The Cone Resonance proposal: Pretty well matched the EIA standard

through-out, with two exceptions. The first

is the mathematics used for calculating the resonance were a little more

precise than the EIA standard. No

problems there. The other item was the standard wanted to expand to allow

up to 18" Cones. We cannot check

15" Cones on our EIA standard machine, so 18" product is out of the

question. There also is question on the

accuracy of measurements in Cones over 12", due to the suspended weight.

All in all, I don't see any problem

in their proposal as we (ALMA) would in spirit match it through-out.

​

The Spider Deflection proposal met with the usual flack, but in principal

seemed okay. There was some

ambiguous elements (interface of ram to Spider VCID, amount of pre-loading

acceptable, etc.) but the general

output would correlate with the 50 gram EIA standard. At least this is a

static deflection (mass versus

distance) which would directly be able to be converted to our confused

mixed unit system (inches/Xgram). So

once again, while I wouldn't suggest adoption of this to replace our

current standard, I don't see any issue

with affirming it as a correlated technique.

​

.!16-JAN-1997 12:24:34.39

​