Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, Upload Wizard campaign editors
573
edits
After looking at the power meters, the visible one definitely does not read 1064 nm accurately. The short story is that its values should be multiplied by 0.62. Graphs are [[herehttps://wiki.physics.wisc.edu/yavuz/images/6/64/Adjusted_Power_Meter_Response.png|here]] and [https://wiki.physics.wisc.edu/yavuz/images/3/3d/Power_Meter_Response.png here], full data is [https://wiki.physics.wisc.edu/yavuz/images/6/6c/Power_Meter_Comparison_at_1064_nm_modified.xlsx here]. This makes the theory agree better with the experimental data, although the experiment is still low.
I've been continuing to work on the 1555 laser. The power has been dropping low enough that it sometimes turns the amplifier off, so I finally just re-alligned everything. See [[David_Notebook#1555_Laser_Notes|1555 Laser Notes]] for more detail. I got the power somewhat higher, although it still seems low, so I wonder if the diode is having problems or if the feedback is very off.
'''9/11/14'''
Jared and Zach noted at group meeting today that they get pretty different readings using the visible power meter head for 1064 then when they use the IR one or the thermal one (which agree well with one another). Additionally it gives significantly different readings when set ~1064 vs ~1050, which suggests it's not well calibrated near the end of the it's range. I used the visible power meter head I used to measure the 1064 beam power for the recent 633 data, so I should check and see just how much the power measurements differ compared to the other power meters. Hopefully it's a constant offset or fixed percent and we can adjust the data accordingly. Deniz did a preliminary analysis and made a theory curve. It's about a factor of 2.5 higher than the experimental data. There are still a few effects to account for that might lower the theory, and accounting for the 1064 power measurement issue will undoubtedly affect things too.
|