Download emails_PSR1 - glast lat

The updates suggested by Joe below are complete.
__________________________________
Patrick Young
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
650-926-4810
[email protected]
__________________________________
-----Original Message----From: Cullinan, Joseph
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:47 AM
To: Tarkington, David; Haller, Gunther; Young, Patrick
Cc: Freytag, Mark; Liew, Y.C.
Subject: RE: Update to PDU assy drawing.
Dave If the first PDU (GLAT1898) was correctly built to LAT-DS-01696-62, then calling
it a rev -61 is not correct and we would have to make changes to reflect its true
as-built condition to rev -62.
Per note 10 on LAT-DS-01696-62, it appears that only a GLAT S/N label is placed
on the PDU box; no drawing rev number is engraved so we would not have to change
any marking on the PDU boxes.
We would have to change the EIDP for the first PDU (GLAT1898) delivered to I&T
to show that GLAT 1898 is a LAT-DS-01696-62. I see the following changes needed
to this EIDP:
1. Revise the SLAC rework summary LAT-TD-07259 from -02 to -03 (change references
in sec. 2.2 of this document from LAT-DS-01696-61 to -62).
2. Revise sec. 2 in EIDP LAT-TD-07330-01, showing GLAT1898 meets LAT-DS-01696-62,
not -61. Also update link to LAT-TD-07259; this should link to the updated -03
revision of this document.
All the other data and test reports in the EIDP references the PDU as GLAT1898,
so these don't require any updating.
Thanks.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Joe
-----Original Message----From: Tarkington, David
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:22 AM
To: Haller, Gunther; Young, Patrick
Cc: Freytag, Mark; Cullinan, Joseph; Freytag, Mark
Subject: RE: Update to PDU assy drawing.
This is to fix a discrepancy between the note and the callouts on the drawing view
only. The first PDU was built correctly, the drawing conflict was only noticed
now. Does not affect hardware.
-----Original Message----From: Haller, Gunther
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:57 PM
To: Tarkington, David; Young, Patrick
Cc: Freytag, Mark; Cullinan, Joseph; Freytag, Mark
Subject: RE: Update to PDU assy drawing.
What does this do to the PDU we have already done and the paper-work was complete.
That is delivered to I&T as 1696-61.
So is the second box going to be a 62, and the one we fly a 61?
Not ideal to say the least.
Updating the one delivered to 62 also takes paper-work?
Gunther
Dr. Gunther Haller
Stanford University/SLAC
MS 96
P.O. 20450
Stanford, CA 94309
T. (650) 926-4257
F. (650) 926-2923
-----Original Message----From: Tarkington, David
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:49 PM
To: 'Lewis, Mark'; Norris, John; Warner, Diane K; Allen, Stan
Cc: Haller, Gunther; Salgado, Lupe; Freytag, Mark
Subject: Update to PDU assy drawing.
This is to fix an error Mark L found in note 7.
Dave T.
*****************************************************************************
*****************
-----Original Message----From: Young, Patrick
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:56 PM
To: Cullinan, Joseph; Liew, Y.C.; Bright, Richard
Subject: RE: PDU release
All done.
-patrick
-----Original Message----From: Cullinan, Joseph
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:19 PM
To: Young, Patrick; Liew, Y.C.; Bright, Richard
Subject: RE: PDU release
Patrick Updated NCR list. Only one remaining open is NCR #690, to track LPT performance
anomaly first observed in T/V. Can you update your website with newly closed NCRs?
Thanks, and great job pulling this project together.
Joe
-----Original Message----From: Young, Patrick
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:57 PM
To: Bright, Richard; Cullinan, Joseph; Liew, Y.C.
Cc: Fouts, Kenneth
Subject: PDU release
http://www-glast.slac.stanford.edu/Elec_DAQ/Reviews/PDU-ATDP/ATDP_GLAT1898.ht
m
I have submitted this webpage for release on LATdocs.
I have given all data to be archived to YC.
I have the Flight PDU in clean room 103. where shall I leave the PDU?
__________________________________
Patrick Young
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
650-926-4810
[email protected]
__________________________________
*****************************************************************************
*****************
I discussed this with Dick and Ken.
