XPS has been proceeded on the 400kW SBOX mirrors M3 and M4 (the initial cavity spherical mirrors) in frebruary 2019. Deposited a lot of particles on these mirrors.
All the mirrors received a Infrared spectroscopy the 12th of november 2019. Deposited glue on the non-reflective face (was used to hold them).
15th of november (2019): The four 400kW SBOX mirror's have been cleaned with aceton and isopropanol.
28th of november (2019): The four 400kW SBOX mirror's have been cleaned with spin coater.

Summary:

Aceton and isopropanol removed most of the particles and all the glue. But it let some traces on the mirror surface on all the mirrors (so there is some kind of grease on the surfaces).
Spin coater removes all the traces.

See pictures. On all the first images, we also see the dust which is on the non reflective face through the mirror. On M3 and M4 there is still the "glue" on the non reflective face on their frst images + refletive faces very dirty because of XPS.

AFM+ InfraRed spectroscopy (IR spectro) has been performed on 400kW S-BOX mirrors.

Seems that XPS made M3 and M4 dirty, but M1 have also ome dust. M2 seems clean, further AFM experiment should show that it is as clean as M1.

Onefive output power is 24mW now, and 2.41mW(after EOM) injected into fiber,

a injection power monitor added, 99% (2.06mW)  injected into amplifier, 1% (16.1uW) monitored with photodiode DET36A/M, which gives ~500mV DC signal on oscilloscope with 1Mohm impedanc;

First stage amplifier works good, monitoring phtodiode gives more than 200mV DC signal with 50ohm impedance on oscilloscope (as attached photo);

Second stage, the old monitoring photodiode is broken, a new monitoring photodiode is connected, which we don't have reference data for it,

on the optical output port of the monitoring signal, it's written 150mW, but at where we measured 40mW.

I just had a phone call with Jérome and he told me 2 things :

* Be carefull ! the MightyLaser amplifier is not designed to work with 33MHz laser : the streching level is not sufficient !
One could worsen the phase noise by self-modulation due to peak power or even distroy the amplifier !
One should use it only at low power !!!

* He thinks we should more or less find back the same DC levels than before even with lower seeding power and lower repetition rate.
He thinks we should look at the optical spectrum to check if we don't have some ASE in the 1st stage and 2nd stage signal !
We can send him plots or call him to discuss these points.

30/01/19 - The following powerpoint shows the results discussed with LMA people.

What came out from the discussion is:

- Their cleaning method uses demineralized water drop on a spinner. It is probably the explanation of the circular traces on the mirror's surfaces but we still don't know what is this deposit (XPS is running out on 2 of this mirrors at this time).

-  According to their point of view, the spots could come from the coating deposition technique and are "normal". No real explaination, should not come from the substrat which is ultra-polished but can come from some clustering in the coating.

We gave them 2 of the mirrors so they can check if it is possible to clean them. They'll also do a measurement of the mirror's topology.

29/02/19 - AFM has shown that spots on mirror's surfaces are bumps and not holes.

All the mirrors show impacts on there surface (some of them do not show deposit). Does it come from experiments or fabrication ? Are these holes or bumps ?

Cleaning on dirty surface shows something is deposited on the surface. Cleaning displaces and removes part of the deposit.

Mirrors arrived today from LMA. Their features are damaged.

Photos avant ou après nettoyage, pas clair dans le mail de Laurent : 

"J'ai commencé à nettoyer M1 et M2 avec notr methode habituelle et je me suis aperçu que sur la partie centrale (en gros taille de ton faisceau j'ai l'impression) que des choses apparaissaient (voir photo)
Si bien que la diffusion n'a pas évolué dans le bon sens (diminution) voir empiré pour M1. J'ai donc arrêter de les nettoyer !!!
J'ai regardé les faces arrières des miroirs avant nettoyage et j'ai pu voir ce que tu vois sur la photo même au centre. Je sais pas de quoi cela peut venir.
Une chose est sûre le coating IBS a été altéré par je ne sais quoi dans ta manip provoquant cette dégradation dès qu'on y touche. L'interaction avec les faisceaux d'eélectrons n'avait jamais altéré les miroirs sur l'expértience DESY par exemple!!
Pour me rassurer, j'ai pris un miroir fait sur un micropoli qu'on a en stock et aucun pb lors du nettoyage (on peut penser à tout)"
 

The new mirrors didn't give expected results. Then the 4 old mirrors have been sent to LMA on 12/11/18 for a cleaning and caracterization before and after cleaning. Also asked for a diffusion/absorption map on the mirrors if possible. They didn't really answered on what will they do. 
Received on 13/11/18 by LMA.

Center of M1:

At different positions, transmission give 194, 193, 208, 200 ppm?

The kept transmission for M4 is 2.17 ppm. Which is the value measured after alignement (center of the mirror).

These measurements have been taken before alignement.

High dependence against the position. Few measurement several mm away from the center each one at different position give 194, 193, 208, 200 ppm.

First finesse measurement 20 266, FSR 133.351 MHz under vacuum

Measurements show that ratio decrease versus power. BUT, the second resonance measurement induce lower power in the cavity so the ratio is not directly true.

Also, simulation of the main/second resonance power by Pierre's simulation has shown ratio ~50, ~47.6 and 43.5 respectively for 0A, 2A and 4A.

Measurement on 24/10/18

Measurement on 25/10/2018

Check of the frequency of the onefive locked on each polarization of the cavity (tilt a waveplate by 45°).

Frequency repetition rate : 133.335 MHz on spectrum analyzer for both polarization locked.

Measurement on 30/10/18.

Measurements of lot of points with D-shape mirrors well positionned.

Power not optimized to the best but almost. (@4A could have 350 mW).

Measurement done on 18/10/18.

At high power, the shape of the 0.0 mode does not change. The D-shape only generate losses in the cavity. Then the power stored in the cavity decrease. As with this configuration, the cavity beam size decrease when power increase, the beam size decreased.

Measurements done @4A on 3rd stage.

Then we get the D-shape away from the beam to not cut it and decreased the amplifier power to validate the beam size at a known value. So the power as been decreased to 2A (= 125 mW in trans) and the beam size was x=2079 y=2255, similar to the 125 mW with D-shape mirrors values.

Matlab code for size vs position and power : 

clear all
close all

x = [1820 1820 1925 1936 2117 2260];
y = [2013 2013 2029 2090 2249 2392];
Position = [0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1];
Trans = [337 330 306 245 128 17]

hold on
[ax,h1,h2] = plotyy(Position,x,Position,Trans)
set(get(ax(1), 'Ylabel'), 'String', 'Beam diameter (um)');
set(get(ax(2), 'Ylabel'), 'String', 'Transmitted power (mW)');
xlabel('Position of the D-shape (mm)')
plot(Position,y,'g')
hold off

Measurements have been done on 18/10/18.

Datas are on excel file, also matlab file.

Motors have been installed on 16/10/18. No problem with them.

Effect of the motors tested on 17/10/18. No improvement. But they give the possibility to perfectly cut HOM or let them go through as show the following picture of a 2.2 mode at ~340 mW in trans and 70% coupling @4A.

Measurement made on 03/10/18 (nothing has been done since there).

Stable power in the cavity of 225 kW.