User Tools
basic_probe_tests
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
basic_probe_tests [2016/05/10 16:39] rdmclean |
basic_probe_tests [2016/05/11 11:37] (current) rdmclean |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Third sample set: Begun 6 May, 2016== | ==Third sample set: Begun 6 May, 2016== | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| + | Originally we thought that we were going to have a very wide spread. But we flipped the probe around so now we were out coupling and here is what we saw. We saw that most of what we were seeing was concentrated at about 40 degrees away from the center. I labeled that grating, I labeled the center dot as Center and then I took a measurement right before the lens which I called lens. The grating area is estimated to be 500x500 | ||
| + | {{:ryan:probe_test_2_out_coupling.jpg?direct&500|}}\\ | ||
| + | |||
| {{:ryan:probe_2_power_ratios.jpg?direct&500|}} \\ | {{:ryan:probe_2_power_ratios.jpg?direct&500|}} \\ | ||
| - | This is a layout of the apparatus that I have been using. The sample goes in a little holder that we have. It should be placed in the apparatus such that the laser shoots through the back into the grating. Then you can adjust the x, y, z and theta so that you can see the mode lines coming out of the wave guide. The mode lines that are coming out should be TE polarized. Pr | + | This is a layout of the apparatus that I have been using. The sample goes in a little holder that we have. It should be placed in the apparatus such that the laser shoots through the back into the grating. Then you can adjust the x, y, z and theta so that you can see the mode lines coming out of the wave guide. The mode lines that are coming out should be TE polarized. |
| I worked out measurements of Theta = 39.02, x = 6.04, y = 0.41,\\ | I worked out measurements of Theta = 39.02, x = 6.04, y = 0.41,\\ | ||
| - | The z changes according to the different waveguides: **2.7** , 3.54, 4.23, 4.5, 5.19, **5.82** . The bold are the ones I am most confident about. | + | The z changes according to the different waveguides: **2.7** , 3.54, 4.23, 4.5, 5.19, **5.82** . The bold are the ones I am most confident about.\\ |
| - | {{:red_testing_apparatus.jpg?direct&100|}} | + | {{:ryan:red_testing_apparatus_2_.jpg?direct&200|}} |
| - | This next one is a picture of the light coming out through a waveguide. | + | {{:probe_test_2_red_light.jpg?direct&200|}}{{:probe_test_2_red_polarized.jpg?direct&200|}}\\ |
| - | {{:probe_test_2_red_light.jpg?direct&1000|}} | + | The left is a picture of the light coming out through a waveguide. |
| - | This is a different waveguide, a smaller one and you can only see the TE polarized light | + | The right is a different waveguide, a smaller one and you can only see the TE polarized light |
| - | {{:probe_test_2_red_polarized.jpg?direct&1000|}} | + | |
| This is going to be the same test as I was going to run on sample 2. Because the design did not come out properly after the Heidelberg I am just going to rerun the fabrication process from that step. The design is therefore the same and I hope that this time the design will come out as planned. \\ | This is going to be the same test as I was going to run on sample 2. Because the design did not come out properly after the Heidelberg I am just going to rerun the fabrication process from that step. The design is therefore the same and I hope that this time the design will come out as planned. \\ | ||
| The matlab parameters were:\\ | The matlab parameters were:\\ | ||
| Line 28: | Line 31: | ||
| Probe 4 width = 3.703704e+01\\ | Probe 4 width = 3.703704e+01\\ | ||
| Probe 5 width = 1.234568e+01\\ | Probe 5 width = 1.234568e+01\\ | ||
| - | {{:probe_test2_mask_etch_noninverted_probewaveguides.jpg?direct&1000|}} | + | {{:probe_test2_mask_etch_noninverted_probewaveguides.jpg?direct&400|}} |
| - | {{:probe_test2_success.jpg?direct&1000|}} | + | {{:probe_test2_success.jpg?direct&200|}}\\ |
| I know this says sample 2, because it is the second design but not the 2nd sample. Everything worked a lot better this time even though I do not know what I changed to make the heidelberg print correctly. As you can see, it does look a little off center as if it was just a little bit diagonal but I think that is better and I hope that it does not affect the end result. The rest of the process has gone well I believe. I may have taken off just a little bit too much aluminum in the Al etch, but unless it seriously effects the proton exchange there should not be a problem. \\ | I know this says sample 2, because it is the second design but not the 2nd sample. Everything worked a lot better this time even though I do not know what I changed to make the heidelberg print correctly. As you can see, it does look a little off center as if it was just a little bit diagonal but I think that is better and I hope that it does not affect the end result. The rest of the process has gone well I believe. I may have taken off just a little bit too much aluminum in the Al etch, but unless it seriously effects the proton exchange there should not be a problem. \\ | ||
| The apparatus I used to test is the one with the red laser. There are a lot of different adjustments on that setup. The settings for test probe 2 were:\\ Theta = 320.95\\ X = 12.5\\ Y = 0.41\\ Z = 4.6\\ | The apparatus I used to test is the one with the red laser. There are a lot of different adjustments on that setup. The settings for test probe 2 were:\\ Theta = 320.95\\ X = 12.5\\ Y = 0.41\\ Z = 4.6\\ | ||
| Line 55: | Line 58: | ||
| Probe 4 width = 3.703704e+01\\ | Probe 4 width = 3.703704e+01\\ | ||
| Probe 5 width = 1.234568e+01\\ | Probe 5 width = 1.234568e+01\\ | ||
| - | {{:probe_test2_mask_etch_noninverted_probewaveguides.jpg?direct&1000|}} | + | {{:probe_test2_mask_etch_noninverted_probewaveguides.jpg?direct&400|}} |
| + | {{:probe_test2_heidelbergfail.jpg?direct&200|}}\\ | ||
| As I performed the aluminum etching, I found a slight problem with my sample. Somehow the settings on the Heidelberg must have been incorrect or different because my sample came out incorrectly. The design printed correctly, it just printed it in the wrong place. Because the design was off center, most of the design is missing and a large portion of the sample was left blank. \\ I assume that the next thing I should do is probably print the design again on a different sample and start again. I will probably just use Al etch to clear away the aluminum and then put it through the E-beam with the next batch so that I can use it again in the future. \\ | As I performed the aluminum etching, I found a slight problem with my sample. Somehow the settings on the Heidelberg must have been incorrect or different because my sample came out incorrectly. The design printed correctly, it just printed it in the wrong place. Because the design was off center, most of the design is missing and a large portion of the sample was left blank. \\ I assume that the next thing I should do is probably print the design again on a different sample and start again. I will probably just use Al etch to clear away the aluminum and then put it through the E-beam with the next batch so that I can use it again in the future. \\ | ||
| - | {{:probe_test2_heidelbergfail.jpg?direct&1000|}} | + | |
| Line 86: | Line 90: | ||
| Probe 5 width = 2.370370e+01\\ \\ | Probe 5 width = 2.370370e+01\\ \\ | ||
| - | {{:probe_test1_mask_etch_noninverted_probewaveguides.jpg?direct&1000|}} | + | {{:probe_test1_mask_etch_noninverted_probewaveguides.jpg?direct&400|}} |
| - | {{:probe_test1_picwithal.jpg?direct&1000|}} | + | {{:probe_test1_picwithal.jpg?direct&200|}} |
| {{:basic_probe_1_metricon.png?direct&1000|}} | {{:basic_probe_1_metricon.png?direct&1000|}} | ||
basic_probe_tests.1462919944.txt.gz · Last modified: 2016/05/10 16:39 by rdmclean
