• Main INDEX
  • Monthly INDEX
  • PREV
  • NEXT

    User name M Jones

    Log entry time 04:15:34 on October 04, 2006

    Entry number 186266

    keyword=Comparison of carbon thicknesses

    We did two runs with different carbon door thickness
    Run Carbon thickness # of # of # of
    front tracks rear tracks rear tracks
    (conetest) (no conetest)
    ---- ---------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
    1038 9+3" 8563 1268 (14.8%) 1460 (17.0%)
    1039 6+3" 8558 1318 (15.4%) 1398 (16.3%)

    So a drop in efficiency wtih increase in carbon thickness
    when conetest is included. Even without the conetest the
    increased efficiency is only 4% compared to an 33% increase
    in thickness.

    For 1038 a rear track was defined as thfpp_az > 5 deg
    320 < zclose < 385cm and conetest passed ( Ed Brash's new conetest).

    For 1039 a rear track was defined as thfpp_az > 5 deg
    350 < zclose < 385cm and conetest passed ( Ed Brash's new conetest).

    The ratio of front chamber tracks to VDC tracks is 89%.








    Run 1039 (6+3")

    thfpp_run1039.ps