Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- imagerteleconnotes20180620 [2018/06/20 13:52] – wenxx181
+++ imagerteleconnotes20180620 [2018/06/20 17:04] (current) – wenxx181
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Telecon 20180620 ======
-Attending:
+Attending: Jamie, Brian, Tom, Shaul, Qi
 Notes by : Qi
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
   * 2-year, 4 detector, simulated maps available - next steps? (Kris)
   * {{::picoreport.pdf|Report Writing }}
-  * Remaining key open areas: cryogenics; Changing telecons to a lower cadence: two weeks?
+  * Remaining key open areas: **Thermal Design (JPL)**; Changing telecons to a lower cadence: two weeks?
+=== Notes ===
+Mechanical design of focal plane
+    * Jamie shared the experience with Bicep3 focal plane:
+      * heat sink:  gold frames and wires around perimeter of wafer. They found contact resistance is the main issue. Biggest thermal impedance comes from between gold and silicon; at 100mK, conductance is mainly through electrons, pushing harder does not help.
+      * 4 clamps push down the wafers, but wafers can still slide; clamps don't short the instruments.
+      * In theory, gold wires and bars play the role of RF shields.
+    * PICO has a preliminary design, which can be used to estimate the mass already; more details about how to mount wafers on frames are ongoing
+    * material of frame: copper vs invar? Jamie: invar has high capacity, large mount of magnetic material
+    * bump bonds should be straightforward on PICO time scale
+    * Karl knows the size of TDM, **Qi to find out what Karl has concluded (AI)**
+Report writing
+    * page 4, section 3 Instrument is most relevant
+    * internal review
+    * by the end of August
+Thermal design
+    * we don't have one yet, JPL is responsible.
+**No objection against changing the telecon cadence to 2 weeks.**

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools