Thursday, September 27, 2018 11am ET

previous meeting << >> following meeting

Logistic information

 BlueJeans calling instructions:
 Toll-Free Number (U.S.&  Canada):  888-240-2560
 International toll number:         408-740-7256
 Bluejeans CODE:                    734 609 7559
 Bluejeans link: https://bluejeans.com/7346097559

Agenda

1. collimator 1 preliminary design summary pdf (Jason)
2. envelopes update pdf (KK)
3. Coild design evolution (Sandesh)
4. Review of goals for spectrometer

Minutes

Attendance: Juliette, Sandesh, Ruben, Jason, Kent, KK, Dave, Probir, Ernie

1. collimator 1 preliminary design summary (Jason)
   1. Not a design document
   2. Summary of work in progress
   3. old study (4 years old) so intro picture is old
      1. collimator 3 doesn't exist
      2. collimator 4 is no longer located inside the vacuum can
      3. beam shield (not beamline) and photon collimator is still in the design
   4. "petal" collimators - cooling is easy
   5. Rakitha did power deposited on collimator
   6. Jason designed water cooling concept
      1. fins and water channels stay within the shadow of the "collimators"
      2. did full CFD for temperature
      3. also looked at stresses (not particularly large - 1/10 yield strength of alloy)
   7. conceptual design of supports
   8. Further work
      1. fins in section 4 (or whole way along collimator)
      2. section 4 already has a smaller channel to get a faster water flow
      3. but more material all along the way would probably be good for self-shielding
   9. Questions
      1. Kashy - 104 degrees celcius - film boiling at that surface inside water channel
      2. no heat transfer?
      3. rastered beam
      4. no copper component to the collimator material
      5. Sandesh - there is some hitting of the collimator in hybrid
         1. may need to neck this down a little more
2. Review of goals for spectrometer
   1. Collaboration meeting
      1. taking stock
      2. listening to the lab management
      3. real project in calendar 19
   2. Director's Review
      1. need to prove there are no showstoppers
         1. parity-quality beam
         2. spectrometer
            1. got impression that upper management thinks spectrometer won't work
            2. focusing will work - but not the mechanical and water/power properties
      2. closer look at the cost
   3. CD1 from DOE as early as next year
      1. will include project management stuff
   4. How to work together?
      1. convince ourselves that the baseline designed as envisioned will work
      2. assume tests at MIT will work
      3. rely on outside expertise (external Magnet advisory group meetings)
3. Prototype tests
   1. Ernie trying to get tests done
   2. need to show that work has started
   3. test plan
   4. testing shouldn't take too long
   5. differences between prototype and "real" coil are not relevant to the validity of the tests
4. Envelopes
   1. Sandesh noticed a huge interference at 14 m
   2. designed with envelopes generated by Juliette
   3. wanted to automate the envelop generation
   4. didn't use small enough step size within magnet
   5. automated tracks were to large in some places
   6. pictures had Ernie's conductor, strongbacks designed with Jason's conductor, old envelops (blue) and new envelops (brown)
   7. brown envelops match the TOSCA ones
5. Questions about different coil cross-sections
   1. some stuff is really old... put "OLD" blatantly on the slide
   2. Jason's in 10-2013 layout/conductor size
   3. 2016 version - small conductor and larger conductor but slide 6 has odd # turns
   4. what is the prototype? slide 7 but with even number of coils
   5. current densities are lower but hard to wind
   6. prototype has all even numbers of conductors for ease of winding
   7. test the worst case scenario and then others would be easier
   8. should use conventional winding if possible
6. Two questions we will be asked
   1. Are there showstoppers for the baseline design?
      1. prototype is testing the water-cooling properties and is perfectly valid for these tests
   2. Can the baseline design be improved?
      1. slide 7 has lower current density but is not conventionally wound
      2. prototype layout (slide 10) is conventionally wound but has higher current density
   3. DOE Reviewer - pushing limits and addressing risks
      1. similar systems - proof of successful operation without degrading the experimental goals
      2. Magnet Advisory Group meeting
         1. after prototype testing
         2. full CAD with ins/outs etc
         3. what resources do we need for a Magnet Advisory Committee
            1. more formal fashion
            2. drill down deep and be critical
            3. help with looking at slide 7 (manufacturable?)
            4. prototype coil - get the results of testing
            5. slide 10 - should be optimized with conductor sizes
7. scope for JLAB
   1. prototype coils
   2. drift media possibilities
   3. optimization of magnet designs
8. Collaboration meeting
   1. not a review
   2. status report
   3. prototype tests
   4. what JLAB is working on
   5. how we plan to go forward
      1. Magnet Advisory Group meeting
9. How are they wound
   1. 7 mil half-lapped, typically dry
   2. can obtain B-stage tape with rad-hard epoxy
   3. wind from inside-out, in opposite directions
   4. leads on inner radius instead of outside
   5. can't put tape on too tight and then have too sharp of a coil
   6. winding form - have to give it back
   7. wound red one first, baked
   8. yellow, blue then green - adding every time
   9. have to be able to get water and power in and out

Return to Spectrometer Meetings