Cao suggested using the project without the reflector and mask because in this case we probably got good images around the screen. So I started this yesterday and today I started to get some data to see the stabilization position and check how the parameters fluctuated. I was looking and taking snaps for an hour and a half. I'll repeat this one more time to make sure we have enough data to do analysis.

To do: The next step is to start collecting data by moving the camera FLIR and covering all six positions on the screen (2x3). Also Aiden is on hand to help and is going to make a new 3D print bridge to have good heater support.

I attached a image for the new configuration below and a snap data.

Aiden 3D printed a new bridge for the heater and I installed the new bridge yesterday.

I started collecting data to plot a calibration with the heater. I'm doing measurements with current and the thermocouple (thermometer) to compare with FLIR measurements and have a good calibration.

General information about the lab facility.

1. Changed sticky floor mats, because close to entrance the cleanroom, both sticky floor had a many died ants on top.
2. The light on top of the internet cable bridge is burned out.. I just saw this today but I am not sure if was like this before.
3. The ant bait traps seem very efficient and right now only a few ants are running around in the lab, most are dead in the bait traps, so probably in a day or two we can change those bait traps.

• I collected data to plot a calibration with the heater. I took measurements with current and temperature (the thermocouple - thermometer) to compare with the FLIR measurements.
• I made a plot with this data and we can see how temperature vs current behaves. Note: This data I measured manually.

• Today I tried get data the heater with the black screen but doesn't looks possible have just one "energy" point straight to FLIR camera. Tyler and I tried different current and temperatures but keep very bad data. I attached a snap below.
• I attached a photo about the new setup below. The FLIR is in the most close point possible/safety with the heater. The heater is very close to the black wall but is not touch the screen so is safety.

• I noticed that these measurements have some issues with the weather on different days. We can see in the photo attached below how different the temperatures are on different days, I took the data with the same procedure every day, but we can see the differences between them.
• To Do: I will do a new data collection using FLIR and thermocouple at the same time to plot comparison between both.

• I was able to plot the first graph for a result between the six different positions on the screen, for now we can see the behavior of the heater temperature in a Gaussian graph with combination data between the six files.
• To do: Tyler gave me some ideas today to improve the plot. So I'm going to change the code to have insulation on the values for just the heater ("insulation") and I'm going to plot after this insulation data as well I'm going to get more data and compare with more data for the same position.
• I was using the data than I got last week and I shared on Elog (151) and we can see on this quote

• Today I was able to plot a graph for the isolation point on the center of the heater. I got data from six different positions on the screen (I shifted the all coordinates). I extracted the data for the center point and plot the Gaussian with this extracted data for temperature. I attached the all plots below
• Also I took a snap using the black wall and with the heater at 120.1 C (0.30 A) try to have less noise but we can see this is not very good. At this temperature, we have noise on the top and I don't understand why because the heater is not in this location. I attached a snap below.

• Today I got more data to plot the Gaussian. So I took more snaps in each position for the six different spots than we be using to have a better calibration of the FLIR collected data. I attached the new plot below. Also, I did the same plot for each region as on the Elog 167 but I have more than 20 pics because I was using a big number of data so I just attached one example below.

To access the Elog, click here.

• Also I think we have some real (non-ideal) heat diffusion by the screen and not noise like Dr. Richardson suggested. I was testing today and we can see the first pic before the start heater source turns on, the second pic is at 120.2 C (0.31A) with the heater on and the last pic is after the heater source cooled back down to room temperature. Just in the second pic, we have a strong spot on the top, so it looks like a non-ideal diffusion.

1. I was able to plot the final result with the data to the heater. I attached below the "3Combined_HighTemp_Gaussian_Plot." in this plot we can see better behavior on the Gaussian compared to the plot in ELOG 169, I was using the same data but with a different approach. On the ELOG 169, we have the center point isolated data and this new plot is the temperature more than 70 C isolated because we have a very good heater temperature distinguish do background. For the all data I got I was using a power current of 0.20A. To get the data I waited for 30 minutes until the heater became stable and after that, I started to take snaps, I took more than one snap for each one different 6 positions on the screen, and We can see the positions on ELOG 167.
2. Also I attached the calibration plot ("calibration_plot") between the measurements with the FLIR camera and thermocouple and we can see looks good if we compare the final plot.
3. For better analyses I attached a plot of the calibration line on the Gaussian plot.
4. To do: I will finish the final report.

