R. Crouch, J. Oberling, I. Abouelfettouh, O. Patane

As Ibrahim reported here, we have completed the first round of BBS position alignment (I say first round as we still have to do the pitch/yaw alignment, and that has the potential to change the position alignment so we may be doing this again).  In the basis of our alignment equipment, which is set normal to the AR face of the BBS, the deviations from nominal are:

• Horizontal: +0.3 mm (right)
  • Tolerance: +/- 1.0 mm
• Vertical: -0.1 mm (low)
  • Tolerance: +/- 1.0 mm
• Longitudinal: +0.4 mm (long)
  • Tolerance: +/- 1.0 mm

If we rotate these deviations to the XYZ axes using the BBS yaw we get deviations along those axes.  I'm using the target BBS yaw for this (specifically, the AR surface yaw from the +X axis of 45.1056°), as we have yet to measure or align the actual BBS yaw, so this is more of an estimate at this point but will work for now (it takes a yaw change on the order of several degrees to change this calculation at the 0.1 mm level, so this is a pretty good estimate); this will be tightened up once we align the BBS pointing and revisit the positioning.  The results (the tolerances rotate with the deviations, hence the change in X and Y):

• X: -0.1 mm
  • Tolerance: +/- 1.4 mm
• Y: +0.5 mm
  • Tolerance: +/- 1.4 mm
• Z: -0.1 mm
  • Tolerance: +/- 1.0 mm

The below table gives the target position of the center of the BBS's AR surface and the current position based on the above estimate of the XYZ deviations (all units are in mm):

The next step in the alignment is to use the FARO to set up a total station/laser autocollimator combo looking along the target surface normal of the HR surface of the BBS.  This will be used to align the BBS pitch and yaw.  Once that is done we'll have to re-check the BBS position alignment (again, using the AR surface of the BBS) to ensure the pointing alignment did not change the optic's position (which may happen in this case as the BBS is currently, as Ibrahim reports, "quite yawed").

R. Crouch, B. Weaver, I. Abouelfettouh, J. Oberling, R. Thompson

Today we placed and aligned the BBS SUS cage on the WBSC2 ISI.  In the morning we rough placed the SUS, and thought we had done a really good job on the first attempt.  However, that was fed by a misread of how the Build/Inspect function in PolyWorks, well, works, and upon doing a more thorough measurement (directly measuring a constraining plane to inform SMR radius compensation instead of letting PolyWorks handle it automatically) we found there was a position and rotation error to the cage.

In the afternoon we moved the SUS cage around until things looked really good.  We were well within our +/-1.0 mm XYZ tolerance, but once the SUS had been fully dog clamped to the ISI things shifted (as they do).  In this case, it was roughly 0.5 mm in the +Y direction.  All of our measurement points except one are within tolerance, so we called this good enough for SUS cage placement.  To end, Ryan and I measured the circle that's defined by the lower section of the Figure 8 (the round section of the SUS cage that surrounds the BBS) on both the HR and AR sides of the cage.  The first attachement shows the position deviations of the 4 points we used for cage placement/alignment and the current position of the HR and AR Figure 8; all except the Y axis position of 1 point are within our tolerance.  The second attachment shows the rotation of the SUS cage w.r.t. the ISI; the angles listed are in degrees and are measured from the positive axes they are associated with (so X Ang is measured from the +X axis).  These 2 lines show that the SUS cage is rotated roughly 400 - 500 µrad CCW (top-down view) from nominal.

Next up is to set up a total station looking at the AR face of the BBS to precisely align the optic to the ISI.

R. Crouch, J. Oberling, B. Weaver, S. Appert

We are done with the surveying of the aLIGO BS on the mechanical test stand.  I'm still working on processing the data but can give a quick overview of where things stand:

