Difference between revisions of "GTS meeting 1 15 16"

From Ciswikidb
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "Attendees: V. Vylet, J. GRames, R. Suleiman, J. Hansknecht, M. Poelker, Y. Wang, and C. Hernandez-Garcia. The GTS will be utilized to characterize electron beam using a beam...")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Attendees: V. Vylet, J. GRames, R. Suleiman, J. Hansknecht, M. Poelker,  Y. Wang, and C. Hernandez-Garcia.
 
Attendees: V. Vylet, J. GRames, R. Suleiman, J. Hansknecht, M. Poelker,  Y. Wang, and C. Hernandez-Garcia.
  
The GTS will be utilized to characterize electron beam using a beamline connected to an inverted insulator electron gun and terminating at a beam dump.  We are presently focused on R&D aimed at building a new inverted gun that employs an alkali-antimonide photocathode, and to make magnetized beam as part of an LDRD proposal
+
*The GTS will be utilized to characterize electron beam using a beamline connected to an inverted insulator electron gun and terminating at a beam dump.  We are presently focused on R&D aimed at building a new inverted gun that employs an alkali-antimonide photocathode, and to make magnetized beam as part of an LDRD proposal
  
Besides tune-up beam in pulse mode, two high current modes of operation are foreseen:  
+
*Besides tune-up beam in pulse mode, two high current modes of operation are foreseen:  
 +
**a) 350kV at 5 mA DC
 +
**b) 250 kV at 32 mA DC
  
a) 350kV at 5 mA DC
+
*We discussed two radiation scenarios that might pertain to Vashek’s radiation calculations: 1) chronic loss at some relatively low level, representing a small fraction of the total
b) 250 kV at 32 mA DC
+
beam current delivered to a locally shielded dump, and 2) acute short term loss of ALL the beam produced by the gun due to some unanticipated mishap.  Of these two
 +
conditions, Vashek was most concerned about long term chronic beamloss, item#1
  
We discussed two radiation scenarios that might pertain to Vashek’s radiation calculations: 1) chronic loss at some relatively low level, representing a small fraction of the total beam current delivered to a locally shielded dump, and 2) acute short term loss of ALL the beam produced by the gun due to some unanticipated mishap.   Of these two conditions, Vashek was most concerned about long term chronic beamloss, item#1
+
*For calculating the shielding requirements of condition 1, Vashek needs to know the expected beam loss current during nominal operations, that means, how much current do we expect to have in halo once the beam has been steered to hit the dump.  After discussion, we do not have a clear answer on the expected beam current loss, particularly because we will be using a “new” photocathode, CsK2Sb.  New to JLab, at least.  
  
For calculating the shielding requirements of condition 1, Vashek needs to know the expected beam loss current during nominal operations, that means, how much current do we expect to have in halo once the beam has been steered to hit the dump. After discussion, we do not have a clear answer on the expected beam current loss, particularly because we will be using a “new” photocathode, CsK2Sb.  New to JLab, at least.  
+
*J. Grames proposed the following: We anticipate having no more than 10 micro-Amps of beam loss during normal Ops (Halo). Then let’s do the following test: On purpose, set the beam current to 10 micro-Amps, then steer the beam to specific positions along the beamline. Then the Radiation Control Group would take radiation measurements at various locations, like above the penetrations in the GTS Mezzanine, the FEL back door, etc. Based on the results, Vashek can then calculate the necessary additional shielding. One area of concern is the FEL back entrance door, as it appears to be in line of sight of the GTS gun through the vent that communicates the FEL back staircase with the GTS, serving as the FEL HVAC plenum.  
  
J. Grames proposed the following: We anticipate having no more than 10 micro-Amps of beam loss during normal Ops (Halo). Then let’s do the following test: On purpose, set the beam current to 10 micro-Amps, then steer the beam to specific positions along the beamline. Then the Radiation Control Group would take radiation measurements at various locations, like above the penetrations in the GTS Mezzanine, the FEL back door, etc. Based on the results, Vashek can then calculate the necessary additional shielding. One area of concern is the FEL back entrance door, as it appears to be in line of sight of the GTS gun through the vent that communicates the FEL back staircase with the GTS, serving as the FEL HVAC plenum.
+
*Action Items:
 
+
**Vashek to present the shielding request (that includes the test run) to the Safety Configuration Management Board.  
Action Items:
+
**Carlos to provide Vashek with GTS drawings indicating the position of the gun, and position of penetrations in the Mezzanine.  
 
+
**Carlos to ask if the FEL back door is lead shielded.
a) Vashek to present the shielding request (that includes the test run) to the Safety Configuration Management Board.  
+
**Carlos to coordinate a GTS walkthrough with Vashek, Melvin Washington, and Riad Suleiman.
b) Carlos to provide Vashek with GTS drawings indicating the position of the gun, and position of penetrations in the Mezzanine.  
 
c) Carlos to ask if the FEL back door is lead shielded.
 
d) Carlos to coordinate a GTS walkthrough with Vashek, Melvin Washington, and Riad Suleiman.
 

Revision as of 14:56, 19 January 2016

Attendees: V. Vylet, J. GRames, R. Suleiman, J. Hansknecht, M. Poelker, Y. Wang, and C. Hernandez-Garcia.

  • The GTS will be utilized to characterize electron beam using a beamline connected to an inverted insulator electron gun and terminating at a beam dump. We are presently focused on R&D aimed at building a new inverted gun that employs an alkali-antimonide photocathode, and to make magnetized beam as part of an LDRD proposal
  • Besides tune-up beam in pulse mode, two high current modes of operation are foreseen:
    • a) 350kV at 5 mA DC
    • b) 250 kV at 32 mA DC
  • We discussed two radiation scenarios that might pertain to Vashek’s radiation calculations: 1) chronic loss at some relatively low level, representing a small fraction of the total

beam current delivered to a locally shielded dump, and 2) acute short term loss of ALL the beam produced by the gun due to some unanticipated mishap. Of these two conditions, Vashek was most concerned about long term chronic beamloss, item#1

  • For calculating the shielding requirements of condition 1, Vashek needs to know the expected beam loss current during nominal operations, that means, how much current do we expect to have in halo once the beam has been steered to hit the dump. After discussion, we do not have a clear answer on the expected beam current loss, particularly because we will be using a “new” photocathode, CsK2Sb. New to JLab, at least.
  • J. Grames proposed the following: We anticipate having no more than 10 micro-Amps of beam loss during normal Ops (Halo). Then let’s do the following test: On purpose, set the beam current to 10 micro-Amps, then steer the beam to specific positions along the beamline. Then the Radiation Control Group would take radiation measurements at various locations, like above the penetrations in the GTS Mezzanine, the FEL back door, etc. Based on the results, Vashek can then calculate the necessary additional shielding. One area of concern is the FEL back entrance door, as it appears to be in line of sight of the GTS gun through the vent that communicates the FEL back staircase with the GTS, serving as the FEL HVAC plenum.
  • Action Items:
    • Vashek to present the shielding request (that includes the test run) to the Safety Configuration Management Board.
    • Carlos to provide Vashek with GTS drawings indicating the position of the gun, and position of penetrations in the Mezzanine.
    • Carlos to ask if the FEL back door is lead shielded.
    • Carlos to coordinate a GTS walkthrough with Vashek, Melvin Washington, and Riad Suleiman.