From MAILER-DAEMON@mildew.mbari.org Mon Oct 31 09:47 PST 1994 Received: by mildew.mbari.org (1.36.108.4/15.6) id AA15165; Mon, 31 Oct 1994 09:47:25 -0800 Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 9:47:24 PST From: Mail Delivery Subsystem Return-Path: Subject: Returned mail: User unknown To: chma@mildew.mbari.org Status: RO ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 Mark... User unknown 550 Chaffey... User unknown ----- Unsent message follows ----- Received: by mildew.mbari.org (1.36.108.4/15.6) id AA15163; Mon, 31 Oct 1994 09:47:25 -0800 From: Mark Chaffey 408-647-3708 Return-Path: Subject: Re: 3-chip To: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 9:47:24 PST Cc: chma@mbari.org (Mark Chaffey) In-Reply-To: ; from "DeepSea Power & Light)" at Oct 29, 94 10:04 am Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Mark, I always appreciate your comments! In regards to your comments on the spec.'s: The 700 line figure is rather arbitrary, the goal is to have the underwater optics maintain the lens resolution as much as possible. Adding to many additional lens elements would cut down the transmissivity of the whole package wouldn't it? Sounds like there's a tradoff to be made there. The lens is the 1/2" format version of the one we are presently using. In regards to aperture, you brought up a very good point that I had overlooked, we usually do shoot at near maximum aperature and the lens resolution must hold for that condition! In regards to the rights to the design, I don't think there's a problem there, we are not interested in building cameras! As far as the MBARI micro and software go I don't THINK there should be a problem with licensing the design and software. We have been working on a similiar arrangement on one of our instrument designs but have not actually come to an agreement, nor established a firm policy yet. The # of pressure cycles to verify a design is an area you can address much better than I can. I would hope that the builder would do enough testing to satisfy themselves as to the integrity of the design. In working with glass, is DOES sound prudent to have more extensive testing than I specified as the acceptance test. Anouther issue is that although I specify a design for a seven year life, the actual warranty is not specified. Part of the builders offer. Prepayment is possible, I can look into that. One way would be to divide up the design and fabrication portions and bill for the design work seperately. E-mail is fine for working on this. I have solicited proposals from 3 other companies capable of doing this kind of work. Selection criteria will be confidence in the optical design, builders success on similiar projects, size/weight, price and warranty (not strictly in order). Mark Chaffey From dspl@powergrid.electriciti.com Thu Nov 3 07:05 PST 1994 Received: from wave.mbari.org by mildew.mbari.org with SMTP (1.36.108.4/15.6) id AA17134; Thu, 3 Nov 1994 07:05:12 -0800 Return-Path: Received: from powergrid.electriciti.com by wave.mbari.org with SMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA0639064551; Thu, 3 Nov 1994 07:05:11 -0800 Received: from slip23.electriciti.com by powergrid.electriciti.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #3) id m0r33iN-0005UDC; Thu, 3 Nov 94 07:04 PST Message-Id: X-Sender: dspl@powergrid.electriciti.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 03 Nov 1994 07:03:35 -0800 To: chma@wave.mbari.org From: dspl@powergrid.electriciti.com (Mark Olsson (DeepSea Power & Light)) Subject: Testing X-Mailer: Status: RO Mark, I have decide to go ahead and build a test fixture for our 6" ID glass dome and try my new seating technique out onn the larger dome with some pressure cycling to 5km. I hope to start this early next week. If the pyrex dome works well, and cost is a significant factor, we could offer this dome at much lower cost than a BK7 dome. Pros: (Borosiliate/Pyrex) Low Cost, high strength, many blanks for testing/design verification Cons: Cannot chem temper (thermal temper prob. not a good idea) Bubbles, stones and worst, straie in glass. Some, slight optical effects Pros: (Optical BK7) Good Optical properties Chemcial tempering possible Close thermal expansion match to titanium Used for Benthos Photo Camera flat windows, also 3chip "Titanic" WHOI camera. Cons: Higher cost (some tooling required) We have less expericence with this glass/process Slightly lower modulus Maybe slightly softer glass Mark From MAILER-DAEMON@mildew.mbari.org Thu Nov 3 10:22 PST 1994 Received: by mildew.mbari.org (1.36.108.4/15.6) id AA17277; Thu, 3 Nov 1994 10:22:53 -0800 Date: Thu, 3 Nov 94 10:22:52 PST From: Mail Delivery Subsystem Return-Path: Subject: Returned mail: User unknown To: chma@mildew.mbari.org Status: RO ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 Mark... User unknown 550 Chaffey... User unknown ----- Unsent message follows ----- Received: by mildew.mbari.org (1.36.108.4/15.6) id AA17276; Thu, 3 Nov 1994 10:22:53 -0800 From: Mark Chaffey 408-647-3708 Return-Path: Subject: Re: Testing To: Date: Thu, 3 Nov 94 10:22:52 PST Cc: chma@mbari.org (Mark Chaffey) In-Reply-To: ; from "DeepSea Power & Light)" at Nov 03, 94 7:03 am Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Mark, In answer to your last two e-mails: Our present 2.3" camera uses an acrylic equal radius dome and a 2X diopter screwed into the filter ring. The lens I specified is the same design for a 1/2" camera. The zoom and focus elements are internal - that is the first nodal point does not appear to move as these settings change. Fujinon might provide lens construction information, I've found them very helpful in sending schematics etc. The exact lens will be the S8.5x4.2EVM or ERD (the difference is only the focus motor arrangement and doesn't effect the optics. This lens has the 1.7x extender and macro feature - the lens does not come any other way, even though the catalog shows a non-extender version. We will not support the macro function if it does not work out optically. The lenses cost about $13K and the cameras 5K. Our micro board will be compatible with an ascii charactor stream on 485. User interface is workstation based (not pc). Resolution of present camera dome lens combination is unknown (camera is 500 horizontal lines). New camera says 800 lines, I've measured 750 including lens). As I stated