After meeting and discussing the current state of our work with Prof. Fulda a few weeks ago, we have decided that the best next step for the gtrace project is its integration into finesse work. Our first step towards this integration involved creating a sequential beam trace in contrast to the previous non sequential gtrace simulations. A sequential beam trace not only allows for faster runtimes of the simulation (<1 second) but also allows for more direct reading of certain beam parameters (beam size, gouy phase, and angle of incidence). The sequential model was created alongside a yaml output which provides values of parameters, now including the angle of incidence on a mirror.

Last Monday, Pooyan gave a report to the Cosmic Explorer optical design team on the current state of our project and the ultimate goal of our work. During the same meeting another group working in the optical design team presented their own work with gtrace and optical design, focusing more on optimization of parameters based on desired beam sizes at each mirror. It might be a good idea to begin attempting to bring our individual projects together to allow for collaboration and further developments.

Currently, only the crab1 layout has a sequential trace model. Pooyan is currently working on creating a finesse model for crab1 to serve as a proof of concept for how gtrace could be integrated with finesse by providing useful values such as angles of incidence.

On the 5th I had tried to start baking the vacuum chamber however certain parts of the chamber were getting too hot and causing the controllers to shut off. So I turned them off so that the next day I could rearrange the temperature probes. I then on the 6th set them up so that instead of overshooting the temperature they would be a little low in places.

After being left over night the cooler parts of the vacuum chamber got much closer to the desired temperature of 120C.

Here is a table of the temperatures of the sections of the chamber. Note: After these measurements were taken the PID controllers were set to 125C.

Here is a table of temperature of the flanges that have electronics.

Other temperatures of note:

The optical table was about 38C

The cleanroom was around 33C (~91F)

Power point slides

PowerPoint slides new

PowerPoint slides older

slides

[Luke, Luis, Michael]

cleaning cleanroom and particle count

• 8:30 am: started particle count
  • zone 3:
    • 0.3 u: 1195
    • 0.5 u: 177
    • 1.0 u: 132
• zone 4:
  • 0.3 u: 619
  • 0.5 u: 0
  • 1.0 u: 0
• 9:00 am: began surface check and wipedown, including softwalls
• 9:35 am: started vacuuming the floor
• 9:43 am: finished vacuuming the floor
• 9:45 am: started mopping the floor
• 9:55 am: finished mopping the floor
• 9:56 am: started cleaning the buckets
• 10:00 am: started mopping with IPA wipes
• 10:05 am: finished mopping with IPA wipes
• 10:20m: started particle count
  • zone 3:
    • 0.3 u: 2213
    • 0.5 u: 398
    • 1.0 u: 0
• zone 4:
  • 0.3 u: 1150
  • 0.5 u: 177
  • 1.0 u: 44

Chamber temperature: 23C

Chamber Initial Pressure: ~1.8e-8 main, ~3.5e-8 rga

Did another leak test after monday's work to check how the seal was holding up initial leak was 5.5e-9. I then tried to tighten the bolts a bit more the leak rose to 1.9e-8 about a factor of 4 change.

I checked another flange to confirm that I was preforming the test properly. I measured the elbow to pressure sensor to be 2.2e-11 aproximatly what it was earlier in the month (1.9e-11). 

I ran another isolation test. It is still exponetial. Graph attached.

Thoughts:

I belive at this point that it is a knife edge issue when replacing the gasket I checked both flanges and the new gasket. The tp knife edge seemed perfectly fine, the gasket had very minor scratches, and the reducing cross had very small imperfections on its edge. 

