Re: Isolation table vs. leg

Ron Brown (ron_brown@Merck.Com)
24 May 1995 16:18:05 U

Reply to: RE>>Isolation table vs. leg
At Merck Research Labs in Rahway we have checked both systems with an
accelerometer. Legs are OK, TMC table is much better (a power of 10). You
may never need that amount of stablization, but you have it if you do.

--------------------------------------
Date: 5/24/95 10:52 AM
To: Ron Brown
From: Bill Stevens
At 04:06 PM 5/23/95 -0400, Shaw Huang wrote:

>I would prefer legs than table. It is more convenient to work under the
>magnet without touching the vibration-isolation system based on legs. When
>you want to tune the probe or change the probe, with table it is almost
>impossible not to lean on the table which disturbs the balance and gives
>you an insecure feeling because the magnet is swaying around. Of course
>you can also turn off the air pressure for the isolation table before
>doing anything under the magnet. Leg system usually has only three legs
>well separately from each other and there is enough room between two
>legs, and the original magnet stand is usually small enough that you can
>avoid leaning on it.

I second Shaw's remarks completely. Trying to change the probe without
lowering the table got me a pulled shoulder muscle. Even probe tuning is
quite awkward without sitting on the table. I always lower it now.

The table sure improved performance, though! We bought it from TMC and had
MR Resources install it. The leg dampers were available and much cheaper at
that time, but MR didn't want to make any guarantees on them because there
was insufficient experience with them at that time.
Bill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
William C. Stevens, Ph.D. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Facility
Director Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901-4405
wstevens@siu.edu
http://www.siu.edu/departments/shops/bill.html
wstevens@intrnet.net voice: 618-453-6498 fax: -6408
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~