• With respect to the ISI, the BS is within the aLIGO install specifications (lateral/vertical +/- 1.0 mm; longitudinal +/- 3.0 mm)
  • Position deviations when looking normal to the AR surface
    • Lateral: -0.7 mm (left)
    • Vertical: -0.8 mm (low)
    • Longitudinal: +1.8 mm (in the +X/+Y direction)
  • Will rotate these to the IFO coordinate system at a later date, once all data has been processed
• BS Pointing is NOT within the aLIGO install specification (Pitch +/- 55 µrad; Yaw +/- 190 µrad)
  • Signs reported using the standard SUS sign convention (positive pitch is down, positive yaw is CCW when looking top-down)
  • Pointing deviations from nominal (Pitch: -446 µrad; Yaw: +0.7849 rad (44.9699°) from the +Y axis)
    • Pitch: -200 µrad
    • Yaw: -710 µrad
  • The yaw deviation appears to have been counteracted by a CCW yaw shift done via HEPI once the BS was installed in WBSC2 back in 2013; no explanation for the pitch deviation, but I do recall that pitch did not hold very well on the journey from the test stand to the chamber back in 2013, so there's no guarantee that our measured pitch here is fully representative of the BS optic pitch from in-chamber
  • We have a suspiscion there is an error in the test stand monument used to do the pointing alignment back in 2013, and potentially an error in the LVEA monument used to the in-chamber pointing alignment; working out a way to test that with the FARO
• The BS SUS cage mostly hangs around the aLIGO position tolerances, but we never measured it during the 2013 install (as our target was to place the optic, and the cage ended up wherever it ended up), so this is the first data we have on its position

I'm working on a larger alog tying together all of our BS and WBSC2 measurements (WBSC2 support tube ends, BS in-chamber, and BS on the test stand) to provide a more complete picture of the BS alignment as we have measured it these last couple of weeks (it's going to be a long one); this alog will have the full set of data from the various test stand measurements.  In addition, the SUS and IAS teams met yesterday to discuss our path forward.  We decided that, despite the error seen in pointing on the test stand, we will align the BBS to its nominal position and pointing w.r.t. the ISI on the test stand.  Once back in-chamber we will use the BBS SUS cage position as the metric for adjusting HEPI to once again place the BBS in its nominal in-chamber position; pointing will be restored with the BS optical lever, as originally planned.  I'll write up a RODA documenting this decision and upload it to the DCC ASAP.

This completes LHO WP 13210.

Edit: Some spelling and grammar clean up.

Robert, Mitchell

During HAM3 chamber work yesterday the lower panel of the MCB2 panel was removed. This was needed for a clear path for the SPI. There were concerns that the removal would be difficult. The tolerence on the holes in the panels put strain and binding pressure on the screws going into the gussets. A few of the screws needed to gentle coaxing with patience and some Isopropal alcohol. Eventually they all came out without breaking or seizing. No pictures of the removal process were taken.

Pictures of the baffles added to HAM3 will be documented in a different alog.

Summary:

The problem of "Sense" pin of OMCA QPD1 short-circuited to the BHDS structure (alog 90029 from yesterday) was tracked down to the free "sense" wire inside the QPD enclosure touching the aluminum part inside the enclosure. We solved the problem by trimming the wire short.

Merely opening the QPD enclosure broke the short circuit temporarily:

We lifted the OMCA QPD1 from the BHDS while QPD2 is still attached to the BHDS and confirmed that the sense pin for the QPD1 is conductive to the QPD1 enclosure but not to the BHDS. As soon as we opened the back of the QPD1 enclosure, the short-circuit to the enclosure was broken. 

It seemed that the free part of the sense wire was a bit too long and bowed in the enclosure, allowing the tip of that wire to touch the inside wall of the enclosure itself (see Elenna's first image in her comments).

Cutting the sense wire short broke the short circuit permanently:

I cut the wire short such that it cannot touch the enclosure (Elenna's second picture), reassembled the enclosure and confirmed that there's no short circuit between the sense pin and anything else. 

Repeating the tests:

We put the QPD1 back on the BHDS and connected the cable to the transimpedance amplifier. On the oscilloscope, it was immediately apparent that the terrible 60Hz noise (which was 6.5V p-p) was gone (Elenna's 3rd picture).

We repeated the flashlight test, all segments responded with O(1)mV negative voltage (i.e. positive output minus negative output from the TIA amplifier was negative few mV maximum) while the dark offset was O(0.1mV).

We also measured the dark noise. It seems that all measurements for both QPD1 and QPD2 were limited by the noise of the TIA. Low frequency noise especially 60Hz and its harmonics varied from channel to channel, but in all cases it seemed that there's very little difference between the noise measured with QPD connected VS the noise without QPD. As such, I'll just show here a few examples. First attachment is the QPD1 segment 1 noise with the QPD attached, the second is the same thing but without QPD connected to the front panel of the TIA. They look identical. The third one is the QPD1 segment 4 (with QPD attached, not much different without QPD). The fourth one is the QPD2 segment 3 (with QPD attached, not much different without QPD).

