User:Pranav Rathi/Notebook/OT/2010/05/06 - Revision history

Pranav Rathi at 22:21, 15 November 2012

2012-11-15T22:21:24Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 22:21, 15 November 2012
Line 15:		Line 15:
	<!--ghfhfghfghfghfghfghfgjhfgfggh-->		<!--ghfhfghfghfghfghfghfgjhfgfggh-->

-	[[Category:~~1064crystalaser~~]]	+	[[Category:Optical tweezers Notes Archive]]

Pranav Rathi at 20:26, 15 November 2012

2012-11-15T20:26:15Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 20:26, 15 November 2012
Line 15:		Line 15:
	<!--ghfhfghfghfghfghfghfgjhfgfggh-->		<!--ghfhfghfghfghfghfghfgjhfgfggh-->

-	[[Category:~~Optical Tweezer~~]]	+	[[Category:1064crystalaser]]

Pranav Rathi at 22:35, 11 May 2010

2010-05-11T22:35:55Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 22:35, 11 May 2010
Line 13:		Line 13:

	Bingo!!! Look at surface profile it looks way better at 54. Horizontal profile is also way better the dip is gone. It’s obvious the profile at this temperature is way better. Tomorrow I will do the profiling from .2w to 4.1w at this temperature and then compare it with our previous results. So we know that at this temperature upto what power we can go safely in comparison to 1.7w of safe-limit at 84f. And also better understanding of TC time taking to reach at the desired temperature of 50.		Bingo!!! Look at surface profile it looks way better at 54. Horizontal profile is also way better the dip is gone. It’s obvious the profile at this temperature is way better. Tomorrow I will do the profiling from .2w to 4.1w at this temperature and then compare it with our previous results. So we know that at this temperature upto what power we can go safely in comparison to 1.7w of safe-limit at 84f. And also better understanding of TC time taking to reach at the desired temperature of 50.
		+	<!--ghfhfghfghfghfghfghfgjhfgfggh-->

	[[Category:Optical Tweezer]]		[[Category:Optical Tweezer]]

Pranav Rathi at 23:45, 6 May 2010

2010-05-06T23:45:12Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 23:45, 6 May 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:
	A quick run is done today at 3.64 w with laser temperature normal 84F and 54F. The difference in beam profile is clear. One more thing I noticed about the TC is, even after a period of 1hour it never reached the desired temperature of 50, it kind of stuck at 54 (the reading given by the computer) and moving very slowly an after 1.5hours it barely reached 55 (at the multimeter sensor). So I took the computer temperature in record.		A quick run is done today at 3.64 w with laser temperature normal 84F and 54F. The difference in beam profile is clear. One more thing I noticed about the TC is, even after a period of 1hour it never reached the desired temperature of 50, it kind of stuck at 54 (the reading given by the computer) and moving very slowly an after 1.5hours it barely reached 55 (at the multimeter sensor). So I took the computer temperature in record.

-	[[Image: 3.64wR84f.png\|center\|3.64wR84f\|600x600px]]	+	[[Image: 3.64wR84f.png\|thumb\|center\|3.64wR84f\|600x600px]]

-	[[Image: 3.64wR54f.png\|center\|3.64wR54f\|600x600px]]	+	[[Image: 3.64wR54f.png\|thumb\|center\|3.64wR54f\|600x600px]]

	Bingo!!! Look at surface profile it looks way better at 54. Horizontal profile is also way better the dip is gone. It’s obvious the profile at this temperature is way better. Tomorrow I will do the profiling from .2w to 4.1w at this temperature and then compare it with our previous results. So we know that at this temperature upto what power we can go safely in comparison to 1.7w of safe-limit at 84f. And also better understanding of TC time taking to reach at the desired temperature of 50.		Bingo!!! Look at surface profile it looks way better at 54. Horizontal profile is also way better the dip is gone. It’s obvious the profile at this temperature is way better. Tomorrow I will do the profiling from .2w to 4.1w at this temperature and then compare it with our previous results. So we know that at this temperature upto what power we can go safely in comparison to 1.7w of safe-limit at 84f. And also better understanding of TC time taking to reach at the desired temperature of 50.

