[Torrey, Jeff]
After the conclusion of the drywall repairs, we turned back on the lab electronics. We
Before turning on the lasers we:
We then tested the power output of both lasers on each end of the 50:50 beamsplitter in the drawer.
input to amplifier | pickoff path | |
Thorlabs | 22.8mW | 23.6mW |
Teraxion | 18.5mW | 19.6mW |
These power levels are satisfactory, each laser can meet the laser amplifier's power threshold.
We then turned on the laser amplifier and measured 460mW after the faraday isolator on the power distribution sled.
We added YOLINK water leak sensors (YS7903-UC) around the lab. There are four in total, and they are set up in different locations. They operate via Bluetooth and communicate with a hub in the control room over the desks. The hub's location is shown in water_leak_sen_hub_location.png. The hub is connected to a port that is not attached to the lab's subnet on a specially reserved Ethernet port (033-01-03 port 1). Each sensor is placed on the ground in a (hopefully) out-of-the-way location.
I made a map (water_leak_sensor_map.pdf) of the water leak sensors' positions. The first sensor is placed where the water came in last time along the south wall of the GQuEST lab (B111B). The second one is under the optics table by the laser. Since this is the low point of the room, which I know from the flood, water from any entry point should eventually reach that point. It is also near the laser's power source, which should not get wet. The third is under the windows of the EE shop (B111D). If water comes in those windows, we want to know. The fourth is in the pump room (B111C) on the south wall. This is the most likely to flood since it is the room with all the water attachments. There is a drain in the pump room, but if water reaches the sensor, which is at a high part of the room, it will leak through the wall to the main lab. I labeled all of the sensors with "Moisture Sensor " and their number. (I include this mainly so that it comes up when someone searches the log for exactly what is on the sensors)
Number | Serial Number | Location | Image |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 1BA4B3FC15 | B111B: south wall by curtain and cabinet | sensor 1 location |
2 | 10D6047333 | B111B: under the optical table by laser | sensor 2 location |
3 | BF6C9630BE | B111D: mid west wall under solder station | sensor 3 location |
4 | 3F0C4FB2B6 | B111C: south wall right of Sumitomo F-20 | sensor 4 location |
The RbQ lab (B111A) does not have sensors. It hasn't shown any signs of flooding, but we should get an extra one for it. I chose the locations for the sensors so I could move one to the RbQ lab if we decide we want one there without buying an extra one.
There are plans to create an alert system that notify the whole lab via email and a few people over text. They want to set up a special email list for it. I have floated the idea of adding a piece of code that will trigger a Mattermost alert in the alarms channel.
[Torrey, Daniel]
We put the Faraday Isolator and the 50:50 fiber beam splitter in the 3D printed holders I made and put them in the 19" electronics rack box. We attached the cables together, so now the inside of the rack box is completed. Now we need to mount the rack box into the rack space under the seeder and connect the electronics and fibers.
Jeff and I installed the seeder in the rack below the tables. Note that whoever made this rack did not uniformly space the screw holes. The seeder box is as close as it can be to the amplifier due to the first couple sets of holes being incompatible. We plugged the laser's DC power supply into the delay 1 slot on the furman. We also plugged in the amplifier input fiber to the output of the 50:50 BS, and the laser pick off (pre amplifier) into the other port of the 50:50 BS. We put the fibers above the amplifier so that when the seeder rack is pulled out nothing gets pulled. The other end of the laser pick off is currently mounted here.
While we were rooting around underneath the tables, I noticed the amplifier interlock bypass was unplugged and on the floor some distance away from the amplifier. It also looks slightly damaged (forgot to take a pic, the part that is not plugged into the amplifier was fairly bent). This is probably from the chaos of the flood.
Here I am showing the particle count plots from 2-14-2025 to 2-26-2025.
The particle counter was placed near the seeder atop the optics table in the B111B cleanroom.
This duration intersects that of the majority of the maintenance work on the flooded drywall in the lab.
As seen there were counts on the order of 1-2 counts in the 0.3um size throughout the installation. When we placed the particle counter on the ground (on 2/26) under the tables and shuffled around we saw spikes of 400 + on all sized particles.
Overall it seems that the containment system worked well to reduce the overall number of particles in the clean room and 1-2 particles at intermittent times throughout the process seems reasonable.