The 4 PDU chassis mounting screws that have interference issues with the panel
screws are to be left out for the flight installation.
An approach for each ELX box type will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Thanks,
Rick
-----Original Message----From: Young, Patrick
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:33 PM
To: Bright, Richard; Cullinan, Joseph
Cc: Tarkington, David; Horn, Dick; Hascall, Patrick A; Ku, John
Subject: RE: PDU mounting screws
The preference per Dave T. is to install the interfering chassis mount screws as
the final step before delivery to I&T. We want to go through vibe and TV with
nonflight chassis mount screws. This means the connector plate screws are removed
and replaced twice, considered low risk.
-patrick
-----Original Message----From: Bright, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:12 PM
To: Young, Patrick; Cullinan, Joseph
Cc: Tarkington, David; Horn, Dick; Hascall, Patrick A; Ku, John
Subject: RE: PDU mounting screws
Up for consideration are:
1. For the PDU is to install the 4 chassis mounting screws prior to PDU delivery
to I&T.
2. For the other ELX boxes (GASU, SIU/EPU, Remaining PDU) with this interference
issue is to install the chassis mounting screws prior to vibration and leave them
in (provided that this is acceptable for flight fasteners). Care should be taken
so that the screws are not damaged during shipping or handling of the unit. This
would also mean that mass and CG would be performed prior to installation of the
chassis mounting screws.
These permit installation of the flight hardware as designed and tested.
There is a potential schedule risk (low risk tolerance) if the pressed fastenter
for the panel screw were to spin during reinstallation of the panel screw. The
probability of this occurring has been reported to be very low.
Are there any objections to this approach?
Rick
-----Original Message----From: Young, Patrick
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:34 PM
To: Cullinan, Joseph
Cc: Tarkington, David; Bright, Richard
Subject: RE: PDU mounting screws
Hi Joe,
I just talked to Dave T.
He confirms your email below.
-patrick
-----Original Message----From: Cullinan, Joseph
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:28 PM
To: Tarkington, David; Bright, Richard; Young, Patrick
Subject: RE: PDU mounting screws
Dave If I understand you right, once the mounting screws are installed and captured
in the PDU baseplate, the connector plate screws can be installed and do not need
to be removed again, either to tighten or loosen the affected mounting screws in
these four locations. So even if I&T had to remove the PDU from the LAT, they
would not have to remove the connector plate screws first to loosen the four
affected captured mounting screws.
Correct?
Joe
-----Original Message----From: Tarkington, David
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:23 PM
To: Bright, Richard; Young, Patrick; Cullinan, Joseph
Subject: RE: PDU mounting screws
Having at least these four screws already installed is feasible. Tools can still
access the heads with the panel screws installed. Would not impact installation
or removal of PDU. I don't know what the I&T procedure states, but they are going
to need several of these screws installed anyway when bringing the box to the final
place to hold it in place while they install the rest and begin torquing.
Dave T.
-----Original Message----From: Bright, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:54 AM
To: Young, Patrick; Cullinan, Joseph; Tarkington, David
Subject: PDU mounting screws
I was thinking of I&T's objection to installing the 4 mounting screws.
Per Patrick
1. They want to simplify their procedures.
2. Risk of dropping panel mount screws into the LAT.
My opinion.
1. Doesn't carry much technical weight.
2. Why can't the chassis mounting screws be installed by ELX prior to delivery
of the PDU to I&T? Then they effectively become captured by the interference,
but I don't think that they, or the panel screws, need to be removed for installation
or removal of the PDU at the LAT level. Maybe there are thread engagment or tool
access issues? I believe Dave can confirm if this is feasible.
Thanks,
Rick
*****************************************************************************
******************
See Jack's response below.......
-----Original Message----From: Goodman, Jack
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 3:11 PM
To: Bright, Richard
Subject: RE: PDU PSR NCR 630
Rick,
I concurr that these temperature differences are acceptable and the PDU thermistor
performance meets specifications.
