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 15:28] – 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 19: | Line 19: | ||
{{: | {{: | ||
- | 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 FTO test report. | + | 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. | 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. | 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.1759159714.txt.gz · Last modified: by 73.26.254.90