There's no reason to suspect that QPD1 for OMCA is broken (nor QPD2).

Problem

We started checking the health of QPDs and were puzzled that all four quadrants of the OMCA QPDA are much, much noisier than OMCA QPDB.

Note, there's a naming inconsistency about the QPD numbering between D2200276 wiring diagram and D0981811 (see "cartoon version"). 

Cause of the problem

Anyway, the problem was tracked down to short-circuit of common mode noise sensing line for OMCA-QPD1 (pin 11 of DB25 inside the vacuum, pin 3 outside of the vacuum, see attached) to the metal part of the suspension structure (i.e. ISI surface and the chamber) which in turn is grounded to the lab ground.

OMCA QPD-2 as well as both of the QPDs for OMCB are fine.

All QPD segments (incl. OMCA QPD1) responded to the flashlight.

Dark noise test: OMCB QPDs looks OK, not sure about OMCA QPDs

We connected a dual-QPD trans impedance chassis (S1102832, which is the original version of D1002481) to the OMCB QPDs like this:

QPDs-DB25 assy - in-vac cable (DB25F-DB25F)  - feedthrough simulator - DB25F-to-DB25M-cable - S1102832 front panel.

We looked at the output of the TIA with SR785 when there's only ambient light on QPDs (not much), segment by segment. No segment was extra noisy or anything.

OMCA QPDs are a different story because of the 60Hz problem. 

We'll see if the problem could be solved by somehow reassembling the QPD or cutting the noise line. 

The BSC2 cartridge was removed from the BSC2 chamber today and placed on the Test Stand in the West Bay (+Y bay).  The lift took 3 "test lifts" to make very minor adjustments to the CG prior to lift out of the chamber - on the 4th lift, we were very well balanced so embarked on the flight.
Like LLO, the BS had it's "Stay Leg" assemblies and Vibration Absorber Assemblies removed for the flight.  This means it was probably lighter than the 2013 time (alog 5689) when we did this which had the weight slightly heavier.  The cartridge plus 3-point lift fixture and load cell together all weighed 9380 lbs.  It was rotated 90deg Counterclockwise per the procedures and landed on the threaded rod in the test stand with little issue other than careful craning and spotting.
All went as expected and according to the procedures E1200433-v3, E1200971-v4 and associated docs.

Mitchell, Travis, Tyler, Randy (on crane) all up on the platform
Jim and Tony inside of BSC2
Gerardo, Jordan on the eMod as Support
TJ on the camera
Betsy soaking it all in (support)

A pre-lift meeting was held to go over the teams and maneuver details (again) at 9am prior to work starting.

Particle counts up at the dome level were all 0,0 before starting.
More photos and videos will be posted when those folks have them available.

Covers used - A BS/QUAD SUS tube cover up underneath, an ISI cover up on the ISI, the BSC Cartridge sock which encased the whole thing, dropped down to Jim and Tony once the lift was up a couple feet.  

The bulk of the work was from ~10:30am-1pm.  Most of the time before was getting folks in headsets and gear and getting equipment on.

Today, with the BS SUS set to SAFE and the SEI chassis turned off at the rack, Tony, Ibrahim and I started unplugging and logging all of the cables in the chamber at the feedthrus.  I have a master log going which will be posted as an As-Built to the D1003079 BSC2 Flange Feedthru Layout Drawing for future re-plug-in activities.  Pictures of 2 feedthrus prior to unplugging are attached for samples of what I'm talking about.

As well, we dropped the ITMX Elliptical Baffle and Down Tube Sub assemblies from Stage 2 and have a good start on the ITMY one but didn't finish since it has mismatched hardware and we need a different tool.  (In the event we need to put them back up, we left them off to the sides of the chamber to deal with later - the ITMX one is the one closest into the ITMX chamber.)

Also also, we locked the BS SUS, tightened all of the nuts, removed all of the Vibration Absorber Cubes, and put the sock on the full SUS.