before, the line resolution figure is some what arbitrary, I want the dome and diopter optics to not degrade the lens optics, an impossible task in theory, but and degradation should not be visibly apparent. The mating connector (bulkhead mount) is either the MINK-FCR or the MINK-BCR , whichever style fits the housing design better. I really don't want to get involved in sharing the "risk" for the optical design, I'd rather find a vendor that has the expertise to quantify the optical design and decide up front if they can do it or not (and take on the risk). For this reason, although I've specified the desired lens because I think it's the best choice, the purchase is awaiting contractor approval. I think we would want BK7 glass, based on your discussion and complaints i've heard about the straie in the pyrex domes. The lens drive motors, feedback, etc. are not a big deal. The lens comes with all that stuff. As long as the lens and camera are well mounted (on the center line), we just wire in our controller it's done. Fujinon makes a controller for the lens, but ours is much better (better "feel"). Mounting the camera, lens and PCB on a chassis in the housing is the contractors responsibility. Mark C. From dspl@powergrid.electriciti.com Tue Nov 8 12:33 PST 1994 Received: from wave.mbari.org by mildew.mbari.org with SMTP (1.36.108.4/15.6) id AA20347; Tue, 8 Nov 1994 12:33:08 -0800 Return-Path: Received: from powergrid.electriciti.com by wave.mbari.org with SMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA1530157474; Tue, 8 Nov 1994 12:33:07 -0800 Received: from slip23.electriciti.com by powergrid.electriciti.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #3) id m0r4xDd-0005VCC; Tue, 8 Nov 94 12:32 PST Message-Id: X-Sender: dspl@powergrid.electriciti.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 08 Nov 1994 12:31:39 -0800 To: chma@wave.mbari.org From: dspl@powergrid.electriciti.com (Mark Olsson (DeepSea Power & Light)) Subject: Another Angle X-Mailer: Status: RO Mark, Did you get my last two messages OK? We have started pressure testing today. Mark >To: chma@hp850.mbari.org >From: dspl@powergrid.electriciti.com (Mark Olsson (DeepSea Power & Light)) >Subject: Another Angle > >Mark, > >Another issue with respect to the optical specification. Do you want a flat, planar focal field or plane, or one more spherical? Often, depending on the nature of the dome correction, the corners can be focused sharp, but not at the same time as the center of the image. This would be one way to "technically" meet your spec, but not give you the result you really need. > >For the wide angle mode of opertation, a slightly spherical field might be advantageous, but at higher magnifications, one generally wants a flat field. > >It looks like we can start pressure testing one of the 6 inch optical domes on Monday. We shall see what we shall see...... > >Mark > From dspl@powergrid.electriciti.com Thu Dec 1 06:28 PST 1994 Received: from wave.mbari.org by mildew.mbari.org with SMTP (1.36.108.4/15.6) id AA01854; Thu, 1 Dec 1994 06:28:36 -0800 Return-Path: Received: from powergrid.electriciti.com by wave.mbari.org with SMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA1324156723; Thu, 1 Dec 1994 06:28:35 -0800 Received: from slip27.electriciti.com by powergrid.electriciti.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #3) id m0rDCUb-0005VYC; Thu, 1 Dec 94 06:28 PST Message-Id: X-Sender: dspl@powergrid.electriciti.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 06:27:17 -0800 To: chma@wave.mbari.org From: dspl@powergrid.electriciti.com (Mark Olsson (DeepSea Power & Light)) Subject: 3 chip domes X-Mailer: Status: RO Mark, Still worrying here over your dome concerns. I would be willing to replace the dome for FREE (one time) if it failed for any reason during the first 24 months of operational use. No questions asked. Even if you drop it and break it. This in addition to some sort of prorata approach. Mark From kiwi@mbari.org Mon Feb 27 09:46 PST 1995 Received: from wave.mbari.org by mildew.mbari.org with SMTP (1.36.108.4/15.6) id AA21943; Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:46:26 -0800 Return-Path: Received: from barnacle.mbari.org by wave.mbari.org with SMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA216574081; Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:46:25 -0800 Received: by barnacle.mbari.org (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA27249; Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:46:23 -0800 From: William Kirkwood Subject: Camera Housing (fwd) To: chma@wave.mbari.org (Mark Chaffey) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 9:46:23 PST Full-Name: William Kirkwood Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Status: RO Jim - I took a look at the camera housing drawing. I'll let you and Mark decide what to do but the following are ways to get the weight down with no ill effects. First: the design has been done for 7530 psi. We have agreed to 7288 as the max. = 5000 meters. Second: the design could actually be .366 in wall thickness (based on 5.52 ID). Go to .370 for margin and you could save enough weight to beat the specified number. (Note: I've used the same design system on everything I've designed and nothing has failed. The datacons actually made 7500 psi when design to 7200 psi ... ie. I'm still conservative.) (NOTE-2: this change equates to 2.9 lbs./camera) Third: the titanium support ring could be modified yet retain the section depth the designer wants. If we "drilled" into it around the exposed circumference the resulting web would give the support with a few pounds less. This honeycomb section will work great because the loading is in one direction. If he integrated the two parts it would be better but Farley said it wasn't an option he was willing to look at. These are just quick looks items. With more effort I could get the weight down further. With the vehicle gains of the past (and those yet unaccounted for) a several pound gain is worth chasing in my opinion, it's only a little machining money. If the vendor is concerned about profit we should consider a slight increase for these mods. Farley mentioned that a spherical end housing is being considered. Realize that will increase the turn circle. My question would be why get bigger when you can make weight so easily? Catch you later - Bill