[Alex, Daniel]
We tried installing a CF 4.5" Flange to KF 50 adaptor on the Agilent TwisTorr 74 Turbo Vacuum Pump for the SNSPD Dewer, but found the diameter of the pump is large enough to prevent the use of the plate nuts. The pump bulges out, so 1.75" long, 5/16-24 screws cannot fit with their heads close to the pump. 1.5" long screws aren't long enough to engage with the (plate) nuts. I bought some non-plate 5/16-24 nuts, some with a built in washer (a flange nut, but the flange in this context doesn't refer to the CF Flange) and some regular nuts.
I found the faraday isolator that was hidden in the bubble wrap with the 50:50 fiber beam splitter. The faraday isolator has 1 m long fibers on either end of a 2" cylinder, so it can't be held by any existing fiber holders. For space purposes, I am also 3D printing a fiber holder for the 50:50 beam splitter so they can be stacked on top of each other, but a Thorlabs fiber holder could also work. See attached part files.
I am currently 3D printing the bottoms. I will 3D print the tops next.
The IO-H-1550APC Holder Bottom cannot use the same top as the Fiber BS Holder, so see attached files.
I removed the duct tape on a 10" to 4.5" reducing flange on Laser Filter Cavity Input Cube. The duct tape is outside where the flange goes. I used clean wipes and acetone and then pre-wetted clean wipes with isopropanol to remove the residue. I then added a 4.5" blank flange and a gasket before tighteneing the screws to 13.6 Nm.
I tightened the bolts to 34 Nm so that most of the flange was on the zero length reducer flange.
[All]
Earlier today, transportation moved the Lista cabinets back into place (or almost back into place). Plumbing also re-connected the water chiller and helium compressor in B111C.
Particle counts under the optics tables in B111B were high (4/34/29 for 0.3 μm/0.5 μm/1.0 μm), so we decided we needed to clean the floors there from the flood and remediation. We also needed to clean B111A from walking around during the flood, although no water was ever in B111A. We cleaned both areas with the Swiffer and some soapy water sprayed onto the pad.
We also moved the electronics server racks, the non-optics tables, the tool carts, and the under-table mobile cabinets back into place.
Remaining work to be done:
Caltech: replace the cover plates on the outlets in B110, B111B (2 of them), B111C, and B111D (two of them) and replace the door stop going from B111D to B111B.
Us: move vacuum items back to B111B from B111A
I moved the vacuum items from B111A to B111B.
I cut out two 1x2" and one 2x2" pieces from this viton strip and glued it with this superglue to the 80-20 parts that will interface with the 8" CF Flange Vacuum Tee in the LFC. The glue is said to reach full strenght in 24 hours, so it should be ready when we need it, hopefully in the next few days.
[Alex, Daniel]
I remade the bushing for the 1/4-100 screw, this time copying the F25USA1 from Thorlabs which we think is the currently used part. I used Nitronic 60, which is used in vacuum with (uncoated) stainless steel screws to prevent gauling/siezing up. I use the 1000.cam program to make the part in the Lathe with a spindle speed of 830 rpm. This went very well. I parted the piece with 0.016" left initially at 120 rpm and then 170 rpm as the diameter narrowed. I removed the nub and faced the back of the part at 1200 rpm.
I then used the 1002.nc program on the CNC mill to spot drill/countersink, drill, and tap the part. Unfortunately, something went wrong with the tapping (I used the tap from Newport) during the retraction, and the tap removed the threads on the top half of part. There might have been a chip that caused the part to be yanked up a bit. I was able to re-tap the piece so that the threads that exist are good, but the screw goes in around half way before engaging the threads. The issue in the mill ruined the tap.
I am not sure exactly went wrong, but I think I can peck tap next time with hopefully better results. As this was mostly a project while the lab was shut down due to flooding, I mostly want to move on and have Xometry, Hubs, or Thorlabs make the part. Newport was uninterested in making it, and Siskiyou doesn't have the right material bushing off the shelf either.
3 bushings will cost around $450 and take 3 weeks for Xometry and Hubs and 14 weeks for Thorlabs. I am enclined to have Hubs make the part as I have had good sucess with custom threads in the past (and I somewhat trust them more to actually make the part out of Nitronic 60).
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.
[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
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)
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.