AIDA
GELINA
BRIKEN
nToF
CRIB
ISOLDE
CIRCE
nTOFCapture
DESPEC
DTAS
EDI_PSA
179Ta
CARME
StellarModelling
DCF
K40
CARME
Draft saved at 00:00:00
Fields marked with
*
are required
Entry time:
Fri Apr 4 17:16:52 2025
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
Attachment 1:
Drop attachments here...
Draft saved at 00:00:00
ELOG V3.1.4-unknown