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 [2025/10/01 18:30] – 192.41.211.254 | apo_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, | Testing with fiber from FTO, two spools, each with 3 legs. Spool1=241587, | ||
| Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
| |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 | 4-6 | | + | |spool2,2| UT250924, 9-10 | 7-8 | 17-19 | 4-6, |
| - | |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 21: | ||
| {{: | {{: | ||
| - | 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 {{: | + | 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 {{: |
| 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: |
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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.1759343438.txt.gz · Last modified: by 192.41.211.254
