apo_lab_results
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
apo_lab_results [2025/09/29 15:17] – 73.26.254.90 | apo_lab_results [2025/10/02 13:30] (current) – holtz | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Testing with fiber from FTO, two spools, each with 3 legs. Spool1=241587, | Testing with fiber from FTO, two spools, each with 3 legs. Spool1=241587, | ||
- | |Input | + | |Input |
- | |short | + | |short |
- | |spool1,1| UT250923, 86-87| | + | |spool1,1| UT250923, 86-87| |
- | |spool1,2| UT250923, 88-89| | + | |spool1,2| UT250923, 88-89| |
- | |spool1,3| UT250924, 3-4 | | + | |spool1,3| UT250924, 3-4 | |
- | |spool2,1| UT250924, 15-16| | + | |spool2,1| UT250924, 15-16| |
- | |spool2,2| UT250924, 9-10 | 7-8 | 17-19 | | + | |spool2,2| UT250924, 9-10 | 7-8 | 17-19 |
- | |spool2,3| UT250924, 11-12| | + | |spool2,3| UT250924, 11-12| |
Relative throughput inspected both through simple crossection and through integrated fiber. Former would be affectd by differences in focus; rough focusing was done for all setups. In all cases, it appears that the image quality through the long fiber is a bit worse than through the short fiber; it is possible/ | Relative throughput inspected both through simple crossection and through integrated fiber. Former would be affectd by differences in focus; rough focusing was done for all setups. In all cases, it appears that the image quality through the long fiber is a bit worse than through the short fiber; it is possible/ | ||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Three different sequences were taken. Only the first included Spool1. Between the sequences, it seems there is more variation in the throughput through the short fiber than through the long fiber, although there is some variation in the latter as well. | Three different sequences were taken. Only the first included Spool1. Between the sequences, it seems there is more variation in the throughput through the short fiber than through the long fiber, although there is some variation in the latter as well. | ||
+ | Sequence 1: | ||
{{: | {{: | ||
+ | In the first sequence, Spool 2 legs 2 and 3 appear best, with leg 1 a bit worse. Leg 3 on spool 1 is about the same as leg 1 on spool 3, followed by leg 2, with poorest being leg 1 on Spool 1. This roughly matches the expectations from the {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Sequence 2: | ||
{{: | {{: | ||
+ | In the second sequence, the flux through the short fiber was significantly lower. Leg 2 (Spool2) was the best, but leg 3 was now closer to leg 1 in throughput. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Sequence 3: | ||
{{: | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the third sequence, the flux through the short fiber was intermediate between the first two sequences. The relative throughput of the legs of Spool 2 was similar to that of sequence 2. This sequence included images from the guider for each fiber; no strong changes in location of the fiber in the illumination spot were noticed. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Sequence 4: | ||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Tests after pulling fiber through conduit. After first set of fibers 1-3, refocussed spectrograph for a set with fiber 3, then rerouted fibers and refocussed Zaber for a set with fiber 2. | ||
===May 2025=== | ===May 2025=== |
apo_lab_results.1759159072.txt.gz · Last modified: by 73.26.254.90