1 / 36

Visible-light Comparisons

Visible-light Comparisons. • LLNL and Zeiss M1 measurements • Predicted vs. Measured system. EUV and Visible Comparisons. • The MET arrived at LBNL with a significant spherical aberration (>1 nm).

michaelperry
Download Presentation

Visible-light Comparisons

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Visible-light Comparisons • LLNL and Zeiss M1 measurements • Predicted vs. Measured system

  2. EUV and Visible Comparisons • The MET arrived at LBNL with a significant spherical aberration (>1 nm). • Alignment sets astigmatism, coma, and spherical aberration to arbitrarily (small) values. Following alignment, comparison of those terms is not meaningful. The interferometry has recently concluded andthis data analysis is still in progress.

  3. Alignment • Alignment is performed with 6 actuators on the arms that suport M1. • Typical adjustments are 0.05 – 1.5 µm per arm. Observations • In the hours following an alignment, significant, sometimes abrupt, changes were observed (e.g. 0.3 nm coma or spherical aberration). • Subsequently, the system appears to be stable long-term ( > weeks). • Experiments were conducted to look for drift. • Alignment seems invariant of temperature (20–24.5°C). • Vacuum behavior may be different than at-air (?)

  4. Summary • EUV interferometry of the MET is complete and the system is being re-configured for imaging. • The optic may have have better than l/20 imaging performance. • Both EUV shearing and PS/PDI interferometry have been extended to 0.3 NA. • Comparison between different interferometers provides the best (only) opportunity for continuing accuracy improvements. • Differences between interferometers and current uncertainty levels are too high.

More Related