Tomorrow we need to:

Add the BS Face cover
Remove a Stay or 4
Finish stowing all of the dangling cables
Finish removing the ITMY Elliptical Baffle
Get on with the Support Tube and SEI work

PARTICLE COUNTS in Cleanroom Tent on top of BSC2:  All zeros (or puffs of 10) across from the HEPA flow bank on the opposite side of the ISI pillow, see pix attached.  Counted just after crew left area doing walking plates.  The Tent is working as planned.

PEM BNCs wandering across the West bay was coiled up out of the way of all of the heavy foot traffic.

PEM WEST BAY WALL COIL cables across floor has been disconnected and also coiled up and now out of the way of heavy foot traffic. 

Travis/Mitchell/Randy installed the Walking Plates for better access to the ISI up at the platform level.  Note, after some deliberation and re-reviewing of the drawings (which are actually incorrect), it turns out that you cannot attach the bolts to the underside of the flanges anyways due to in-accessibility of the area.  LLO doesn't recall using them recently either. (Last picture)

J. Oberling, R. Crouch, J. Warner, B. Weaver, I. Abouelfettouh

This week we surveyed the position of the components that reside in WBSC2: The BS SUS cage (BSS), the ISI optics table (ISI Stage 2), and the 2 ITM Elliptical Baffles.

BS and the SUS Cage

The first picture shows our FARO survey of points on the BS SUS cage, chiefly along the bottom of the main support structure.  These were surveyed by holding the FARO SMR against the hole being measured; the PolyWorks software handles the compensation from the center of the SMR to the point being measured.  As can be seen, each point is very close in both X and Y axis position, being less than 0.1mm from its nominal location.  The Z axis deviations are larger, but the largest of them is just over 0.25 mm, so every point is well within the positioning specifications used during installation and alignment in 2013.

Line 1 in the picture was created from the first and last survey points and represents the pointing of the BS SUS cage; all angles are reported in degrees.  Some things to note here: I'm using the Acute Angle datum in PolyWorks, which is the angle measured from the closest axis.  For the HR surface normal of the BS, the X Acute Angle is measured from the -X axis, the Y Acute Angle is measured from the +Y axis, and the Z Acute Angle is measured from the +Z axis.  Since Line 1 is roughly perpendicular to the surface normal of the BS HR face, the axes the angles measure from are changed: The X Acute angle is now measured from the +X axis, the Y Acute Angle is still from the +Y axis, and the Z Acute Angle is now from the -Z axis.  In addition, since Line 1 is nominally perpendicular to the BS HR surface normal I would expect the X and Y Acute angles to be swapped (BS X Acute = Line 1 Y Acute; BS Y Acute = Line 1 X Acute), but they aren't exactly.  This appears to be a small error in the CAD model, if we make the assumption that the BS HR surface and the HR side of the BS SUS cage are nominally pointing in the same direction.  This does, however, change the deviations for the X and Y Acute angles for Line 1.  The table below shows what the data for Line 1 should be:

This means the BS SUS cage is yawed 0.0626°, or ~1.09 mrad, in the clockwise (CW) direction when looking from the top down (since Line 1 is closer to the +X axis than it should be).  The Z Acute Angle represents a slight counterclockwise (CCW) roll of the SUS cage, when looking directly at the HR surface of the BS.

To attempt to better locate the BS in the IFO coordinate system, several measurements were taken with a ruler from points on the "Figure 8" section of the BS SUS cage to the BS optic itself.  All measurments except one were done using a scale with 0.5 mm tic marks (so accurate to +/- 0.25 mm).  The 10:00 "Figure 8 face to BS HR face" measurement had to be done using the side of the scale in inches, with 1/32" tic marks (so accurate to +/- 1/64") and then converted to mm (so accurate to +/- 0.4 mm).  The measurements positions are listed like the BS HR surface is a clock, and assumes you are looking directly at the HR surface.  The below table gives those results:

