^
Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2006

^

Attendees:

Agenda:

1. Review outstanding action items.
2. Hardware order status.
3. Lab area update.
4. Collimator status.

Previous Actions:

1. James will check with Hytec regarding SMDS4 micro stepping option.
2. Tom will investigate stepping motors to use for the BC1 articulating beamline.
3. Patrick will determine if a motorized beamline solution is essential for commissioning.
4. Patrick will produce a PRD for the BC1 articulating beamline control.

New Actions: (summary; see details below)

1. None this week.

Minutes:

1. We have several actions from previous meetings that are still unresolved.
   1. Patrick mentioned that the PRD for BC1 beamline motion would be ready after next week.
   2. He also suggested that the BC1 beamline motion might not be required for initial commissioning, although Paul has indicated it should be there. We'll need to prioritize motion control tasks for commissioning.
   3. James has no information yet about micro stepping options from Hytec. Tom pointed out that this option was not for increasing resolution, but for smoothing out the motion.
2. Doug mentioned that we still need someone to coordinate the efforts for the detectors.
   1. He said that Doug McCormick and Paul Emma just had a meeting to discuss the location of the PMTs and Ion chambers, and what other tasks might be required.
   2. The ion chambers will need high voltage, as will the PMTs, but they also required gas (Argon CF4) to be run.
   3. It was agreed that James will co-ordinate work for PMTs, ion chambers and associated components.
   4. Doug will distribute details of the PMT/Ion chamber placement meeting separately.
3. We talked briefly about the schedule.
   1. New tasks have been defined for collimators, BC1 beamline control and for the undulator gap motion control for the laser heater.
   2. Milestones will also be added for the necessary reviews for all design elements of these components.
   3. James mentioned that we would need to add tasks to our schedule for calibrating each wire scanner assembly, and every collimator.
      1. He suggested 3 days for an initial run of our calibration procedures, and then perhaps a half-day each once the procedure is understood.
   4. We talked about populating the racks for installation in Building 25, where the testing will take place.
      1. It was agreed that testing PMTs and Ion chambers might be more of a challenge in that area. We'll probably need a separate test plan for these.
4. Tom spoke briefly about the bipolar motor drives.
   1. He said their quick first-step test was not encouraging, and that it was quite possible something had been wired incorrectly. They will check the setup tomorrow.
   2. The unipolar motor control drive works well.
   3. Tom reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of two solutions.
      1. Bipolar drives require less rack hardware but will (probably) require shorter cable distance.
      2. Unipolar drives can run much greater distances, but require more rack space for resistor chassis.
   4. He also mentioned that we might need better cables pulled for bipolar wiring in the injection vault area.
   5. The schedule calls for further investigation.
5. Tom spoke with Leif again about the drive mechanism for the BC1 beamline motion. Leif said he'll consider Tom's suggestions and will get back to him.
6. It was suggested that we start meeting every other week, and we all agreed.
7. The ethernet for our Lab space in bldg 25 was pulled today, but not yet terminated. Excellent!
8. René mentioned that the OTR motion mechanism would probably be pneumatic after all. We had discussed an option for motorized motion last week.
   1. He also mentioned there was 47 inches of depth for the articulating beamline motion.
9. We are expecting the collimators to be assembled here, as will be the wire scanners. We agreed that we should meet with the people doing the assembly early on.
   1. René suggested that there are 3 or 4 more weeks of design work.