Summary of Comments and Concerns

March 30 to April 3

Model 1

• With room to walk around tables 1 and 2 (See JR staff diagrams; EASM 3-d ones)

• With room to walk around Table 1 but not Table 2 (See Beth’s diagram)

• With no room to walk around either table.

NOTE: Paleomagnetists once again state that the forward table must be shortened to permit access to the rear of the SRM. A person must be able to pass through the space between the forward desk and the SRM (See Beth’s diagram).

Model 3

• With space between Tables 1 and 2 and Table 1 moved as far Aft as possible

• With no space between tables

This will not work because:

• We cannot move Table 1 further aft as Carlos and Peter suggest because a) there is already too much of an angle bringing sections form the splitting room to that table, moving further aft makes this turn even harder and the space between the end of that description table and the wrapping table will be too narrow to swing a core, and b) we have to keep enough space for cores on the core cart.

• Moving sections from description table 1 to table 2 is cumbersome, we cannot stand between the two tables and move core. It is difficult to pick sections up for the top end and move across the center to the next table.

Model 4

• leaving Tables 1 & 2 as they are and rotating Table 3 as in Models 1&2. 

This will not work because:

• This model does not improve the traffic flow and actually creates more of a pinch point by the SHMSL

March 16 to 27

All in Favor of:

• Extra storage under the description tables

• Extra walking space around the tables and between SHIL/SHMSL

Concerns (please type responses in RED with initials)

Model 1

1. Bumping into the corners

   • We will remove the wooden corners by making an angle in the wooden counter top to remove the corner -hjb

   • Even in the current layout you can run into corners.  All we can do is round or tapper the corners.  The advantage of the angled tables (30 deg) is that it provides straight section loading from the end, shortens any pinch points and creates a small protective area for the core describer to work in. -wgm

   • We are walking around them these days, and for now they are not a major problem. We can always move the tables on the lab, before fixing then, to find the best position -dpl

2. Counter/shelving on rear of SRM will prevent access to checking the switch, or adjusting the tension on the pulley

   •  The countertop should not be set on the top of the frame. Even if the countertop is next to the frame we will have enough space - dpl

   • About the access back of the SRM, if the Haskris is changed, there will be enough space for access from the other side. Also, it is possible to make the countertop ‘easy to remove’ if we need to access that area - dpl
     
     

   • I am pro the countertop because it will allow people to move from the corner to that area (the bottle neck and the amount of people in the AFT corner is one of the main reasons for reorganizing the Core Description Lab) and move the Smear Slide station - dpl

   • I was looking at Chang’s model, and there will be a big loss of counter space doing that. When we change the Haskris on the back of the SRM the access to that area, access will not be a problem anymore -dpl
     
     

3. Loading the SRM - is there enough room?

   • We can test that to be sure that it is - dpl

Model 2

1. Counter tops restricting access to SRM

2. Too rigid a design with dead ends

Model 3

1. Access the btm/top of sections 3, 4 and 5 will be difficult

   • Regarding the distance between the scientist and the core, I don't think so because we are taking out the countertop in one of the sides and the countertop at the top and bottom of the tables will be narrower than before - dpl

2. Moving sections from table to table will be problematic. Bumping into scientists and each other.

   • I think the best solution is to place the cores for the middle table from the back (aft side), or enabling us to push the cores from one table to the other, that will be very useful but we need to think of a better way to install the monitors -dpl

3. Need access between the 2 description tables
   
   

   • There is not enough room to separate the two tables while keeping the elongated orientation, hence the angled models -hjb

   • Looking at the space that we have, I think that it is not viable because all the space that you win with this model, you will lose by creating that space between the tables. Plus, it will not be a useful space, it will be uncomfortable to go through because both monitors will be there. I think the best solution is to place the cores for the middle table from the back (aft side), or enabling us to push the cores from one table to the other, that will be very useful but we need to think of a better way to install the monitors -dpl

General Concerns

1. LIVE monitor near the SRM - is not an option as it blocks the control switch for the DTECH, the oven vents to that area and the electronics are too close to the shield.