Jack
-----Original Message----From: Bright, Richard
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:37 PM
To: Goodman, Jack
Cc: Young, Patrick
Subject: FW: PDU PSR NCR 630
Jack,
We need your concurrance that PDU thermistor accuracy performance is acceptable.
The thermistors below slightly exceeded the +/- 0.5 deg C accuracy requirement.
Per designer engineer Patrick Young:
PDU 0 cal_baseplate_13 ------> 0.5 C err @7590 PDU 1
0.52 C err @7590
mu_ grid_rad_if_1 ------>
This is just at the required tolerance to pass the test and it is also at a thermister
extreme. It is acceptable to lose some precision at a thermister extreme.
Thanks,
Rick
-----Original Message----From: Young, Patrick
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:49 PM
To: Bright, Richard
Subject: RE: PDU PSR
One more. We need to add action item to close NC 630. This is the temp mon accuracy
test failure. Can you help track down Jack Goodman to see where this is at (update
TD-00890 and accept exising test result)? Thanks.
__________________________________
Patrick Young
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
650-926-4810
[email protected]
__________________________________
-----Original Message----From: Bright, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 5:25 PM
To: Young, Patrick; Cullinan, Joseph; Fouts, Kenneth; Liew, Y.C.; Hascall, Patrick
A
Cc: Haller, Gunther; Horn, Dick
Subject: RE: PDU PSR
Attached contains action items from today's PDU PSR meeting. During the meeting
it was agreed that closure of these actions items will permit transfer of PDU to
I&T. Please review and comment on items that may be incorrect or left out.
Thanks,
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: Young, Patrick
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:40 PM
To: Bright, Richard; Cullinan, Joseph; Fouts, Kenneth; Liew, Y.C.; Hascall,
Patrick A
Cc: Haller, Gunther
Subject: RE: PDU PSR
I've updated WO 1583 steps 101-129 to do some of the action items from today's
meeting.
--do the load shedding test after STM
--do fit check of flight cable to misaligned connector from NCR0675 --verify
labeling to correct rev and update if needed
I've also updated the webpage mainly in the QA section with some of the
documentation action items (in red).
http://www-glast.slac.stanford.edu/Elec_DAQ/Reviews/PDU-ATDP/ATDP_GLAT1898.ht
m
__________________________________
Patrick Young
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
650-926-4810
[email protected]
__________________________________
*****************************************************************************
**************
Hi Patrick
I discussed this with Joe Cullinan (QA).
For requirement 7.4.5, adding a footnote with the statements in the Compliance
Matrix is sufficient.
For the overstress analysis, an email that can be pasted into the NCR is sufficient.
If you have Figures that need to be attached, Joe can do that as well.
Thanks,
Rick
-----Original Message----From: Young, Patrick
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 11:45 AM
To: Bright, Richard
Subject: RE: PDU Req 7.4.5
I can state all of these. Do I prepare an separate LATdoc to capture this or do
we add this to a WO or NCR somewhere? Where is the place to capture this statement?
Also, for the NCR 476 overstress analysis, do I make a LATdoc for that too? I
think I could make a statement based using a similar format as the part stress
analysis doc.
Thanks,
__________________________________
Patrick Young
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
650-926-4810
[email protected]
__________________________________
-----Original Message----From: Bright, Richard
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 11:37 AM
To: Young, Patrick
Subject: PDU Req 7.4.5
Hi Patrick,
To sell the requirement, I think the following needs to be stated:
1. Voltage setting used for PDU test.
2. Max current draw of PDU.
3. Manufactuer and Model # of DC Power Supply 4. Fact that DC Supply is Constant
Voltage/Constant Current supply and that it was used in the CV mode.
5. Maximum voltage capability of DC Supply.
6. Maximum current capability of DC Supply.
Given that the DC Power Supply was sized with margin to the PDU voltage/current
requirements and the supply was operated in the CV mode, the output impedence of
the DC supply is 0 ohms. Therefore the requirement is met.
I have included a link on how to measure output impedences of power supplies and
a brief discussion of basic CV supplies for your reference.
Rick
http://www.bcae1.com/outptimp.htm
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/ese/rca/instruments/HPpower/PS3631A.html