Star-fst-l mailing list

["Valentino, Stephen" <svalentino AT bnl.gov>]

Hi Gerard,

We're creating documentation for the testing version of the Inner Cable (10 
cables, 8 foot each).  I plan to use the OUT8_P and OUT8_N signal wires 
(T-Board J2A-1 and J2B-16) for the 2nd bias voltage.  Of course this will 
impact any planned modification to the ABC board.  Is this OK to use these 
signals/pins or will there be a conflict?

T-board schematic is attached.  I don't have a copy of the ABC board 
schematic.

Regards,
Steve Valentino
631-344-4644

-----Original Message-----
From: Star-fst-l <star-fst-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> On Behalf Of Gerard Visser
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 8:37 AM
To: star-fst-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: Re: [Star-fst-l] Weekly FST meeting - 2/14/2019

Dear Jianing and Li,
        I think Zhenyu was proposing to have two bias lines through the inner 
cable to the patchpanel board. But, even so, some jumpers to allow a 
configuration of the T board that uses just one bias line, does seem like a 
good idea.
        About the IST type connector, I think it should be reliable, but it 
was mentioned that it may be fragile and easily damaged. I don't know. If 
anything, probably it was the solder connections to the hybrid that were 
easily damaged.
        I think if you use a connector that doesn't have screw retention 
features, you have to use some other standoffs/screws to support the T-board. 
But that's ok. 
And depending on the mechanical arrangement it may be necessary anyway.
        I think we'd agreed based on your voltage drop study that it will be 
sufficient to connect the remote sense lines on the T board, not route them 
through to the hybrids. So those three pins are not needed, 19 pins minimum.
        Yes a few pins per power and ground is nice - I think it isn't 
essential here but a good idea. 2 or 3 is plenty (so that would be a 26 pin 
connector for instance). 44 is "too many". Of course 44 pins is fine if it 
fits.
        Sincerely,

                Gerard


On 2/19/2019 7:17 AM, 董家宁 wrote:
> Dear Gerard and All,
>    Thanks for all the comments!
> 
>    1. Two biases for inner and outer hybrids:
>    We'll add a jumper between the two biases, and use shared bias for 
> inner/outer sensors as the default running scheme.
>    P.s. We notice that there are jumpers used in hybrid for IST. Does 
> anyone know the jumper type?
>    
>    2. Connector position & selection:
>    1) We'll move the two connectors to the same side in T-Board. Right now 
> we are working on it, and it seems like that keeping the current size is 
> practicable.
>    2) A survey about the connector selection will be carried out recently. 
> We will try to find the best choice.
>     (BTW the SAMTEC connector is reliable based on the previous experience, 
> change to other connector may bring some unknown risk. Suggestions are 
> welcome if one has better brand suggestion.)
>     
>    3. About the remote sense, do you mean the VSS_sense, VDD_sense and 
> GND_sense? If yes, they are already connected. You can find them in pin 38, 
> 44, 50.
>       So the minimum pin count for connector from T-Board is 22. But in 
> this case, there are just 3 pins connected to VSS, VDD and GND. Usually, 
> more pins will provide better power supply voltage if the size is 
> acceptable. (In IST, 7 pins are connected to VSS, 6 pins to VDD, 9 pins to 
> GND ).
> 
>    Best,
>    Jianing & Li
> 
> 
>> -----原始邮件-----
>> 发件人: "Gerard Visser" <gvisser AT indiana.edu>
>> 发送时间: 2019-02-19 05:02:46 (星期二)
>> 收件人: "LI YI" <li.yi AT sdu.edu.cn>
>> 抄送: star-fst-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>> 主题: Re: [Star-fst-l] Weekly FST meeting - 2/14/2019
>>
>> hi Li,
>>      Just a quick note to say I'll try to think about connector options 
>> but at this
>> time, when my work for FST is still entirely without funding, it is 
>> unlikely
>> that I can really attempt to search for an optimal connector. We hope the
>> funding contract will be in place sometime soon.
>>      I do not believe that changing the connector incurs any real risk, 
>> except
>> insofar as we don't really like the new type for some reason. Changing the
>> layout is not risky, and adding additional layers to the T-board should 
>> that be
>> necessary is not risky.
>>      I thought the connector used on IST should be ok; but if there is 
>> report that
>> it broke (traces, presumably) under connect/disconnect we should think 
>> strongly
>> about a better connector or layout. But I don't have info on such problems 
>> in IST.
>>      A smaller connector may exist, which could be helpful.
>>      A connector which affixes to the boards and may be the means of 
>> fastening the T
>> board to the detector assembly, as with the SSD "T-board" that I showed, 
>> may
>> exist. And I think it could be very helpful, in the case of both 
>> connectors on
>> one side for easy connection of the T-board+cable.
>>      One which is both smaller and has mechanical features would be nice, 
>> perhaps
>> there is something. That will be harder to find.
>>      The minimum pin count for connector from T board to hybrid by my 
>> reckoning is
>>
>> 8 for APV signals out
>> 4 for CLK & TRG to APV
>> 1 for RST to APV
>> 2 for SCLK, SDA to/from(SDA) APV
>> 1 for bias "SUB"
>> 3 (more better) for VSS, GND, VDD
>>
>> that is 19 min, better something like 24 or 26 or so. Not 44 for sure. 
>> There
>> isn't any harm in 44 pins if you've got room for it though.
>>      (BTW I didn't remark on it before - sorry! - but looking at the 
>> latest posted
>> schematic of the T board on 1/31, it seems the remote sense lines aren't
>> connected on the T board as we'd planned on doing? Do I misunderstand 
>> there? Or
>> else this needs some small change.)
>>      Sincerely,
>>
>>              Gerard
>>
>>
>> On 2/15/2019 9:22 AM, LI YI wrote:
>>> Hi Gerard and All,
>>>
>>> Thank you for the documents!
>>>
>>> So the connector used in SSD is from
>>> http://www.nicomatic.com/product-amm_micro_connectors-81-en.htm
>>> Its pin size can go up to 50 pins. 44 pins are the minimum pins needed
>>> for FST. SSD connector pin distance is 1mm, which is larger than the
>>> previous one used in IST (which is 0.8mm). If SSD connector is more
>>> reliable than IST one, we can switch to SSD (the space saved would be
>>> small ~ 60/2*0.8mm-44/2*1mm = 2mm). Otherwise, we would prefer to use
>>> the same IST one to reduce the risk of error in drawing.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Jianing & Li
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:18 PM Gerard Visser <gvisser AT indiana.edu> 
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> hi Li,
>>>>           Here for reference is info on the SSD "T-board" like thing, 
>>>> that was mentioned
>>>> in meeting discussion just now.
>>>>
>>>>           Gerard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/13/2019 6:02 PM, Ye, Zhenyu wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> We will have a meeting to discuss Forward Silicon Tracker tomorrow at 
>>>>> 9am BNL time. The meeting agenda and bluejeans info can be found at
>>>>>
>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/yezhenyu/forward-silicon-tracker-weekly-meeting
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Zhenyu
>> _______________________________________________
>> Star-fst-l mailing list
>> Star-fst-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fst-l
> _______________________________________________
> Star-fst-l mailing list
> Star-fst-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fst-l
> 
_______________________________________________
Star-fst-l mailing list
Star-fst-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fst-l

Attachment: IST_PPrev4.pdf
Description: IST_PPrev4.pdf