Update Slides

slideshow

Simulating how point absorber defects on Advanced LIGO mirrors affect cavity performance by modeling a 4km LIGO-like arm cavity with a point absorber fixed at 5cm off-center on the ITM. In this simulation, displaced the laser beam across a 21×21 grid while calculating the deformation, then measuring the resulting power loss in the cavity (~283W circulating power).

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"

[Luke, Luis]

Update of current state of vacuum chamber

Current temp: 24°C

Current pressure: Main 1.77e-8, RGA 5.3e-9 [torr] (Gate valve open)

Summary of recent work-->

To try and reduce the leak in the turbo pump by reducing cross-connection, we replaced the copper gasket. This made no improvement to the leaks.

Initially: 1.9e-9 --->

Left side: 1.33e-9, Right side: 3.37e-9 (Gate valve open)

This is still a significant leak. We have tried to tighten the bolts further, but they are as tight as reasonably possible. 

Things of note: While examining the knife edges, we found some very slight imperfections on the reducing cross's flange as seen in 474. This could be the source of our leak. We have replaced this gasket 1-2 times already and consistently have a slight leak. This imperfection is on the right side of the flange, which would be consistent with the measurements above. 

Unless we want to use the liquid sealant or replace the gasket with an annealed gasket, we could try baking the system again, as this allowed us to reach UHV in the main volume before. It also allowed us to pass the RGA scan, which we are currently failing. (see attached)

[Luke, Luis]

The vacuum chamber is currently baking. 

We stepped up to 125°C by increments of 30°C starting at 60°C. Everything went fine. After about 20 minutes of the PID controllers being set to 125°C, the flange closest to the RGA was 38°C, so we left it connected. 

Current state as of 4:15:

The gate valve is open, and the filament of the RGA is on.

The temperatures are as follows:

PID right barrel upper: 105°C,  RGA volume: 125°C

PID left barrel lower: 125°C, Lid: 82°C

The lower temperatures should climb as the whole system heats up. 

I will come in Saturday afternoon to turn them off so that we can look at the pressures on Monday. 

[Luke, Luis]

We couldn't access the bake log on the wiki. (see attached) So we looked in the documentation provided on the DCC to find at what temperature to bake the Viton O-rings. We found that we should bake Viton at 180°C for 24 hours. 

So we sonic-washed the O-rings, dried them, and then put them in the oven set to the following:

100°C in 15 minutes

100°C for 30 minutes

180°C in 30 minutes

180°C for 24 hours

30°C in 2 hours

Other things of note:

We refilled the water container as it was running out.

The nitrogen used to dry the clean and baked objects is now critically low.

The helium used in leak testing is also quite low (~400 psi).

Regarding the vacuum chamber:

I reattached the pressure gauges to the chamber and gave them about an hour to stabilize. They read out main 8.7e-9, RGA 2.6e-9. Please note these pressures should lower more as we only stopped baking on Saturday afternoon. 

[Luke, Tyler, Cynthia, Shane, Michael]

Summary of Cleaning Activities:

We began cleaning Room 1119 at 2:00 PM.

At 2:30 PM, we moved to Room 1129 and continued cleaning.

Cleaning tasks included wiping down dust-collecting surfaces and vacuuming the floors.

Once the labs were clean, we proceeded to the cleanroom. 

• Wiping down surfaces and soft walls
• Vacuuming, mopping the floor, and finishing with IPA wipes

Particle Count Measurements:

• Pre-cleaning (2:30 PM):
  • Zone 3:
    • 0.3 µm: 973
    • 0.5 µm: 354
    • 1.0 µm: 132
  • Zone 4:
    • 0.3 µm: 486
    • 0.5 µm: 177
    • 1.0 µm: 0
• Post-cleaning (4:10 PM):
  • Zone 3:
    • 0.3 µm: 619
    • 0.5 µm: 132
    • 1.0 µm: 0
  • Zone 4:
    • 0.3 µm: 397
    • 0.5 µm: 0
    • 1.0 µm: 0

[Luke, Liu]

Over the winter break I have been working on this desmos toy model of the Frosti. There are still a few rough spots but I belive that it is a good visual representation of a 2D slice of the frosti. 

Here is a quick update on some of the things I have been working on regarding my project. 

[Luke, Cece, Luis]

Particle Count Measurements:

• Pre-cleaning (12:15 PM):
  • Zone 3:
    • 0.3 µm: 1325
    • 0.5 µm: 265
    • 1.0 µm: 0
  • Zone 4:
    • 0.3 µm: 618
    • 0.5 µm: 132
    • 1.0 µm: 44

• Started Cleaning (3:20 pm)
• Finished Cleaning (4:20 pm)

• Post-cleaning (4:35 PM):
  • Zone 3:
    • 0.3 µm: 1106
    • 0.5 µm: 221
    • 1.0 µm: 0
  • Zone 4:
    • 0.3 µm: 530
    • 0.5 µm: 44
    • 1.0 µm: 0

[Luke, Luis]

The vacuum chamber is currently baking. 

We stepped up to 120°C by increments of 30°C starting at 60°C. We took about an hour break at 90°C to let the temperatures equilibrate.  

Current state as of 12:20:

The gate valve is open, the calibrated Argon leak is open, and the filament of the RGA is on.

The temperatures are as follows:

PID right barrel upper: 113°C,  RGA volume: 120°C

PID left barrel lower: 121°C, Lid: 114°C

The lower temperatures should climb as the whole system heats up. 

Over the last couple weeks I have been working on finding the optimal position of the ringheater's thermal profile. 

Today I would like to give an update of where I am at and my next steps.

Using the python COMSOL interface I have been able to run and save deformation data sweeping through a great deal of potential combinations of widths and positions.