   • This will need to be tested - hjb

   • It is also an option to set the monitor on the AFT wall instead on the SRM - dpl

2. Any encroaching on the SRM is not viable. The instrument is far too sensitive.

   • There is wasted space around the SRM that could be used for storage, we need to re evaluate the area and what wold be allowed - hjb

   • About the proximity of computers, on the distribution that we use to have, there were two monitors and one computer in the middle table and it was not an issue -dpl

3.  Smear Slide station to the FWD desk space - if the countertop is the same height as the 3rd description table the ergonomics for the SS scientists will be compromised. Sitting on a stool for hours looking into a microscope is not an option.

Other Ideas to Improve the Description Area

1. Modifying the FWD SRM counter top to include a walk through, area to access the needed parts on SRM

2. Modifying monitors to hang from ceiling
   
   

   • We thought of this, but seems to very difficult in that space, currently nothing to hang them from -will discuss with Bill et al. hjb
     
     

   • There is no access above the ceiling tiles to mount monitors (full of wires and ducting).  Along the walls we can mount monitors from shelving or from wall mounts.  This doesn't help the description tables, how we mount the monitors and place a key boards on these tables has a big impact on the table design and how it can be placed in the available space.  The tables shown the proposals are based on the after description table's layout.  -wgm

3. Creating a folding table for the proposed desk space

   • Will try and have the table set up to it can be taken down easily if needed hjb
     
     

   • Fold out tables are fine for creating additional writing space or keyboard, but should be discourage for use where equipment is mount such as a microscope.  Tables next to the SRM would have to be removed for major work on the equipment.  -wgm

4. Removing the tiny sink on Working Table

   • We can re evaluate this once a design is in place - hjb

   • It will be useful, because will generate more space to walk, and to place the cores on the tables -dpl

5. Grind off the weldments for the old SRM frame spring mounts.  They are useless trip hazards.

   • Being done

6. Allow the sedimentologists/core describers to use the fwd desk rather than Smear Slide. This space is very useful and there are other options over SS

   • It is used for other tests and is always busy during expeditions - dpl

   • Doing that will generate a bottle-neck on the main pass - dpl

Original Floor Plan (Current layout):

Overview:

• Two primary description tables, with the primary oriented fwd/aft and the secondary oriented perpendicular port/stbd.

• Third aux table oriented port/stbd flush to the fwd wall, used primarily as core overflow and storage space. Aux table is regularly used as a core holding spot, less for core description (except during high recovery or hard rock). It is used by developers (will they miss it?)

• Only one passage way on the port side of the primary description tables.

• Two monitors per table. Moveable monitors which can be oriented in multiple directions.

• No smear slide station within primary description area.

• No work spaces within primary description area.

Pros:

• Decent space on either side of the fwd/aft orientated core table (for SRM and SHIL loading)

Cons:

• High traffic flow of scientists between SHIL/SHMSL and Core description tables

• Difficulty moving cores from the primary (fwd/aft) to secondary (port/stbd) table

• Difficulty moving cores from the secondary (port/stbd) table to the SHIL & SHMSL

• Not being able to see two cores in same orientation (one table fwd/aft, other port/stbd)

• Pinch points and viewing restrictions around the perpendicular port/stbd table which makes description difficult

• Wood U-tables attached to the decription tables are very wide, not allowing scientist to have a good perspective of the complete core.

• Not height adjustable main table.

• Insufficient storage space.

Proposed New Core Description Layout:

1.- Proposed with Tables Placed at an Angle:

Overview:

• Two primary description tables oriented parallel on an angle with entry to tabletop core racks facing towards the splitting room

• Third core aux table, placed perpendicular to the fwd wall, can be used as an extra overflow core rack, staging area, or as a bench top or workspace with the aid of an articulated cover.