	[[Category:Optical Tweezer]]		[[Category:Optical Tweezer]]

Pranav Rathi at 23:43, 6 May 2010

2010-05-06T23:43:05Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 23:43, 6 May 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:
	A quick run is done today at 3.64 w with laser temperature normal 84F and 54F. The difference in beam profile is clear. One more thing I noticed about the TC is, even after a period of 1hour it never reached the desired temperature of 50, it kind of stuck at 54 (the reading given by the computer) and moving very slowly an after 1.5hours it barely reached 55 (at the multimeter sensor). So I took the computer temperature in record.		A quick run is done today at 3.64 w with laser temperature normal 84F and 54F. The difference in beam profile is clear. One more thing I noticed about the TC is, even after a period of 1hour it never reached the desired temperature of 50, it kind of stuck at 54 (the reading given by the computer) and moving very slowly an after 1.5hours it barely reached 55 (at the multimeter sensor). So I took the computer temperature in record.

-	[[Image: 3.64wR84f.png\|3.64wR84f\|600x600px]]	+	[[Image: 3.64wR84f.png\|center\|3.64wR84f\|600x600px]]

-	[[Image: 3.64wR54f.png\|3.64wR54f\|600x600px]]	+	[[Image: 3.64wR54f.png\|center\|3.64wR54f\|600x600px]]

	Bingo!!! Look at surface profile it looks way better at 54. Horizontal profile is also way better the dip is gone. It’s obvious the profile at this temperature is way better. Tomorrow I will do the profiling from .2w to 4.1w at this temperature and then compare it with our previous results. So we know that at this temperature upto what power we can go safely in comparison to 1.7w of safe-limit at 84f. And also better understanding of TC time taking to reach at the desired temperature of 50.		Bingo!!! Look at surface profile it looks way better at 54. Horizontal profile is also way better the dip is gone. It’s obvious the profile at this temperature is way better. Tomorrow I will do the profiling from .2w to 4.1w at this temperature and then compare it with our previous results. So we know that at this temperature upto what power we can go safely in comparison to 1.7w of safe-limit at 84f. And also better understanding of TC time taking to reach at the desired temperature of 50.
		+
		+	[[Category:Optical Tweezer]]

Pranav Rathi at 23:36, 6 May 2010

2010-05-06T23:36:00Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 23:36, 6 May 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:
	A quick run is done today at 3.64 w with laser temperature normal 84F and 54F. The difference in beam profile is clear. One more thing I noticed about the TC is, even after a period of 1hour it never reached the desired temperature of 50, it kind of stuck at 54 (the reading given by the computer) and moving very slowly an after 1.5hours it barely reached 55 (at the multimeter sensor). So I took the computer temperature in record.		A quick run is done today at 3.64 w with laser temperature normal 84F and 54F. The difference in beam profile is clear. One more thing I noticed about the TC is, even after a period of 1hour it never reached the desired temperature of 50, it kind of stuck at 54 (the reading given by the computer) and moving very slowly an after 1.5hours it barely reached 55 (at the multimeter sensor). So I took the computer temperature in record.

-	[[Image: 3.64wR84f.png\|600x600px]]	+	[[Image: 3.64wR84f.png\|3.64wR84f\|600x600px]]

-	[[Image: 3.64wR54f.png\|600x600px]]	+	[[Image: 3.64wR54f.png\|3.64wR54f\|600x600px]]

	Bingo!!! Look at surface profile it looks way better at 54. Horizontal profile is also way better the dip is gone. It’s obvious the profile at this temperature is way better. Tomorrow I will do the profiling from .2w to 4.1w at this temperature and then compare it with our previous results. So we know that at this temperature upto what power we can go safely in comparison to 1.7w of safe-limit at 84f. And also better understanding of TC time taking to reach at the desired temperature of 50.		Bingo!!! Look at surface profile it looks way better at 54. Horizontal profile is also way better the dip is gone. It’s obvious the profile at this temperature is way better. Tomorrow I will do the profiling from .2w to 4.1w at this temperature and then compare it with our previous results. So we know that at this temperature upto what power we can go safely in comparison to 1.7w of safe-limit at 84f. And also better understanding of TC time taking to reach at the desired temperature of 50.

