1 / 9

04/12/06

Mini-review of MERLIN water fittings Background: 4.0.3 Beamline (EPU) M301: horizontal reflecting, tangential profile, fixed Glidcop mirror M302: horizontal reflecting, sagittal profile, Silicon, adjustable position M101: horizontal reflecting, toroidal profile, Si/Glidcop?, adjustable.

vivian-wilkerson
Télécharger la présentation

04/12/06

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mini-review of MERLIN water fittingsBackground: 4.0.3 Beamline (EPU)M301: horizontal reflecting, tangential profile, fixed Glidcop mirrorM302: horizontal reflecting, sagittal profile, Silicon, adjustable positionM101: horizontal reflecting, toroidal profile, Si/Glidcop?, adjustable 04/12/06

  2. Design features of cooling lines No pumping on air guard Remove water line w/o breaking vacuum Motion (where necessary) 5 mrad yaw/pitch/roll Specifications: need 5 urad stability on pitch (.75 microns) (Possible) Axial forces on mirror – only pitch is concern as force on centerline and normal to mirror face

  3. Original design – Teflon tube, coaxial ports Pros:axial force on mirror minimized/eliminated Cons: Leak developed, expensive features, assemble both sides from inside vacuum vessel, captured o-rings

  4. New design under review Pros: Simple features in mirror, only 1 face o-ring (easy to access), easier to assemble Cons: Axial force on mirror, unknown new design, brazed fitting more complex

  5. Addressing cons of new design: Water pressure variation = +/- .5 psi (assumption, any data on magnitude or frequency?) Dia. = 9.5 mm => Area = .11 in^2 Force on mirror = .05 lbs (assume worst case: on one side only) Speed of sound (i.e. pressure) in water: ~1500m/s Distance to other side ~1m Variation in pressure reaches other side in ~2/3 of millisec Resisting force: Two bellows, K=28 lbs/in Two Lucas flexures, up to 52 lbf-in/rad (minimal restoring) Restoring spring on drive assembly need 300mm * 10 mrad = 3 mm travel at pitch motor if motor supplies 20 lbs, K can be ~170 lbs/in Tubing on waterline (e.g. copper) (minimal restoring)

  6. Addressing cons of new design: Motion of mirrorMirror pitches by .05/(2x28+170) ~ .0002” => 5.5 micronsMirror center to fitting 150 mm so approx. 37 urad pitchSpecifications: need 5 urad stability on pitch (.75 microns)Reduce pitch further by:a) cut area down where axial force applied on mirror by using smaller tube to supply water b) frequency of variation < 1515 Hz would allow pressure wave to reach other fitting and only concern would be pressure rise within 2/3 millisecc) less magnitude variation in pressureNeed test data to be certain but allow for retrofit design

  7. Addressing cons of new design: b) New design so unknown Two brazed joints Talked with Insync – design based on their preferred fitting Imparting force on water tube by connecting tubing Plastic tubing, dead soft copper, ? Minimize water pressure variation Data, compliant bladder/regulator to smooth variations, ? Other?

  8. Retrofit Design

  9. Pat’s retrofit version – metal shell, bellows Pros: Minimal/no axial force, easier internal features, o-rings backed by metal, no captured o-rings Cons: 4 o-rings, multiple components/joints

More Related