Difference between revisions of "BLTWG Meeting 03/12/2009"
From GlueXWiki
(→Tagger dipole field uniformity specification) |
(→Tagger dipole field uniformity specification) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
:# The vendor accepts the design provided by Jefferson Lab and builds the magnet to the specs that we provide, down to the grade of steel and tolerances of every part. | :# The vendor accepts the design provided by Jefferson Lab and builds the magnet to the specs that we provide, down to the grade of steel and tolerances of every part. | ||
:# The vendor wants to make modifications to accommodate their own equipment or reduce their cost of construction. They take responsibility for redoing the design and guarantee that our mechanical and field uniformity specs can be met. | :# The vendor wants to make modifications to accommodate their own equipment or reduce their cost of construction. They take responsibility for redoing the design and guarantee that our mechanical and field uniformity specs can be met. | ||
| − | The second option is the "design and build" contract that we have discussed before. Whether to build or design-and-build will be up to the contractor. We discussed the way in which the field uniformity spec will be expressed for the design-and-build option, and agreed with Jim's current plan. It was pointed out that if we award a design-and-build contract then we need to be prepared to be able to promptly turn around and do magnetic field studies to evaluate whatever changes the vendor decides to propose. | + | :The second option is the "design and build" contract that we have discussed before. Whether to build or design-and-build will be up to the contractor. We discussed the way in which the field uniformity spec will be expressed for the design-and-build option, and agreed with Jim's current plan. It was pointed out that if we award a design-and-build contract then we need to be prepared to be able to promptly turn around and do magnetic field studies to evaluate whatever changes the vendor decides to propose. |
===Feedback on updated interface drawings=== | ===Feedback on updated interface drawings=== | ||
Revision as of 17:58, 12 March 2009
- Time: 9:30 EST
- Place: EVO and ESNET (with telephone bridge)
- Connecting: instructions are here
- Present: Richard J., Alex S., Fernando B., Jim S., Eugene C., Tim W.
Contents
Agenda
- Update from UConn - Richard
- Tagger dipole field uniformity specification - Jim
- Feedback on updated interface drawings - Tim
- Manpower for the spring 2009 CHESS run - Richard
- Plans for beam tests - Richard
- Talk at Diamond 2009 - Yang
Notes by R. Jones
Update from UConn
- The type III diamond monocrystal on loan from BNL has arrived at UConn. Richard is discussing how best to mount it with experimental colleagues in the UConn department who have experience in mounting samples.
- All electronic components for the prototype digital readout board for the tagger microscope SiPM electronics have finally arrived, sufficient to completely populate three boards. The prototype boards and components have been shipped to the firm Screaming Circuits for fabrication. We have purchased the Xilinx programmer for programming to the main FPGA on the prototype board. Students will begin bench tests of the prototypes as soon as they are received back from the vendor, near the end of March.
- Work progresses on the prototype fiber array. Plans are to have the device ready for a beam test by the end of 2009. Schedule changes in Hall B mean that we may want to speed up that schedule.
Tagger dipole field uniformity specification
- The tagger contract is now being formulated under two alternate schemes, to be chosen by the vendor.
- The vendor accepts the design provided by Jefferson Lab and builds the magnet to the specs that we provide, down to the grade of steel and tolerances of every part.
- The vendor wants to make modifications to accommodate their own equipment or reduce their cost of construction. They take responsibility for redoing the design and guarantee that our mechanical and field uniformity specs can be met.
- The second option is the "design and build" contract that we have discussed before. Whether to build or design-and-build will be up to the contractor. We discussed the way in which the field uniformity spec will be expressed for the design-and-build option, and agreed with Jim's current plan. It was pointed out that if we award a design-and-build contract then we need to be prepared to be able to promptly turn around and do magnetic field studies to evaluate whatever changes the vendor decides to propose.