The BS sits decently centered in the Figure 8 portion of the SUS cage, a little bit low and to the +X/+Y side.  I would say not as much horizontally as it looks from the table, given the inherent error with reading the scale (the BS is not wider than its 370.0 mm specification, it's actually 0.15 mm narrower at 369.85 mm).  The pointing implied by this measurement, however, is more than a little alarming.  The 2:00 and 10:00 measurements show a significant yaw of the BS optic w.r.t. the SUS cage, and in the same direction as the yaw of the SUS cage as measured by the FARO.  There is ~320.0 mm between the 2:00 and 10:00 positions on the BS, so that 1.45 mm difference in depth is a 4.53 mrad CW yaw.  When added to the CW yaw of the SUS cage, this measurement shows that the BS optic is yawed 5.62 mrad CW from its nominal yaw.  Even assuming the errors fall in our favor (so the 2:00 at 25.0 mm and the 10:00 at 25.8 mm), that's still a 3.59 mrad CW yaw (2.5 mrad BS and 1.09 mrad SUS cage).  In addition, the 6:00 measurement implies a significant downward pitch of potentially several mrad, although with no way to measure the top of the optic we can't actually measure it.  I have to be honest, I'm having a very hard time believing this measurement; we will revisit this once the BS cartridge has been moved to the test stand, where we have a better field of view for the FARO, more room to work and much better lighting around the BS, and can take direct measurements of the BS position and pointing using a total station and laser autocollimator (although there is no guarantee that the optic will be pointing in exactly the same direction after being craned across the LVEA).  More to come on this.

ISI Optics Table

The second attachment shows the ISI positions as measured by the FARO.  I've corrected the Z axis positions for the length of the rod we use to hang the SMR from the ISI so they give a better idea of the Z axis position.  Not much can be said here, as LLO discovered that while these rods are good for measuring the Z axis position, they are not at all good at measuring X and Y.  This makes sense as they were designed to be accurate in length and only length, so there's no guarantee that X and Y are repeatable.  We plan on measuring the X and Y errors of this particular set of rods in the coming days (align to a table with a known hole pattern, attach the rod and measure with the FARO, repeat multiple times to see how the X and Y positions change).  For now, we can say that the ISI is lower on the -X side vs the +X side, and lower on the +Y side vs the -Y side.  I'm not alarmed by the deviations in Z axis position, as this ISI was supposed to be lower by ~2.5 mm (to place the BS in proper Z axis position, since it's lower in the IFO coordinate system but the SUS is the same length as the QUADs), but this was never captured in the CAD files.

ITM Elliptical Baffles

The final four attachments show our survey of both ITM elliptical baffles.  Our view of the baffles and available fiducials to take measurements from were both limited, but we can say a few things.

ITMx Elliptical Baffle

We were able to get two points along the +Y bottom edge of the baffle, a single point along the +Y top edge, and single point near the center of the -X bottom edge of the baffle.  From this I made a couple of planes that represent the +Y and bottom sides of the baffle and are shown in the third and fourth attachments; I, J, and K are the direction cosines of the surface normal of the plane, while the listed angles are the angle from the surface normal to the +X, +Y, and +Z axes. Interestingly, the point on the top edge looks very well aligned, within 1.0 mm all around, while the points along the bottom of the baffle are all low by several mm.  In addition, there appears to be a significant upward pitch to the baffle.  Jim did note that when attaching the transport bracket he had to push the baffle in the +X direction to clear ~0.5 mm at the point where the bracket attaches to the suspended portion of the baffle.  This point is roughly 476 mm away from the baffle's suspension blade, so this is an ~1.05 mrad angle.  Applying this same angle along the bottom of the baffle box gives an ~ -0.33 mm Z axis move of that bottom -X edge of the baffle, so this does not account for the measured deviation.  In addition to the pitch, the bottom plane also shows a large roll (CCW when looking at the ITMx in WBSC3), while the side plane shows a large yaw (CCW when looking from the top down).  We know these baffle panels aren't exactly straight, so it's hard to say if this significant pointing is also present on the elliptical hole of the baffle (we couldn't see it, so we couldn't measure it directly).

ITMy Elliptical Baffle

Similar to the ITMx baffle, we were only able to get a handful of points along the -X side and the bottom of the baffle.  I made planes from these points representing the -X side and the bottom of the baffle (fifth and sixth attachments).  As seen with the ITMx baffle, the points along the top of the baffle all look good while the points on the bottom are too low by several mm.  There is a significant upward pitch to this baffle as well, as well as a large roll (CCW when looking at ITMy in WBSC1) and yaw (CCW when looking from the top down), although none are as large those as seen on the ITMx elliptical baffle.  Again, we could not see the elliptical hole in the baffle to measure it, so we can't say if this pointing is an artifact of the panels or also present on the actual baffle portion of the baffle.

This completes our in-chamber measurements of the WBSC2 cartridge assembly, and closes LHO WP 13171.