• Smaller wooden L-tables around the description tables, allowing the scientisc to have a better overvbiew of the core.

• Two passageways located on either side of the primary description tables port/stbd.

• One monitor per table. Moveable monitors which can be oriented in multiple directions and over the length of the core.

• New smear slide station located between SRM and the core aux table on fwd wall.

• Two available work spaces on each side of description tables (360 degree view of the core)

• Large display monitor for LIVE, etc mounted above SRM (mid way down the length of the SRM, electronic access will not be hindered)

• Height adjustable main table.

• More storage space: New shelves under the description tables, fwd wall and close to the SRM station.

Features of proposed layout:

Addition of fwd work station (strongly suggest Smear Slide/ Microscope station for this workspace)

Pros:

• Less traffic on stbd side (SHIL/SHMSL side) because scientists can move 360 degrees around description tables, the smear slide scientist has access to all cores without walking along the high traffic zone (stbd side of desc tables)

• Provide a work station (smear slide, microscope, as needed, etc) next to fwd AUX table.

• Free-up storage and drawer space that is currently allocated to Smear Slides

• Free-up counter space (current site of hot plate and UV box) this can be used for SHMSL.

• Free-up counter space currently used by microscope

• Consolidated materials and instruments

• Closer access to archive cores & sampling

• Extra work space available if not actively doing smear slides, eg on hard-rock legs, can be used for thin section analysis & extra workspace/description area

• Sample parties - another table to fill with cores

Needed:

• Microscope (standing)(on desk)

• One monitor (mounted on fwd wall)

• Keyboard (on desk)

• Hot plate (on desk)

• UV box (underneath aux table)

• Printer (underneath aux table)

• SS materials (either within drawers located underneath table) or on shelves recessed into P-Mag empty space)

• Space for chair (underneath SS desk)

Walk through passage port side

Pros:

• SS or Thin section descriptor can freely move on the left side, bypassing SHMSL & SHIL pinch point

• Free movement between the two primary description tables (360 deg)

• Free movement and access to P-Mag mechanics

• Free space allows for more collaboration between both primary description tables; both can be actively used without the second table being negated to storage or a holding zone

• Viewing the cores in same orientation (better visual of laid out cores on both tables).

Cons:

• L-Shaped siding/bench attached to secondary description table (rather than current U shaped bench)

Auxiliary (third) core table

Pros:

• Still maintain third core tray for excess cores, sampling parties

• Easier movement for core to SHMSL

• Cores can be viewed from both sides of this table (in previous lay out, cores could only be accessed from one side)

Auxiliary core table with articulated cover

Pros:

• With a cover, the aux table can transform into extra workspace and a useable bar-top work station

• Limits traffic in far left corner of lab by removing one person and allocating them to the aux table work station

• Frees up workspace in far left corner of lab

Primary description tables oriented at an angle

Pros:

• Allows for free movement around tables

• Decreases the amount of pinch points

• Easier access for techs to lay out cores on both tables. Drastically increases the accessibility of laying out cores on the second table

• Allows for scientists to describe cores from either side

• Easier accessibility and movement of core from description tables to SHIL & SHMSL

Cons:

• Different orientation than current floor plan

• less counter space

Primary description tables narrower footprint

Pros:

• We have decreased the footprint of both primary description tables by decreasing the width of the wood counter around the fwd edge

• Wood siding is still available around the tables however it is oriented in an L-shape, with one side of table having no counter (table edge is flush to edge of core)

• L shape allows for closer view and proximity to core on one side (easier for shorter scientists) 

• We will not lose counter space or places to put materials, as shelving will be made underneath the tables. Currently the adjustable tables have no shelving underneath, the proposed design will require shelving underneath.

