NetNotes
day. Any suggestions from the community? Do I have a pump problem or a vacuum gauge problem? Dan Fairweather dan.fairweather@
delphi.com Wed Apr 1
Plenty of variables to consider, but perhaps most straight- forward is that if the seals in your roughing pump are as old as the jar seals and it was sitting around with used oil in it, you probably should consider a pump rebuild since there’s no telling how bad things might be inside the pump. You might also check out the literature on your pump if any is available to see what vacuum levels it’s capable of when working perfectly so that you can determine a real target vacuum to aim for (not knowing the details of the pump, for all we know you’re actually within spec, poor as it might be). John Papalia
jpapalia@papalia.net T u Apr 2 Dan’s right - T ere are a lot of variables to consider. I’ll add a
few more. T e fact that your vacuum worsens as time elapses makes me wonder if it is backstreaming oil into your carbon coater. A quick check of the vacuum line should let you know. If it is, that’s the fi rst thing to take care of before you contaminate the whole system with oil. Assuming there is no backstreaming occurring, if you have access to a vacuum meter, you might want to attach it directly to the pump and see what kind of vacuum the pump is pulling on its own (no coater, no vacuum tubing). T at should tell you which side the problem is on. If you don’t have a vacuum meter, try to fi nd a second pump to try out on the system to confi rm the vacuum you can pull. If it’s the pump, a rebuild or a new pump is probably the best option. My personal experience with rebuilds has been about 50/50, for what it’s worth. If the pump seems fi ne and the problem seems to be on the coater side, I would start by removing the bell jar and plugging the vacuum inlet in the chamber with a stopper to see again which side the problem is on - the chamber itself, or the internals. From there, it becomes a matter of trying to check seals to fi nd the leak. Jeff Hall
jhall@2spi.com T u Apr 2
Instrumentation:
software and computer upgrades I would like to revisit the problem of old soſt ware, computers, and institutional support. We have many instruments that run on proprietary soſt ware that has not been upgraded to more modern operating systems. For example, some of our instruments use programs only compatible with Windows XP. Our IT guys want to ‘upgrade’ all campus computers to a newer operating system and don’t want any old machines running. Is it reasonable to tell them that we need our old XP (and earlier) computers to keep our instruments running? What would be a good approach to satisfy their urge to stay current and our need to live in the past? Jonathan Krupp
jkrupp@deltacollege.edu Mon Apr 27
I think all of us feel your pain. Having done both microscopy and systems administration I empathize on both sides of the equation. T e IT staff oſt en don’t “get” that you have a valuable piece of scientifi c equipment that will continue to work for many years (and which people need to use for their education or research interests), but will never again run an up-to-date operating system. Contrary to popular belief, you aren’t being a Luddite, you are stuck with something that will break if the OS is upgraded and you can’t aff ord to break it or replace it with a newer piece of equipment. X-from the IT perspective they are looking at a computer that will no longer receive security patches and whose antivirus support has already or is about to run out. Understandably, they want it off their network. With even fl ash drives being capable of transmitting viruses, you need a way for people to use the equipment, but not have a way for the computer to become
72
infected. You might also need backup hardware that can still run Windows XP (some labs at the University here have a small stockpile of XP compatible computers as fallbacks). At minimum you should consider regularly creating disk images of the hard drive(s) to ensure that you can recreate the setup when some of the hardware fails (it’s not getting any younger). Old hardware drivers can be diffi cult to fi nd, especially if they came on manufacturer’s CDs or fl oppies that you may or may not be able to locate in a crisis. What some labs have done is create a private network with a fi le server. T e fi le server uses a current/secure OS and is where users on all the old computers store their fi les. T e server can share the fi les out to the larger network via one connection, while fi rewalling the private network (where all the WinXP, Win2K, etc. computers live) that the server is connected to via a diff erent connection. In other words, the fi le server has two network cards. Users can no longer use fl oppies or USB devices on the old computers; they can only physically connect to the server. Depending on how your building wiring was done, the IT folks may be able to create the private network using the building’s network switch, without the need for physical rewiring. T ere may be other ways, but this seems like the most viable to me. It will take some money and expertise to pull off , but the alternative is worse... Douglas Cromey
dcromey@email.arizona.edu Mon Apr 27
It’s perfectly reasonable to tell the IT people you need XP or whatever to keep your instruments running. We’re in the same boat with one of our confocals. A good approach to satisfy their need to upgrade and your need to not upgrade is to off er to let them pay for upgrading the hardware (computers) and soſt ware running your instruments—or to not pay for the upgrades and leave you with your current systems on instruments. Phil Oshel
oshel1pe@cmich.edu Mon Apr 27 T e volume involved in consumer manufacturing makes computer equipment cheap and expendable. T at does not make it a reasonable proposition to scrap specialized equipment that lacks the economies of scale. Specialized instrumentation is neither cheap nor expendable. If the IT unit has diffi culty understanding this, since you are at a college, you might consider getting an Econ faculty member involved who could assign a student project to evaluate the economics of the two alternatives: 1) isolate the security risks with a closed network running older operating systems; 2) scrap and replace with new instrumentation. Part of the cost of alternative #1 is that the interface boards from the scope manufacturers may go out of production and repairs involving the interfaces may become more expensive for that reason. However, if the manufacturers know that numbers of their clients are addressing the soſt ware obsolescence problem with well-maintained older operating systems, pressure to hustle older systems off to the junk pile may diminish. T e rush to scrap and replace, solely for operating system compatibility issues, fails on all sorts of sustainability and economic grounds. John Twilley
jtwilley@sprynet.com Mon Apr 27
Yes a common pain from time to time. I’ll just bullet point a couple of thoughts/discussion points (based on my lab’s experiences) 1. Dedicated control computers are part of an instrument. An upgrade of the computer part of the instrument implies IT needs to make sure that the device it attaches to still works ok—let them deal with the vendor (if a Win7, virus checker, security update friendly solution exists then great). T e job of IT is, in part, to make sure you have a working system and that disruption is minimized. If the vendor tells them that their soſt ware won’t work then it’s time to discuss options. Anything you can do to massage the relationship with the IT people toward them realizing they are upgrading a microscope rather
www.microscopy-today.com • 2015 July
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84