I also want to note, Ryan and I also preformed some in-chamber FARO measurements in WHAM3 (ISI, MC2 SUS cage, PR2 SUS cage, MC2 and PR2 baffles) on April 10th; I will post those as soon as I get a chance to process the data in PolyWorks.

Randy has been hard at work adding temp handrails and the eMod garbing cleanroom to the BSC2 platform access area.  Its pretty workable now.  The temp handrails have a pretty large footprint so I might make changes to those in the next incarnation of this, so the walkway from the eMod to the BSC2 platform is pretty narrow.  This platform and eMod placement will service BSC1 and BSC3 as well however, so we will rework or remove some handrails as we add those sections.  The tent is easy to pull back when we need the dome and cartridge to be craned away.

On Monday, Randy, Jordan and the FAC team craned the HAM3 cleanroom over into the appropriate place for HAM3 entrance for installation planned next week.  The cleanroom is now up against the BSC2 Platform.  As well, Kim and Nellie have been cleaning the HAM3 cleanroom.

On Tuesday, Randy craned into place and attached the new Installation Platform Sections G and F to the BSC2 platform.  Handrails will be installed next.  These platforms allow access from the eMod cleanroom to the BSC2 cross flow Dome cleanroom and platform, as well as provide added walking space between BSC2 and BSC3.  They also form 2 sides of the BSC3 platform which will be needed in subsequent vents.  Recall, this new LHO BSC2 Installation setup is part of the readiness review for install at https://dcc.ligo.org/E2400329-v1, and is part of a bigger plan to add sections around BSC3 and BSC1 to make a larger platform instead of moving them and encountering interferences other items like racks, trays and equipment.

Today Randy T and I ran power for the Cross Flow HEPA fans on the platform around BSC2.  The fans are on and turned down to low at the moment.  We also moved the dust monitor from the floor to the platform to monitor dust counts to have a better understanding before pulling the dome.

Summary of investigation into the vertically split beam from the EOM

• First, we confirmed that the vertical beam splitting observed yesterday originates from the EOM itself. To check the possibility of multiple reflections from lenses, we inspected the back-reflection port of the JAC output mirror. Two reflected beams were observed, most likely originating from the planar and curved surfaces of the lens, and they were mainly separated in yaw. Since the space between the EOM and the lens was blocked during this test, these reflections were conclusively identified as lens reflections. No vertically split beams were observed from this source.

• A knife-edge–like test was performed by slowly lowering a metal ruler from the top at both the EOM input and output. At the EOM input, the entire beam disappeared simultaneously, whereas at the output the beam disappeared gradually from the top. This behavior confirmed that the vertical splitting is generated inside the EOM.

• To accurately determine the beam positions at the EOM input and output, beam positions were measured from photographs. Taking refraction and geometry into account, it was found that the beam is slightly displaced in the horizontal direction. Details of this analysis will be documented in Keita’s alog.

• Based on this result, the EOM was rotated in yaw. Dog clamps were placed at the ±y projection points of the EOM input and output, in contact with the base plate. One 0.5-mm shim was inserted between the base plate and each dog clamp to rotate the EOM counterclockwise. However, the beam pattern did not change. Additional shims were tested, but no significant change was observed. The EOM was fixed with one 0.5-mm shim at each position.

• Next, pitch adjustments were explored. The original shim configuration (two shims on the +y side and one on the −y side) was changed by moving shims to the +x side (one location at center) and the −x side (two locations, upper and lower). Each location initially had two shims, and by adding or removing shims, it was observed that the vertical positions of the split beams changed. When the +x (downstream) side was raised, the vertically split beams appeared in the upper part of the beam profile (approximately 5–7 beams; Keita will upload photos). Conversely, when shims were added to raise the −x side, the split beams moved toward the lower part of the beam. With the downstream side lowered by approximately 0.25 mm, about two beams were observed in the upper part and one in the lower part.

• 1W input power shows 6 or more beams, but 2-3 beams can be observed even with 100mW.

• With the last configuration, we proceeded the IMC scan measurement after alignment. The 2nd order mode peak was the same level as we observed when we sim up the EOM first time.

• In summary, the EOM shows highly questionable and nontrivial behavior. Possible causes include diffraction due to crystal defects or multiple reflections at the AR-coated surfaces. However, identifying the exact mechanism is challenging at this stage.