130
edits
Jared lab notebook: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
|
--[[User:Jmiles2|Jmiles2]] ([[User talk:Jmiles2|talk]]) 11:38, 29 August 2014 (CDT)
For the plots from yesterday, 3to50 had 19.7mW and 6.7mW after the scan. 3to40 was 16.2 and 4.9mW. 3to30 was a bad scan. 3 to 15mW was 7.9mW and 1.16mW.
--[[User:Jmiles2|Jmiles2]] ([[User talk:Jmiles2|talk]]) 17:54, 2 September 2014 (CDT)
I still have an imbalance with the coupling beams. I took some data on Aug 29 2014 and it showed that when I switched the beams I got a different standing wave pattern. Also, the average number of atoms throughout the scan was different. It looked like there was an overall higher amount of atoms when I had the higher powered coupling beam on CHC B, the same side that the probe laser is going into the chamber. I repeated the experiment today after checking all the timings, and got the same result.
I thoroughly checked the timings today. I checked the shape of each pulse by putting the photodiode at a distance from the fiber launch that was similar to the distance the laser would travel before reaching the FORT atoms. I averaged over many pulses on the O-Scope, saved the waveform, and then moved the photo diode to the next laser. I would align the pulse of this laser to the saved waveform. I then repeated this for the final laser in the EIT sequence. I had to repeat the entire setup for the second EIT pulse. In the end, I found that the timings were up to 5 ns off, but it doesn't look like this caused the asymmetry in features from switching the two coupling beams.
| |||