Stellar Observations Network Group (SONG): SONG in New Mexico

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • construction_phase • apo_lab_results
apo_lab_results

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
apo_lab_results [2025/09/29 15:29] – 73.26.254.90apo_lab_results [2025/10/21 19:49] (current) – [September 2025 - fiber tests] jasonj
Line 1: Line 1:
-===September 2025===+====== APO lab testing ====== 
 + 
 +===== September 2025 - fiber tests =====
  
 Testing with fiber from FTO, two spools, each with 3 legs. Spool1=241587, Spool2=241586. Each spool has 3 legs. Also tested with short 50 micron fiber. Tests going through FPU calibration channel. Did several sequences.  Images are 50s flat (quartz+LED) and 120s ThAr; if sequence has 3 images, the first is a guider image. Testing with fiber from FTO, two spools, each with 3 legs. Spool1=241587, Spool2=241586. Each spool has 3 legs. Also tested with short 50 micron fiber. Tests going through FPU calibration channel. Did several sequences.  Images are 50s flat (quartz+LED) and 120s ThAr; if sequence has 3 images, the first is a guider image.
  
-|Input   | seq 1          | seq2, UT250925| seq3, UT250925 | +|Input   | seq 1          | seq2, UT250925| seq3, UT250925 | seq4, UT251001 | 
-|short   | UT250923, 84-85|  3-4          | 23-25          | +|short   | UT250923, 84-85|  3-4          | 23-25          |  |    
-|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|  5-6          | 20-22          | +|spool2,1| UT250924, 15-16|  5-6          | 20-22          |   1-3 | 
-|spool2,2| UT250924, 9-10 |  7-8          | 17-19          | +|spool2,2| UT250924, 9-10 |  7-8          | 17-19          |   4-6,16-18 | 
-|spool2,3| UT250924, 11-12|  11-13        | 14-16          |+|spool2,3| UT250924, 11-12|  11-13        | 14-16          |   7-9,10-12 |
  
 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/plausible, however, that that might be expected due to the fact that the long fiber includes an ocatagonal segment and also provides output in a 53 micron fiber (as opposed to the 50 micron short fiber). Hence the differences between short and long fiber links is more pronounced in the peak crossection than it is in the integrated fiber. 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/plausible, however, that that might be expected due to the fact that the long fiber includes an ocatagonal segment and also provides output in a 53 micron fiber (as opposed to the 50 micron short fiber). Hence the differences between short and long fiber links is more pronounced in the peak crossection than it is in the integrated fiber.
Line 19: Line 21:
 {{:test:seq1.png?direct&300}} {{:test:seq1.png?direct&300}}
  
-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 2, followed by leg 2, with poorest being leg 1 on Spool 1. This roughly matches the expectations from the {{:test:final_report_pf_02_compressed.pdf?linkonly|FTO test report}} (pages 9 and 12).
  
 Sequence 2: Sequence 2:
Line 31: Line 33:
 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.
  
-===May 2025===+Sequence 4: 
 +{{:test:seq4.png?direct&300}} 
 + 
 +Tests after pulling fiber through conduit. After first set of fibers 1-3, we refocussed spectrograph for a set with fiber 3, then rerouted fibers and refocussed with Zaber for a set with fiber 2. 
 + 
 +===== May 2025 =====
  
 Re-assembled spectrograph in APO room. Solar light from long eShel fiber outside. Re-assembled spectrograph in APO room. Solar light from long eShel fiber outside.
apo_lab_results.1759159754.txt.gz · Last modified: by 73.26.254.90