^
Meeting Minutes, February 21, 2006

^

Attendees:

Agenda:

1. Hardware order status.
2. Lab area update.
3. Motor selection.
4. Collimator status.
5. BC1 motion update.

Previous Actions:

1. Doug will confirm with Fred that 4 ethernet ports will be installed in Bldg 25.
2. James will check available rack space in the test area, and determine if we need more.

New Actions: (summary; see details below)

1. James will install MS Project and update the schedule.
2. James will check with Hytec regarding SMDS4 micro stepping option.
3. Tom will investigate stepping motors to use for the BC1 articulating beamline.
4. Bob will e-mail Josh Stein about the details of their beamline motion controls.
5. Patrick will determine if a motorized beamline solution is essential for commissioning.
6. Patrick will produce a PRD for the BC1 articulating beamline control.

Minutes:

1. We discussed the status of our hardware order. Nothing new has arrived, but is due shortly. This includes
   1. The power bricks and shelf for the power supply and drive unit
   2. The octopus cable; James will check that is comes with the SMDS4.
2. We discussed the Lab area.
   1. James mentioned there is limited space in the racks in the Bldg 25 Lab area, but there is indeed shelf space we can use. We agreed we would use the shelf space for now.
   2. Network is due to be looked at tomorrow. Fred Hooker will call when he's ready. The current plan is to install 2 IFZ ports (no internet access required), and 2 regular internet-enabled ports.
3. Peter Marshall from Hytec has suggested that a control box for manual motor control can be constructed. No time frame or cost yet.
4. We discussed motor selection; we're awaiting Hytec equipment for testing.
   1. Patrick asked how would the choice be made. James said the motors that work best with equipment on order would be chosen, although there are other criteria too. A decision will be made within a week after arrival of the Hytec hardware.
5. Updates to the schedule on our Gantt chart are forthcoming, pending software installation. ^{Action: James will install MS Project and update the schedule.}
6. We discussed collimators.
   1. René said work is continuing on the BC1 collimator.
   2. He will use the jaw design from sector 30, but will fabricate new ones and minimize the changes.
      1. He said he's currently looking to ensure they will fit with those changes.
      2. He confirmed that they will have a shuttle switch for the lower limit of the gap, and there will be 5 switches in total.
      3. He mentioned it will use a reciprocating ball drive.
      4. The jaws at BC1 need 100 mm maximum gap, and there will be 2 LVDTs, one for each jaw.
      5. He mentioned each jaw can travel 10mm past center, and up to 60mm full travel mechanically. Current sector 30 travel is only 30 mm.
   3. The current plan is to take no more than 10 seconds full travel time.
   4. Tom said that we'd need resolution specs; it was suggested that we need micron resolution similar to wire scanners.
   5. Tom also reiterated our plan to keep all motion using the same mechanism, to help with keeping spares and performing maintenance.
   6. The question of micro stepping came up briefly, not necessarily for collimators but in general. James will check for SMDS4 micro stepping option. ^{Action: James will check with Hytec regarding SMDS4 micro stepping option.}
7. We then discussed the BC1 articulating beamline motion.
   1. Tom, James and Doug had a productive meeting with Leif, last Friday, February 17th.
   2. Although the documentation indicates a servo motor, the slide manufacturer offers steppers as well.
      1. We have no high speed requirements, but must be able to apply 300 lb linear force. Tom will investigate stepper motors for this application. ^{Action: Tom will investigate stepping motors to use for the BC1 articulating beamline.}
   3. Bob mentioned that Leif had traveled to the APS at Argonne, and they have an articulating beamline working.
      1. He asked if we could use the same scheme here, to help decrease workload. Doug said it seems like a good thing to investigate. ^{Action: Bob will e-mail Josh Stein about the details of their beamline motion controls.}
      2. James had concerns about using a one of a kind motor, and Tom shares those concerns.
      3. Patrick asked how big a motor is required, and Tom went through some details; he is investigating.
   4. We discussed position readback.
      1. We will use LVDTs. Tom wants to use 2; a large one for gross changes, and a smaller one with dynamic travel abilities for fine resolution at one end.
      2. Patrick said that might not work, considering we need fine resolution over a larger range.
   5. Patrick suggested the moving beamline might not be essential for commissioning. It was asked if we could somehow use a hand crank on the table for commissioning. Patrick will investigate. ^{Action: Patrick will determine if a motorized beamline solution is essential for commissioning.}
   6. Patrick suggested that we should have a more formal physics requirements document available. ^Action: Patrick will produce a PRD for the BC1 articulating beamline control.^