Difference between revisions of "Phase2 ME meeting minutes 18Feb21"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
* Phase1 is wrapping up, baking through end of March | * Phase1 is wrapping up, baking through end of March | ||
* beamline drawing of the region between chopper2 and booster looks good, certainly more than 50% complete, see [[media:chopper_to_booster 18Feb21.pdf]] | * beamline drawing of the region between chopper2 and booster looks good, certainly more than 50% complete, see [[media:chopper_to_booster 18Feb21.pdf]] | ||
| + | * Need 3d layout, convert the 2d layout to 3d, just like phase1 | ||
| + | * Danny needs to finish documenting phase1, e.g., the modifications to viewers. the same modes will need to be made to phase2 viewers | ||
| + | * in light of A1/A2 girder problems (it wanting to rotate and fall to ground), we should keep this in mind for phase2 girders | ||
| + | |||
| + | Some questions: | ||
| + | * the spectrometer line in the chopper to booster region, what is it for? ...set buncher phase and amplitude, but is this the best method? | ||
| + | * what is the proposed method to set buncher phase and amplitude? 200 keV spectrometer, yao cavity?, Brock cavity? | ||
| + | * existing spectrometer dipole magnet, is it good enough? bigger vacuum chamber, how does this impact the field quality, will this impact the purpose of the spectrometer line, e.g., setting buncher phase and amplitude. Danny says Jay looked at this magnet, he has a model | ||
| + | * set the position of the buncher, be done with it | ||
| + | * Brock cavity at A3 or A4? | ||
| + | * yao cavity position good | ||
| + | |||
| + | List all jobs and get together with service providers: job starts January 2022 | ||
| + | * do we have enough magnets, steering magnets? | ||
| + | * enough BPMs and electronics, re-using existing, plus more? cable pulls? | ||
| + | * make same mods to phase2 viewers | ||
| + | * YAG screens all locations? my preference | ||
| + | * utubes good? re re-use what's there, correct? | ||
| + | * Danny to double check layout of things today | ||
| + | * SSG and A3/A4 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Chopper job can be considered separate, define scope, agree on scope: better motion, no wobble, NEG pumping, smaller ion pump, elements displaced in Z, can it be made simpler? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Downstream of Booster, are there changes we need to make? | ||
| + | * move spectrometer closer to booster, for 2-cell phasing and amplitude adjust | ||
| + | * better quad layout? | ||
| + | * solenoids seem too expensive to pursue | ||
| + | |||
| + | Get up to speed on budget | ||
| + | |||
| + | Leave Capture in place? No, that should not be our plan A, how to detune it? | ||
| + | |||
| + | What is present status of the modeling effort? what questions does modeling address? | ||
| + | * location of buncher? | ||
| + | * red chopper solenoids strong enough for 200 keV beam? | ||
| + | * diagnostics included in design to set phase/amplitude of buncher, chopper? | ||
| + | * Jay solenoid leakage into Chopper cavities, problem? | ||
Latest revision as of 12:56, 18 February 2021
Danny, Matt and Joe
- Phase1 is wrapping up, baking through end of March
- beamline drawing of the region between chopper2 and booster looks good, certainly more than 50% complete, see media:chopper_to_booster 18Feb21.pdf
- Need 3d layout, convert the 2d layout to 3d, just like phase1
- Danny needs to finish documenting phase1, e.g., the modifications to viewers. the same modes will need to be made to phase2 viewers
- in light of A1/A2 girder problems (it wanting to rotate and fall to ground), we should keep this in mind for phase2 girders
Some questions:
- the spectrometer line in the chopper to booster region, what is it for? ...set buncher phase and amplitude, but is this the best method?
- what is the proposed method to set buncher phase and amplitude? 200 keV spectrometer, yao cavity?, Brock cavity?
- existing spectrometer dipole magnet, is it good enough? bigger vacuum chamber, how does this impact the field quality, will this impact the purpose of the spectrometer line, e.g., setting buncher phase and amplitude. Danny says Jay looked at this magnet, he has a model
- set the position of the buncher, be done with it
- Brock cavity at A3 or A4?
- yao cavity position good
List all jobs and get together with service providers: job starts January 2022
- do we have enough magnets, steering magnets?
- enough BPMs and electronics, re-using existing, plus more? cable pulls?
- make same mods to phase2 viewers
- YAG screens all locations? my preference
- utubes good? re re-use what's there, correct?
- Danny to double check layout of things today
- SSG and A3/A4
Chopper job can be considered separate, define scope, agree on scope: better motion, no wobble, NEG pumping, smaller ion pump, elements displaced in Z, can it be made simpler?
Downstream of Booster, are there changes we need to make?
- move spectrometer closer to booster, for 2-cell phasing and amplitude adjust
- better quad layout?
- solenoids seem too expensive to pursue
Get up to speed on budget
Leave Capture in place? No, that should not be our plan A, how to detune it?
What is present status of the modeling effort? what questions does modeling address?
- location of buncher?
- red chopper solenoids strong enough for 200 keV beam?
- diagnostics included in design to set phase/amplitude of buncher, chopper?
- Jay solenoid leakage into Chopper cavities, problem?