Pranav Rathi: /* Power Step-Up Beam Profile experiment (BPE) with TC-48 */

2010-05-06T23:34:38Z

Power Step-Up Beam Profile experiment (BPE) with TC-48

←Older revision		Revision as of 23:34, 6 May 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:
	\| colspan="2"\|		\| colspan="2"\|
	<!-- ##### DO NOT edit above this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### -->		<!-- ##### DO NOT edit above this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### -->
-	~~==Power Step-Up Beam Profile experiment (BPE) with TC-48==~~	+	A quick run is done today at 3.64 w with laser temperature normal 84F and 54F. The difference in beam profile is clear. One more thing I noticed about the TC is, even after a period of 1hour it never reached the desired temperature of 50, it kind of stuck at 54 (the reading given by the computer) and moving very slowly an after 1.5hours it barely reached 55 (at the multimeter sensor). So I took the computer temperature in record.
-	A quick run is done today at 3.64 w with laser temperature normal ~~84oF~~ and ~~54oF~~. The difference in beam profile is clear. One more thing I noticed about the TC is, even after a period of 1hour it never reached the desired temperature of 50, it kind of stuck at 54 (the reading given by the computer) and moving very slowly. ~~While the sensor~~ (multimeter sensor) on the ~~side of the laser was still showing 60~~.	+

-	[[Image: 3.64wR84f.png]]	+	[[Image: 3.64wR84f.png\|600x600px]]

-	[[Image: 3.64wR54f.png]]	+	[[Image: 3.64wR54f.png\|600x600px]]

-	Bingo!!! Look at surface profile it looks way better at 54. Horizontal profile is also way better the dip is gone. It’s obvious the profile at this temperature is way better. Tomorrow I will do the profiling from .2w to 4.1w at this temperature and then compare it with our previous results. And also better understanding of TC time taking to reach at the desired temperature of 50.	+	Bingo!!! Look at surface profile it looks way better at 54. Horizontal profile is also way better the dip is gone. It’s obvious the profile at this temperature is way better. Tomorrow I will do the profiling from .2w to 4.1w at this temperature and then compare it with our previous results. So we know that at this temperature upto what power we can go safely in comparison to 1.7w of safe-limit at 84f. And also better understanding of TC time taking to reach at the desired temperature of 50.

Pranav Rathi: /* Entry title */

2010-05-06T23:25:17Z

Entry title

←Older revision		Revision as of 23:25, 6 May 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:
	\| colspan="2"\|		\| colspan="2"\|
	<!-- ##### DO NOT edit above this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### -->		<!-- ##### DO NOT edit above this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### -->
-	==~~Entry title~~==	+	==Power Step-Up Beam Profile experiment (BPE) with TC-48==
-	* OptoBio	+	A quick run is done today at 3.64 w with laser temperature normal 84oF and 54oF. The difference in beam profile is clear. One more thing I noticed about the TC is, even after a period of 1hour it never reached the desired temperature of 50, it kind of stuck at 54 (the reading given by the computer) and moving very slowly. While the sensor (multimeter sensor) on the side of the laser was still showing 60.

		+	[[Image: 3.64wR84f.png]]

-	~~<!-- ##### DO NOT edit below this line unless you know what you are doing~~. ~~##### -->~~	+	[[Image: 3.64wR54f.png]]
-	\|}	+

-	~~__NOTOC__~~	+	Bingo!!! Look at surface profile it looks way better at 54. Horizontal profile is also way better the dip is gone. It’s obvious the profile at this temperature is way better. Tomorrow I will do the profiling from .2w to 4.1w at this temperature and then compare it with our previous results. And also better understanding of TC time taking to reach at the desired temperature of 50.

Pranav Rathi: Autocreate 2010/05/06 Entry for User:Pranav_Rathi/Notebook/OT

2010-05-06T22:25:35Z

Autocreate 2010/05/06 Entry for User:Pranav_Rathi/Notebook/OT

New page

{|{{table}} width="800"
|-
|style="background-color: #EEE"|[[Image:owwnotebook_icon.png|128px]]<span style="font-size:22px;"> Project name</span>
|style="background-color: #F2F2F2" align="center"|<html><img src="/images/9/94/Report.png" border="0" /></html> [[{{#sub:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|0|-11}}|Main project page]]<br />{{#if:{{#lnpreventry:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}|<html><img src="/images/c/c3/Resultset_previous.png" border="0" /></html>[[{{#lnpreventry:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}{{!}}Previous entry]]<html>      </html>}}{{#if:{{#lnnextentry:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}|[[{{#lnnextentry:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}{{!}}Next entry]]<html><img src="/images/5/5c/Resultset_next.png" border="0" /></html>}}
|-
| colspan="2"|

==Entry title==
* OptoBio


|}

__NOTOC__