-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 45
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix: update tracker support and services cones per project CAD info #661
Conversation
CAD model and marked up drawing at https://cad.onshape.com/documents/b9b389bae84aec586d8b3cb2/w/1ec43063ccb2db2d3583a345/e/ae6cffdbeeea3bf0cbd5a09a |
|
Analysis and todo of overlaps:
|
b6f993a
to
1bcb9d7
Compare
This part of services is important for us. I suppose, it should somehow change the shape from round to dodecadon. Should we request additional details from the project on that? |
We should get some more details later this week. |
0fadd72
to
356c7ad
Compare
One question about the last drawing: the 8.2 mm thickness is just the mechanical support itself, so we would still need the density estimates and routing in CAD for cabling? |
The thickness is equivalent aluminum thickness based on total number and diameter of cables. So it doesn't need a lower density. In reality it will be thicker and a stacked bundle with a lower average density. |
Should be copper? Also, we don't need to prepare special, "effective" geometry. It would be fine to have a conductor volume from the regular CAD design to which we then assign a proportion of conductor/isolator/air to the material? |
The effective model is all there is. There is no routing that we can import. The CAD figures above are all there is that has somewhat correct effective material volume. A previous version was outlines/max extents only. |
e04e4e9
to
83b3034
Compare
Please email me once this and other relevant geometry updates are merged, I will then update the material map. Thanks! |
6d10958
to
936a028
Compare
I did some studies on effect at the negative rapidity for this PR https://indico.bnl.gov/event/22883/contributions/89707/attachments/53617/91737/eeemcal_update.pdf |
47b3fbd
to
ec64f62
Compare
…s<double>::epsilon()
65f19f8
to
d382b24
Compare
Briefly, what does this PR introduce?
This PR adds the outer support/services cone and places the cones and barrels in their actual intended positions. I'm marking this as a bugfix since the placement was completely wrong (with tracks in some regions going through two support cylinders...).
TODO:
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Please check if this PR fulfills the following:
Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users need to make to their code?
No.
Does this PR change default behavior?
Yes, it adds the project's estimate of the equivalent aluminum thickness of the services.