We may want to try and use the liquid sealant or get annealed gaskets for 4.5"

We will be configuring the RGA line to remove the spherical cube from the system. Currently our plan for the new design is to connect a 4.5" to 2.75" Reducing Cross to the gate valve on the vacuum system. It will be orientated vertically with the turbo pump on top coming off the end will be a 90 deg elbow. On the bottom there will be a 4.5" to 2.75" Zero length reducer attached to that will be a Tee on one side the pressure sensor and the other the RGA. Connected to the elbow will be the calibrated leak. 

The only parts not readily available are the ZLR and the 2.75" gaskets

[ Luke, Cynthia, Michael, Xuesi, Anthony ]

Started work around 12:45

We vented the chamber first and once it reached atmospheric pressure we started taking apart the RGA line.

We removed the parts in this order: Calibrated leak, RGA, Pressure gauge, 2.75" Blank on Tee, 2.75" Tee, all 1.33" Blanks on the cube, 4.5" feed through port, and finally the cube. Everything went smoothly after every part was taken off we covered the ends in Aluminum foil to maintain cleanliness. 

We then started the assembly of the new line. The parts were added in this order: Reducing cross, ZLR, Tee, Cal leak, RGA, 90 deg Elbow, and Pressure sensor.

We left off the Turbo pump as of now because we weren't able to find a 1" post not in use and we didn't want to put too much weight on the cross. We also noticed that the RGA might not fit on its probes because of a slight tilt to the cross and by extension the Tee. If this ends up being a problem we might need to remove all the parts connected to the cross so that we can reposition it so that the 2.75" rotating flange is connected to the gate valve.

Ended work around 4:00

[ Luke, Jon ]

Started work at 11:00

As mentioned in my previous post the RGA was not clearing the table because of a tilt in the cross. So I removed the 90 deg elbow, loosened the bolt securing the Tee to the ZLR, and removed the cross from the gate valve. I then spun around the Tee on the bottom so that the cal leak would be pointing in the right direction and connected the rotating 2.75" flange of the cross to the gate valve. I then added the small turbo pump to the top of the cross. 

Then with the help of Dr. Richardson, we made some adjustments to how the Tee was oriented with respect to the cross and how the cross was with respect to the table. So that the cal leak and RGA would fit on the table. After that we made some changes to the bolting of the ZLR to reducing cross replacing the 2.00" bolts and nuts with 1.75" bolts and nut plates. We did face some difficulty with half of the 2.00" bolts which required a bit of torque to get them out. 

Finished work at 2:20 

Things to do:

Before we start pumping down the system again Dr. Richardson wanted two other changes to be made. To replace the 2.75" to 1.33" conical reducer with a zero length reducer. He also wants the bolts that hold the main turbo pump to be replaced with nut plates. 

I plan on starting this work on Friday (7/12) before pumping down over the weekend

After the feedback from last meeting and Liu's help narrowing down what I should do to improve the model. I made some changes: First with Liu's help I made the proportions of the test mass and ring heater much more reasonable and parametrized by constants. Second from Cao's paper "FROSTI Nonimaging Reflector Design" Liu showed me what I should do to define the elliptical mirrors. Third during Friday's modeling/programming meeting walked me through getting the different irradiance plots to work. 

Today, I borrowed a bolt extractor drill bit from the machine shop to remove some stuck bolts from the zlr. Before starting, I laid down a sheet of aluminum foil on the work table and wiped down all the tools I was going to use. I began by drilling a small pilot hole and then enlarged it with a 5/32 drill bit. However, when I attempted to use the bolt extractor, it didn't grip the bolt effectively. Our bolts were too seized, causing the extractor bit to repeatedly slip instead of gaining traction.

[Luke, Luis, Jon, Tyler]

On the 22nd Dr. Richardson showed Luis, Tyler and I how to preform a leak test with the RGA. We did the initiall test and found a few leaks two were particuarly bad highlighted in orenge below. To try and remidy this we planned on replacing the copper gaskests on the leaking flanges. We then began taking the two problem flanges off, but seven of the eight bolts holding on the turbo pump were over tightened and had seized. So after we got them off we postponed the rest of the work to the next day.