I then calculated their zernike coefficients and using a very simple "quality" function (02 - (40)*10 - (4-4)*10), where 02 stands for the zernike mode of quadratic deformation, I was able to generate a heat map of comparing the "quality" verses the width and position used. 

Seen below are four plots. The first is simply the 02 coefficient of the decomposition followed by the negative of 40 and 4-4 then the "quality."

This 'quality' function was an arbitrary choice on my part. I believe that my next step would either be defining a more useful function or using finesse to model the actual effects of this surface deformation.

[Luke, Mary, Luis]

Particle Count Measurements:

• Pre-cleaning (8:40 am):
  • Zone 3:
    • 0.3 µm: 441
    • 0.5 µm: 44
    • 1.0 µm: 0
  • Zone 4:
    • 0.3 µm: 353
    • 0.5 µm: 176
    • 1.0 µm: 44

• Started Cleaning (3:16 pm)
• Finished Cleaning (4:10 pm)

• Post-cleaning (4:15 pm):
  • Zone 3:
    • 0.3 µm: 574
    • 0.5 µm: 265
    • 1.0 µm: 132
  • Zone 4:
    • 0.3 µm: 177
    • 0.5 µm: 44
    • 1.0 µm: 0

These are some plots:

The first shows the convergence of the 02 mode reducing the size of the mesh. The second shows the the numerical error of the zernike.

The first is found by sweeping a parameter that changes the size of the mesh. The HR surface was set to half a cm for all values.

The second by taking the inner product of a zernike mode with its self and calculating its deviation from pi for varying fineness of the mesh.

I have redone the width and location optimization with a 40kg test mass. This was to see where the nominal ring heater would fall in this optimization map see attached.

There are two concerns I have with this modeling:

1. I am using normalized power only imparting 1W, which may effect the single pass scattering used for optimization.
2. I am only looking at the surface deformation and I believe that looking at OPD may also be something that is important to consider. 

Note z_RH is measured from the HR surface and w_RH is the half width of the target plane

I have created two more plots. One on the transmitted power for a specific configuration. This was done by taking the product of the efficiency and the power released by surface area of the source plane for a configuration assuming it is at 300C. The second is a plot of how close the reflector is to the test mass I have included a contour line at 2mm the nominal proximity constraint. Both of these plots are generated for a 2cm wide target plane.

Somethings of note: Because the proximity requires no modeling and can be determined purely mathematically it is easy to re-generate this plot of other target widths. If you increase the target width the proximity contour moves upward and downwards if reduced.

Slides

I have changed some properties of the thermal model and am re-running the thermal sweeping

I have also been messing around with making a logo

[Luke, Mohak, Luis]

We were also able to remove the residue that has built up on the soft walls by donning a skinny bunny suit and with two wipes rubbing both sides of the soft walls at the same time. The wipes would get gummy very quickly and need to be replaced frequently.

Particle Count Measurements:

• Pre-cleaning (1:20 pm):
  • Zone 3:
    • 0.3 µm: 3577
    • 0.5 µm: 1369
    • 1.0 µm: 485
  • Zone 4:
    • 0.3 µm: 1062
    • 0.5 µm: 442
    • 1.0 µm: 177

• Started Cleaning (3:00 pm)
• Finished Cleaning (4:00 pm)

• Post-cleaning (4:22 pm):
  • Zone 3:
    • 0.3 µm: 3577
    • 0.5 µm: 618
    • 1.0 µm: 132
  • Zone 4:
    • 0.3 µm: 2031
    • 0.5 µm: 397
    • 1.0 µm: 132

Slides

I have re-run the optimization plots with the changes mentioned last week. 

I have added the heat maps of the HOM scattering from HR deformation and the HOM scattering due to the OPD difference as well as the curvature actuation of the surface. 

Slides

I have added some slides to my meeting updates. The updates include: my choice in position and width, some figures I have added to my write up, and what I think my immediate steps are to wrap up.

I have also made a new FROSTI model that conducts its raytracing in real time. Something that was severely lacking in the previous model.

[Luke, Luis, Tyler, Ma, Christina, Maple]

We started by cleaning outside of the cleanroom wiping down the cable channel and working our way down. We replaced the air filter in the HEPA filter with what seemed to be the last one in storage. We then vacuumed outside, before wiping down the inside of the cleanroom. We then vacuumed, mopped, and wiped down the floor inside the cleanroom.

We are ready for venting the vacuum chamber which is planned to take place 6/26/25 at 10am. 

Particle Count Measurements:

• Pre-cleaning (12:00 pm):
  • Zone 3:
    • 0.3 µm: 2517
    • 0.5 µm: 662
    • 1.0 µm: 176
  • Zone 4:
    • 0.3 µm: 177
    • 0.5 µm: 44
    • 1.0 µm: 0

• Post-cleaning (1:45 pm):
  • Zone 3:
    • 0.3 µm: 619
    • 0.5 µm: 88
    • 1.0 µm: 0
  • Zone 4:
    • 0.3 µm: 177
    • 0.5 µm: 88
    • 1.0 µm: 0

[Luke, Luis]

We’ve been looking into methods for evaluating the performance of the HEPA filters in the clean room. Measuring flow rate appears to be a promising approach, since the filter manual specifies a recommended minimum of 70 ft/min.

At the moment, we don’t have a flow rate measurement device on hand. We're currently looking into two options:

• A standard vane-style anemometer, which is more affordable but may lack sensitivity near the minimum required flow rate.
• A hot-wire anemometer, which offers better resolution and accuracy at lower speeds, though it's more expensive.

In the next few days, either Luis or I will contact Terra Universal to see if they have any measurement solutions that would integrate well with our clean room setup, or if they can recommend best practices for verifying HEPA performance.

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