Sphenix-tpc-l mailing list

[Thomas K Hemmick <tkhemmick AT gmail.com>]

I agree that a single size is advantageous.  A nice number of GEMs per DEK is four since this is a full module.  Typically I find that if you can buy a thing you should. I’m pretty sure we’ll reuse frames multiple times so the cost should not be prohibitive.

Tom

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:39 PM Tarafdar, Sourav <sourav.tarafdar AT vanderbilt.edu> wrote:

Hello,

Will it be not good to have DEK frames which can handle any size of GEM modules ? In case any factory gets into trouble then the other can take over. May be 186770 is the one which all the factories can think about getting except the ones who already have DEK frames. Also wondering whether there is any Institute which has machine shop capable of making the DEK frame . Factories can send the raw material for it and also bear the shipping charges . May be it will be cheaper than going to a vendor. 

-Sourav

On Oct 29, 2018, at 9:12 AM, Thomas K Hemmick <tkhemmick AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Oleg and Fred

Sounds good.  The 431248 frame looks good (BTW--the mm dimensions are correct, but in inches this is 17x17x1.2 :) ).  I am quite intrigued by the option of gluing/HV testing more than one frame at a time.  That can save a lot of time and effort.  

Tom

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 4:44 PM Oleg Grachov <oleggrachov33 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

definitely we can use standard smallest DEK frame  431248 (   23 x 23 x 1.2” (432 x 432 x 30 mm)) with the tension modification. 

In this case we can place on one foil two GEMs for each module (two GEMs of Outer module, or two GEMs for Central module, or two GEMs for Inner module) and gluing frames and HV testing of two the same type GEMs one time.

Best regards,
Dr. Oleg A. Grachov
http://cern.ch/grachov

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:12 AM Fred Pompei <pompei AT wayne.edu> wrote:

Re: specs - https://www.agicorp.com/images/stories/galleries/Stencils/VectorGuard_Data_Sheet.pdf

I  don't know the specs of the DEK Frames we used. I do recall hearing at meetings that they were altered by removing some of the springs. I would assume to reduce the force of the of the shelf DEK frames (> 47N).

Best regards,

Fred

---

From: Thomas K Hemmick <tkhemmick AT gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 9:18:59 PM
To: Richard Majka
Cc: William Llope; Edward J. O'Brien; sphenix_tpc_general AT skipper.physics.sunysb.edu
Subject: Re: [Sphenix-tpc-l] Yes or No?

 

Thanks!  Indeed that is correct.

Tom

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 6:01 PM Richard Majka <richard.majka AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi Tom;

  I don't know if you took this into account, but the elasticity of copper clad Kapton is quite different from bare kapton ("spring constant" is quite a bit higher with copper).  Those of use who played a bit with "copperless" GEM foils realized this.  I think this argues even more strongly for your point.

Dick Majka

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:54 PM Thomas K Hemmick <tkhemmick AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Bill

We've attached a single slide on the math of comparing the amount by which kapton elongates under force as compared to the amount by which the frames bend (here approximated as straight bars).  The calculation for Kapton is a freshman physics (if your prof covers stress/strain :) ) calculation for which I have re-written the result to be proportional to the force/width.  The bar bending is standard engineering for something supported at both ends (e.g. wikipedia) and I've calculated the maximum deflection under uniform load.  This is also written as proportional to force/width for easy comparison to the kapton stretching.  The results are quite telling.

Under any given force/width, the kapton stretching is TINY compared to the frame bend under the same condition.  Thus, we are lead to conclude that the frame will yield to the kapton until the kapton is basically under no internal stress.

When people "stretch" kapton foils, they are really only straightening them and not spring-loading them.  The "stretch" should really be simply pulling on the kapton until it is flat and no actual internal stress.  So the TRUE parameter is to make sure that the tension remains low enough the the full stretch of the kapton is very small.  If we decide on 100 microns of kapton stretch as an upper limit for Delta-L, then we are limited to 1 Newton/cm (100 grams/cm) as the absolute top tension.

------------------------

Short answer:  YES STRETCH, YES OPTIGUARD, but stay WELL(!!!) below 100 grams/cm when pulling.

Tom & Klaus

PS--Typical on older techniques was to pull with scotch tape against the table (e.g. COMPASS).  Again, pull to flatten, not to generate internal stresses since you simply cannot hold those back.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 1:47 PM William Llope <wjllope AT wayne.edu> wrote:

Hi Ed,
Yes - comments from Tom H and all the other GEM experts are sought.
I also sent it to the list as the other framing sites might be interested
in the discussion. Thanks
    bill

___________________________
W.J. Llope       Ph.D., Assoc. Prof.
http://wjllope.physics.wayne.edu/
Wayne State University, Physics     
666 W. Hancock, Room 347
Detroit, MI  48201
313-577-9805




> On Oct 26, 2018, at 12:46 PM, EdwardOBrien <eobrien AT bnl.gov> wrote:
>
>     Hi Bill,
>      This is, of course, a question for Tom to answer. Right?
>
>     Ed
>
>
> On 10/26/2018 11:56 AM, William Llope wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> we have a question and need a yes or no...
>> http://wjllope.physics.wayne.edu/sPHENIX/sphenix_stretching.pdf
>>
>> thanks a lot, cheers
>> bill
>>
>> ___________________________
>> W.J. Llope       Ph.D., Assoc. Prof.
>> http://wjllope.physics.wayne.edu/
>> Wayne State University, Physics
>> 666 W. Hancock, Room 347
>> Detroit, MI  48201
>> 313-577-9805
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sphenix-tpc-l mailing list
>> Sphenix-tpc-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-tpc-l
>