On the 23nd Luis and I reattached the badly leaking flanges with new copper gaskets. We then preformed the Helium leak test with the RGA. As seen in the table below we weren't able to majorly changed the leaks in the two flanges.

[Luke, Tyler]

On the 27th Tyler and I ran the RGA leak test again with the electron multiplier on. These were the leaks we measured. The chamber's overall pressure was at ~6e-8 torr. 

[Luke, Luis, Cinthia, Michal, Tyler]

On the 26th Cinthia, Michal, and I took off the insolation on the vacuum chamber and re-routed it to include the new RGA volume. 

The next day Luis and I finished up the last of the flanges to be attached. We attached the Pirani gauge with a conical reducing nipple to the 2.75" port on the vacuum chamber. We then preformed the Helium leak testing, both flanges were quite low the 2.75" flange had a leak of 1.68e-10 torr and the 1.33" flange of 5.5e-12 torr. The leak on the 1.33" flange was so low it was difficult to know how much of it was real and how much was just noise.

[Luke, Tyler, Jon]

On the 3rd we set up the pid controllers for the heater tapes and after putting on the insulation we started heating them up. We first brought it to ~50C and let it stabilize, there was about a 6-7 degree difference between the RGA and the barrel temperature, with the barrel being higher. We then brought it to 60 then 70C it still maintained the slight difference between the RGA and barrel temperatures.

Here is a table of the temperatures of the flanges connected to electronics as I left it.

Notes: I removed the electronics from the pressure gauge (main volume) because while it was below the required threshold it was still quite high compared to the other flanges.

I measured the temperature of the flanges and reconnected the RGA turning on its filament. I then turned off the PID controllers.

Here is a table that has the temperature of the different parts of the vacuum chamber.

Ringheater Update

If the link does not work here is the file.

cleaning cleanroom and particle count

• 3:37 pm: started particle count
  • zone 3:
    • 0.3 u: 1205
    • 0.5 u: 748
    • 1.0 u: 249
• zone 4:
  • 0.3 u: 1496
  • 0.5 u: 748
  • 1.0 u: 290
• 3:57 pm: began surface check and wipedown, including softwalls. NOTE: vacuum chamber insulation crumbling at edges, dropping loose flakes. Scatters residue whenever jostled, so wiping it down just releases more. Not enough flakes are being released for it to be a major issue, but definitely something to keep an eye on.
• 4:18 pm: started vacuuming the floor
• 4:29 pm: finished vacuuming the floor
• 4:30 pm: started mopping the floor
• 4:35 pm: finished mopping the floor
• 4:36 pm: started cleaning the buckets
• 4:41 pm: started mopping with IPA wipes
• 4:52 pm: finished mopping with IPA wipes
• 4:52 pm: changed sticky floor mats
• 4:53 pm: started particle count
  • zone 3:
    • 0.3 u: 3367
    • 0.5 u: 1787
    • 1.0 u: 914
• zone 4:
  • 0.3 u: 1039
  • 0.5 u: 498
  • 1.0 u: 249

[Luis, Luke, Tyler]

Vacuum chamber parts were finally received and assembled. After whipping down the parts, the blank was removed from the reducing cross. Then, the zero-length reducer was attached. Lastly, we installed the T that had the argon leak and RGA. The final pump down showed signs of an improved seal since the pressure dropped quite fast. This pressure is well bellow the limit required to use the RGA, argon test leak could be performed some time next week.

[Luis, Luke}

Three RGA scans were taken. The improvement in the amount of HC in the vacuum is visible across the different measurements. Images are attached.

The following images compare the RGA scans from 9/23/24, after the first bake with the new vacuum system, with those from 3/14/24, after bake 12 with the old system.

The first image shows a graph of the raw data and includes the calibrated leak for both curves. As we can see, our new system meets LIGO standards of cleanliness.

The second graph contains the plot of the normalized data.