ELOG CARME

AIDA GELINA BRIKEN nToF CRIB ISOLDE CIRCE nTOFCapture DESPEC DTAS EDI_PSA 179Ta CARME StellarModelling DCF K40

CARME

Fields marked with * are required
Entry time:	Fri Jan 14 10:00:18 2022
Author*:
Subject*:
11.00 Per https://elog.ph.ed.ac.uk/CARME/170 and https://elog.ph.ed.ac.uk/CARME/171 issues have been identified with the FEE64 carriers and adaptor PCBs Some additional comments 1) Per https://elog.ph.ed.ac.uk/CARME/170 attachments 6-9 we can see that there are no cable strain reliefs to which we can attach the FEE64 power, RJ45 network and timestamp HDMI cabling. It would probably be straightforward to design something which could be attached to the FEE64 carrier side panels. For the time being we will use the copper piping of each FEE64 as the nearest, mechanically stable point to which we secure the cabling. 2) Before the skimming of 1x Delron rail yesterday there was a small amount (<1mm say?) of transverse movement of the FEE64 during insertion into the carrier and it is not clear why. Small sample of measurements of FEE64 carriers, spacers etc. Delron adaptor PCB support widths 92.85, 92.87, 92.90 Al DN100CF flange attachment width 92.97, 92.99, 93.01 Al FEE64 carrier spacing rod 93.03, 93.04, 93.03 FEE64 width (w/ 1x c. 2mm skimmed Delron rail) 100.2, 100.2, 100.3 (3 measurements along the length of the 1x FEE64) FEE64 carrier width 102.8, 103.0 (2 measurements of 1x FEE64 carrier) probably indicates that the spacing between the FEE64 plates is consistent. There is some variability (~0.1mm) in the Delron adaptor PCB which could affect the relative position of the ERNI pins and sockets. Is there some variability in the width of the FEE64s (w/ rails)? Encoding: HTML ELCode plain Suppress Email notification Resubmit as new entry

Attachment 1:
Drop attachments here...

ELOG V3.1.4-unknown