[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [SPAM] Re: MuCap
- To: Peter Kammel <kammel@npl.uiuc.edu>
- Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: MuCap
- From: Peter Winter <peter.winter@psi.ch>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:05:59 +0200
- Cc: Steve Clayton <smclayto@uiuc.edu>
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0510140942550.3289-100000@one.npl.uiuc.edu>
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0510140942550.3289-100000@one.npl.uiuc.edu>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803
The dimensions from the elog posting are okay.
> Additional blocks above the rollers are much more realistic.
I think I misunderstood this sentence from your email and thought you
propose another way to do it. But reading the elog I get the impression
that we will do it as proposed in the scheme I send you, so, we will
have longer BLUE screws, right?. In that case just forget my statement
in the last email concerning the grey screws.
With respect to the lower bolts the idea is to have actually two
seperate blocks per roller! So instead of one block with height 60mm and
dimensions of a bit more than 5.19 x 6.5 inches, we will have two blocks
with each 60mm high, a bit more than 5.19 inches long and around 2
inches broad. That's why in the front view of my scheme there are two
separate red rectangles. In the middle part there is nothing so that the
lower bolts will not disturb at all and milling would not be necessary.
If this explanation is too complicated, we might also discuss that via
phone. I'll be available on 4786 nearly the whole weekend.
Peter