Differences

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

--- chara:discussion_of_alignment_procedures [2024/04/18 07:32]
denis
+++ chara:discussion_of_alignment_procedures [2024/07/10 19:35] (current)
gail_stargazer
@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
   * Align blue beacon to labAO using dichroic.
       * <font inherit/inherit;;#2980b9;;transparent>I do not understand why M2 corner cube is not used here, with laser coming from lab as in original sequence? I think it is the only way to orient the dichroic.</font>
-      * <font inherit/inherit;;#cc0000;;inherit>The laser/cc is not used for the fine alignment for the same reason the acq camera is not used for aligning the red beacon to tel wfs. The ao system aligns to sub arcsec.</font><font inherit/inherit;;#8e44ad;;inherit>I do not believe the laser has ever been used to align during observing since the AO system has been installed. I have never used it or the corner cube. The cc is at times unreliable and can get lost or stuck. The laser spots can be seen without the corner cube if needed to realign the dichroic. What are we to see or align with the laser and corner cube that we don’t see without?</font>* Focus blue beacon on labAO and red becaon on TelWFS.
+      * <font inherit/inherit;;#cc0000;;inherit>The laser/cc is not used for the fine alignment for the same reason the acq camera is not used for aligning the red beacon to tel wfs. The ao system aligns to sub arcsec.</font><font inherit/inherit;;#8e44ad;;inherit>I do not believe the laser has ever been used to align during observing since the AO system has been installed. I have never used it or the corner cube. The cc is at times unreliable and can get lost or stuck. The laser spots can be seen without the corner cube if needed to realign the dichroic. What are we to see or align with the laser and corner cube that we don’t see without?</font>*
+  * Focus blue beacon on labAO and red becaon on TelWFS.
   * If aberration terms are high, ZERO CENTROIDS to adjust relative positions of the boxes.
@@ Line 54: / Line 55: @@
   * If coma and astigmatism high, create sky flat on bright star - Turn off **[DM]**, **[SV FLT]**, **[FLATEN]**, then relock the **[DM]**.
   * For IR combiners, move beacon flat to align star to STST.
-  * For SPICA, move beacon flat to align star on SPICA FTT. <font inherit/inherit;;#16a085;;inherit>(denis: if the combined method BF+M7 is validated, this should be use here also with the correct rotation matrix from IPDET to BF -- implementation in progress)</font>  * Star Acquired.
+  * For SPICA, move beacon flat to align star on SPICA FTT. <font inherit/inherit;;#16a085;;inherit>(denis: we validated the combined method BF+M7 on E1 on April 23 and it did excellent worj, permitting to use the Right/Left,Up/Down axes of the IPDET to put the star in the FTT boxes.)</font>*
-  * <font inherit/inherit;;#1abc9c;;inherit>(denis: when FTT is locked turn on the offload to keep the alignment during tracking ==> good for FTT and good for Alignment. This has been successfully implemented in April 2024)</font>  * When slewing to the next star, DO NOT send M7 to default. If next star is bright, then align beacon flat to center star on STST/SPICA FTT. If star is faint, keep beacon flat fixed or align beacon flat to center red beacon in offset beacon boxes on TelWFS.
+  * <font inherit/inherit;;#1abc9c;;inherit>(denis: when FTT is locked turn on the offload to keep the alignment during tracking =⇒ good for FTT and good for Alignment. This has been successfully implemented in April 2024)</font>*
+  * Star Acquired.
+  * When slewing to the next star, DO NOT send M7 to default. If next star is bright, then align beacon flat to center star on STST/SPICA FTT. If star is faint, keep beacon flat fixed or align beacon flat to center red beacon in offset beacon boxes on TelWFS.
 ==== Proposed Revisions to Current Alignment Sequence ====
@@ Line 149: / Line 152: @@
 We tested this with E1, and we were able to keep telAO locked without needing to move the WFS boxes (the star was maybe just slightly on the edge of the ACQ hole when locking the AO loops). DM current was ~ 0.8 A. However, E1 might be one of the scopes where the operators don't ordinarily have to move the WFS boxes much. We can try with additional scopes on future engineering nights and with more diagnostic tools to gauge AO performace (by eye, the star looked good on STST with a bright circular core).
+__**Engineering Report from UT 2024May02**__
+Rob and Karolina realigned the W1 telao WFS camera yesterday in an attempt to improve the flaring when locking the AO loop. The good news is that W1 telAO performed well on sky. Norm did not have to move the wfs boxes during the alignment at stow nor during any slews. There was no flaring and the star remained in the ACQ hole during slews.
+But there seemed to be a problem with W1 when we aligned STST. E1 flux on mircx/mystic would increase dramatically (x2) after aligning the star to STST, but W1 flux would drop in half after aligning to STST. The W1 pupil on STST appeared full before aligning STST and was sheared in half after aligning STST. So even though W1 telAO is performing well, something seems to be shearing the beam on the way to labao/stst. [NOTE: The problem with W1 is that STST was not aligned with CHARA beams on Beam 3.]
+Norm noticed that there is a large shift in the laser ref boxes vs. the beacon ref boxes on W1 labao. The labao ref boxes on other telescopes are much closer together. Could this be causing a problem? Also, when using M7 to move the blue beacon flux on the W1 labao WFS display up, the flux in rows would cut out suddenly (as if something was vignetting it) rather than slowly shifting the spot pattern up. When moving M7 to move the blue beacon flux on the W1 labao WFS display down, the spot pattern would slowly shift downward and off the display as expected.
+We looked into testing the alignment sequence on W1 of sending M7 to default, aligning the beacon flat to align red beacon on telWFS, aligning the dichroic to align the blue beacon on labAO, and then aligning STST using B/M7. The performance of W1 was similar with both sequences, in terms of not having to move WFS boxes, flux on mircx/mystic, and image/pupil on STST, whether we used the standard alignment sequence (keeping dichroic fixed) vs. moving the dichroic instead of M7 to align blue beacon to labAO. At the moment, there does not appear to be a strong motivation for switching sequences, as it seems that other factors (e.g., realignment of camera and new reconstructors) allow us to keep AO loop locked without moving ref boxes. The dichroic alignment sequence has the drawback that it takes a longer time to align after slewing. We might still want to experiment more on engineering nights though.
+Note that we went back and redid all of the alignments of W1 at stow with M7 and flats set to default, just to confirm that the vignetting mentioned above was not the result of moving dichroic vs M7.
+Here is a pdf with some screenshots: {{:chara:files:engineering_report_ut2024may02.pdf|chara:files:engineering_report_UT2024May02.pdf}}
+Gail
+__**Engineering Report from UT 2024May16**__
+  * E1 - AO engineering + obsgtk integration
+  * Comparison of M7 vs Dichroic alignment tests with SPICA
+  * UT 04:24 HD 113226, EL 64 deg, AZ 150 deg - M7 alignment (adjust boxes)
+  * UT 06:00 - dichroic alignment
+  * UT 07:20 HD 113226, EL 53, AZ 239 deg - realign at stow, go back to M7 align
+  * video of telao on and off
+First night with AO running on all 6 telescopes (after W2 DM installation): [[http://www.astro.gsu.edu/~schaefer/chara/movies/ao_video.mp4|video clip]]
+**Notes from Gail:**
+We took a short video last night comparing the spots on the Six Telescope Star Tracker (J-band) with the AO on versus AO off. There's still more optimization to be done, but it was good to see the dramatic improvement in spot quality on all 6 telescopes with the AO systems locked.
+The video starts with AO on. Then the AO servo's are turned off on all scopes and the images blur out. Finally, the AO loops are turned on again with well-defined compact spots.
+**Notes from Denis:**
+I have posted some SPICA images recorded during the same engineering tests. They can be viewed on this link:
+[[https://cloud.oca.eu/index.php/s/kpGeDZXWt8pGwAN|https://cloud.oca.eu/index.php/s/kpGeDZXWt8pGwAN]]
+For all sequences, we have, from left to right, E1-W2-W1-S2-S1-E1. Images are 10ms exposure and the gifs are 'almost' real time sequence of 30s (but continuous loop).
+  * 04-56-44: initial situation after opening and standard alignment. Large residual static aberrations on W2W1 clearly. Flux on E's is much less than others. Flat on W1, W2 does not improve the situation.
+  * 06-31-05: We did a stow, then M7 to default, and then dichroic alignment. Situation is better (but seeing may have evolved in the meantime).
+  * 07-15-03: BF/M7 alignment. The TopLeft-BottomRight elongation is related to the atmospheric refraction (zenithal distance ~40°).
+  * 07-30-33: same record close loop
+  * 07-34-41: record open loop
+From the last record, it can be seen that the seeing was really poor. The encircled energy computation goes from 3% (open loop) to 7-8% in close loop. We are still far from 25% as expected but the atmospheric refraction (not yet compensated) is also a limitation of course, as well as the seeing conditions. Many beams have residual static aberrations, probably due to LABAO issues, and E's are really presenting a low transmission.
+Qualitatively and with these conditions, I do not see obvious difference between the two methods of alignment for the AO performance. It's great to have all 6 AO working now.

The CHARA Array Wiki

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools