|
Size: 168
Comment:
|
Size: 3071
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| Tests performed during the heavy maintenance. | Tests performed during the heavy maintenance (2007.06.20) [[TableOfContents]] === Goals === Identify the origin(s) of the "acceleration" problem in MAMBO2. * Is the acceleration problem due to a mechanical or electrical process ? * What is the influence of the driving program on its intensity (Basic/Cascade) ? * Any difference in the peak noise whether it is an on-off in elevation or in azimuth ? === People === |
| Line 4: | Line 15: |
| Goals: Identify the origin(s) of the "acceleration" problem in MAMBO2 [[BR]] People: DJ, SL, SN, JP |
Pico Veleta: DJ, SL, SN, JP |
| Line 9: | Line 19: |
| Methods | === Methods === * An inclinometer was installed on the Mambo2 platform (see picture below) to measrue the vibrations during the measurements. attachment:inclinometerPhoto.jpg ---------- * On-off measurements on an absorber. The on-off are done w/o the wobbler taking offset in azimuth and elevation to activate the Basic or Cascade controller. The Basic/Cascade limits are (600,400) arcsec in (Azimuth,Elevation). We point out that these observation are not reproducing exactly the standard bolometer observations with wobbler and a throw < 90 arcsec. * An extra weight was added on the bolometer platform to check the effects of a change in the platform response to the vibration. * Oscilloscope monitoring directly on Mambo2 was performed during an on-off measurements. * You can find the list of the absorber on-off scans [:AbsorberTests: here] === Results === * Inclinometer measurements for two on-off measurements with the Cascade and the Basic controller. [[BR]] attachment:inclinometerBolo.jpg Rhe Basic controller leads to movements smoother than with the Cascade controller. On the bottom panels the inclinometer measurements indicate excursion on the bolometer platform about 10 times larger with the Cascade controller than with the Basic controller. * On-off measurements with the offsets in elevation: 360" (scan 47, Cascade) and 440" (scan 50, Basic) [[BR]] '''Cascade controller: scan 47''' attachment:scan47-elev-cascade.jpg --------- '''Basic controller: scan 50''' attachment:scan50-elev-basic.jpg --------- The tests showed (surprisingly?) that the peak noise was much stronger (~5-10 times) with the offsets in elevation than in azimuth. Without extra-weight on the platform the maximum peak noise reached 1 Jy in elevation, For the basic/cascade tests we used elevation offsets.[[BR]] All the measurements have shown a larger peak noise with the Cascade controller (offsets<400arcsec) than with the Basic controller. The peak noise is not completely suppressed with the Basic controller bu * An extra weight was put on the bolometer platform (scan 51) attachment:scan51.jpg --------- * Measurements of electrical peak with the oscilloscope during an on-off measurements with the offsets in elevation (scan 53). No correlation was found between the beginning of the scans where the extra noise peaks appeared and the electric activity. A peak frequency of 5 sec was observed but which may be related to the air conditioned system. === Conclusions === |
Tests performed during the heavy maintenance (2007.06.20)
Goals
Identify the origin(s) of the "acceleration" problem in MAMBO2.
- Is the acceleration problem due to a mechanical or electrical process ?
- What is the influence of the driving program on its intensity (Basic/Cascade) ?
- Any difference in the peak noise whether it is an on-off in elevation or in azimuth ?
People
Pico Veleta: DJ, SL, SN, JP
Methods
- An inclinometer was installed on the Mambo2 platform (see picture below) to measrue the vibrations during the measurements.
attachment:inclinometerPhoto.jpg
On-off measurements on an absorber. The on-off are done w/o the wobbler taking offset in azimuth and elevation to activate the Basic or Cascade controller. The Basic/Cascade limits are (600,400) arcsec in (Azimuth,Elevation). We point out that these observation are not reproducing exactly the standard bolometer observations with wobbler and a throw < 90 arcsec.
- An extra weight was added on the bolometer platform to check the effects of a change in the platform response to the vibration.
- Oscilloscope monitoring directly on Mambo2 was performed during an on-off measurements.
You can find the list of the absorber on-off scans [:AbsorberTests: here]
Results
- Inclinometer measurements for two on-off measurements with the Cascade and the Basic controller.
BR attachment:inclinometerBolo.jpg
Rhe Basic controller leads to movements smoother than with the Cascade controller. On the bottom panels the inclinometer measurements indicate excursion on the bolometer platform about 10 times larger with the Cascade controller than with the Basic controller.
- On-off measurements with the offsets in elevation: 360" (scan 47, Cascade) and 440" (scan 50, Basic)
BR Cascade controller: scan 47 attachment:scan47-elev-cascade.jpg
Basic controller: scan 50 attachment:scan50-elev-basic.jpg
The tests showed (surprisingly?) that the peak noise was much stronger (~5-10 times) with the offsets in elevation than in azimuth. Without extra-weight on the platform the maximum peak noise reached 1 Jy in elevation, For the basic/cascade tests we used elevation offsets.BR All the measurements have shown a larger peak noise with the Cascade controller (offsets<400arcsec) than with the Basic controller. The peak noise is not completely suppressed with the Basic controller bu
- An extra weight was put on the bolometer platform (scan 51)
attachment:scan51.jpg
- Measurements of electrical peak with the oscilloscope during an on-off measurements with the offsets in elevation (scan 53).
No correlation was found between the beginning of the scans where the extra noise peaks appeared and the electric activity. A peak frequency of 5 sec was observed but which may be related to the air conditioned system.