, or 4.6 kHz. This is only a rough estimate and more sophisticated methods should be used if we want a more exact answer, but a good sanity check is that it is below the 1 cavity answer.
One should note for this model that I'm assuming some delta f_RMS since this is a noise issue, not a static frequency alignment issue. In terms of converting this frequency to a length requirement, we use
\[ \frac{L_{\text{cav}}}{f_{\text{Laser}}} = \frac{l_{\text{RMS}}}{f_{\text{RMS}}} \]
\[ l_{\text{RMS}} = f_{\text{RMS}} \frac{L_{\text{cav}}\lambda_{\text{Laser}}}{c} \]
L_cav = 2.4 m, \lambda_Laser = 1550*10^-9 m, and c is the speed of light. Plugging in f_RMS = ~5 kHz, we get l_RMS = 6*10^-11 m = 0.06 nm = 0.6 Å. This is an order of magnitude smaller than wavelength over the Finesse of the cavity (F = 3000), which is 0.5 nm = 5 Å.