(Alexa, Sheila)
I am still puzzled by some of the mode matching measurements I took of ISCTEY. I had attemped to compare the accuracy of the Mode Master, Nanoscan, and Knife edge. They seem to approximately agree, but it's hard to say which is most accurate.
Regardless...I examined the beam profile exiting the table enclosure with all the lenses in place using the Mode Master. Refering to D1100607-v13, I found the optimal placement of the telescope to be: ALS-L6 13.5 inches from ALS-M9, ALS-L7 6 inches from ALS-M10. With an "a la mode" script, I determined the mode matching overlap with the TransMon secondary mirror to be 87% for the horizontal profile and 98.6% for the vertical profile. This overlap was computed with a 2.2mm waist at 3.5m from ALS-M11. The waist size and location was determined via T1200200-v1, D0902163, D1201457 as done in the ISCTEX MM alog with a correction of 4ft for the panel location change between EX and EY.
I have attached the scripts and MM snap shot. Note: the first matlab script is just the profile taken by the MM after the telescope, along with the overlap computation. The second script contains the full profile of ISCTEY, which is where some of my confusion persists.
I examined the beam width with the Mode Master, NanoScan, and Knife Edge on the ISCTEY with ALS-L5 in place (22inch from M6); however, prior to the telescope. Comparing the three measurements at approximately the same location away from the laser (z=0), I found:
Knife Edge:
z = 2.794m beam radii = .37mm
Nanoscan:
z = 2.756 m beam radii (horz) = .40mm beam radii (vert) = .43mm ** careful, data point was not taken at the exact same location as MM or knife edge
Mode Master:
z = 2.794m beam radii (horz) = .40mm beam radii (vert) = .42mm
These measurements are within ~ 10% of each other.