• Both primarily description tables are adjustable and are not static in height

• Narrow footprint allows for an 360 degree of movement around the description tables and less traffic on the stbd side

Cons:

• Proposed L-shape siding is smaller than current model, with less storage space located around the table

• Proposed shelving and storage space will be located underneath primary tables

Large monitor display (recessed) above SRM (monitor will be on movable arm to provide easy access to electronics)

Pros:

• Large display set in position on the SRM side of the description area allows easy viewing of LIVE display at all times.

• Diminishes the need for two monitors on each description table. Each table will only have one monitor reserved for description.

• Only having one monitor per table allows each description table to be narrower: eliminating pinch points, allowing for movement around tables, and creating a smaller table footprint

• Live display can be viewed from multiple directions

Cons:

• Monitor electronics interference to SRM?

• Potential low-level interference (testing required)?

Proposed layout and its Relation to Lab Spaces:

Overview:

• Proposed additional work space within the primary description area, removes one scientist (per shift) from the over-crowded fwd description area (fwd of SHMSL).

• Proposed smear slide station (with storage) within the primary description area, removes the monitor, microscope, two smear slide vidmar cabinets, zebra printer, hot plate and UV box from the over-crowded fwd description area.

• Proposed aux table (with cover option) removes one additional scientist and work space from the over-crowded fwd description area

• Secondary port-side passage way removes traffic from the congested starboard passage way, reducing pinch points surrounding the SHIL and SHMSL

Pros:

• Opens up the forward description area by removing one person (per shift) and their corresponding work station

• Expedition dependent, but the ability of the aux table to work as a counter top, removes one more additional scientist from the forward description area

• Increases counter space within the forward description area. Allows us to re-purpose the counter space currently allotted to the microscope, UV box, and hot plate

• Increases storage space within the forward description area. Allows us to re-purpose the storage space currently allotted to the two vidmar cabinets and zebra printer.

• Decreases traffic through the starboard passage way

• The creation of a workspace within the primary description area removes one core describer (per shift) from the forward description area, and allows the re-allocation of the back two monitors (oriented on the far forward/ port side) to the stratigraphic correlators.

Cons:

• Space between primary description table and SRM loading is smaller than current model; however, SRM loading is still accessible

• Secondary monitor mounted above the SRM has the potential for low-level interference

3.- Proposed with Tables in Line:

Overview:

• Two primary description tables in line, placed one after the other, with entry to tabletop core racks facing towards the splitting room.

• Third core aux table, placed perpendicular to the fwd wall, can be used as an extra overflow core rack, staging area, or as a bench top or workspace with the aid of an articulated cover.

• Smaller wooden L-tables around the description tables, allowing the scientisc to have a better overvbiew of the core.

• Two parallel passageways on both sides of the description tables, and a conection between the SHIL/SHMSL aisle and the Core Description working area.

• One monitor per table. Moveable monitors which can be oriented in multiple directions and over the length of the core.

• Working space for two persons on the fwd-port side area.

• New smear slide station located between SRM and the core aux table on fwd wall.

• Two available work spaces on each side of description tables.

• Large display monitor for LIVE, etc mounted on the fwd wall.

• Height adjustable main table.

• More storage space: New shelves under the description tables, fwd wall and close to the SRM station.

Pros:

• More working space:

• Smear Slide Station located on the fwd-port side working area:

• More walking space:

• Better overview of the core:

• More storage space:

Cons:

• Main and middle description tables should be identical in size. It is necesary to change the aluminum holders on the middle table by black plastic holders.

• It is not posible for a scientist to be positioned on the top of the main description table core or the bottom of the middle description table core. Not allowing scientist to have 360 degrees vision for the cores.

• Difficult to load the middle description table, it will be top to bottom (fwd to afw).

• Difficult to move cores from the main table to the middle table. A solution could be slide the cores from the main table to the middle one, but this option it is not specified in this proposal.

FUTURE modifications to allow more walking/passing space

• Remove Working Table end sink and drain

• Cut SRM stand's lateral legs - will provide more passable space (18") on port side of description tables