HLRF Technical System Weekly Meeting

Thursday 14 Jun 2007, 03:00 → 05:00 US/Pacific

SLAC: SCS 115, 3-5PM PDT (High Level RF TS Review)

1. Review status of major HLRF subsystem, components in Baseline Conceptual Design. 2. Review progress of RDR Cost Modeling and Estimates, resource assignments, standard methodologies. 3. Review R&D progress for Alternate Conceptual Designs.

03:00 → 03:15 Agenda & Goals

Speaker: Raymond Larsen (SLAC)

Slides HLRF_Status_Review_&_EDR_Planning.pdf Larsen_HLRF_DESY_May_31_2007_DRAFT8.pdf

text HLRF_WP_Collaboration_Opps_061407.doc HLRF_WP_Collaboration_Opps_061407.pdf

HLRF Video Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2007 1. Attendees: KEK: S. Fukuda, T. Shidara; FNAL: M. Champion, O. Nezhevenko, C. Jensen; SLAC: C. Adolphsen, C. Nantista, R. Larsen (Chair) 2. Attachments: The meeting discussed the following documents posted on the meeting site at http://ilcagenda.linearcollider.org/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1032 a. Slides – HLRF Status Review & EDR Planning – R. Larsen b. Slides – HLRF DESY May 31 Draft8 – R. Larsen c. Memo – High Level RF Work package Opportunities – R. Larsen d. Slides – VTO Cold Test – C. Nantista 3. Discussion a. The status review covered the HLRF results of the International Cost Review at Orsay and the following presentation of EDR planning at DESY. For the former, the short story is that the HLRF cost analysis was received without complaint and the committee was complimentary about the ACD program aimed at significant cost reductions. The key parts of this are the Marx modulator, Sheet Beam klystron and the VTO and circulator elimination R&D ongoing efforts. Unfortunately, perhaps, the actual paper was not delivered due to a change in schedule by the committee to focus on more important high cost driver problem areas. b. The DESY presentation was an attempt to define a path forward with a general framework of formal development of requirements, specifications and bid packages for industry. This assumes that bids will be made to specification but that the Baseline or ACD designs will also be offered if a bidder wishes to build to print. The overall plan is to receive fully tested units from the factories to minimize handling at the ILC site prior to installation. In general this approach seemed well-received also. (Translation: Nobody seems to have a better idea at this early stage.) c. Shigeki commented on “collaboration difficulties”, i.e. how to work more closely together on the upcoming EDR work packages. Test systems are being built for M-K testing at SLAC and Zeuthen, currently working on two stations each; but SLAC plans to build a total of six stations. We discussed the desirability of engineering exchange to participate in the Marx DFM design for example, but this requires some reasonable length of lab assignment to SLAC, or at least a significantly long orientation visit to develop and launch a part of the task as a separate Work Package. Another possibility is participation in the test programs themselves, which require putting systems together, operations and data collection extending over the next 2-3 years. We all need to think of ways to make effective and productive 3-region working collaborations. d. Getting into specifics, we discussed how to move forward with development of requirements documents and prototype specifications which the group can review. The Marx and the proposed ACD charger system (6-Pack) are particularly good candidates for immediate work. The Marx DFM requirements include package modifications to fit into the tunnel. The charger requires a custom transformer at the core that delivers 80% of the voltage to the 20% satellite units. Oleg pointed out a concern that the 20% range may not be enough for low power running which would mean that the 80% unit would need a range adjustment of its own. e. The controls-interlock system design needs to be defined and prototyped during the RDR period. A turn-off specification of 1 µsec is sufficiently fast. Work is in progress at Fermi and KEK on units for the test systems and a similar unit is needed for the SLAC L-Band program. However for ILC the design should be modernized and ported to a high availability platform. (Post meeting note-- SLAC is studying options. In a recent discussion of the ATCA evaluation program at UIUC, the Fermi participant mentioned they were proposing to port their VME system by using the ATCA VME adapter being designed at UIUC. This would be a good first step which puts a high priority on completing the VME adapter. -- RSL) f. VTO Cold Test: Chris N described the cold tests which appear to be very successful. See the meeting attached slides. Pressurizing tests are still required (2 bar) with the Fermi windows that have been provided. g. Kick effect: Chris A mentioned an issue of a kick effect due to wakefields from the RF feeds, indicating the feeds may have to be alternately rotated to attenuate the effect. 4. Next Meeting: We did not discuss this, but everyone is busy trying to digest the impacts of the new EDR organization and shuffling that is taking place. If participants desire a meeting tomorrow June 21st, please let me know. Otherwise I will cancel it for the next two weeks due to the PAC conference next week. In that case the next meeting would be July 5th. Please let me know your preferences asap. Ray Larsen

03:15 → 03:30 KEK Progress

Speaker: Dr Shigeki Fukuda (KEK)

03:30 → 03:45 Main Linac & Klystron Status

Speaker: Chris Adolphsen (SLAC)

03:50 → 04:05 Distribution System Progress

Speaker: Dr Chris Nantista (SLAC)

Slides VTO_Cold_Test.pdf VTO_Cold_Test.ppt

04:05 → 04:15 Waveguide 3D Modeling

Speaker: Jerry Leibfritz

04:15 → 04:30 Distribution Costs

Speaker: Mike Neubauer (SLAC)

04:30 → 04:45 Modulator Progress

Speakers: Chris Jensen (FNAL), Clay Corvin (SLAC)

04:45 → 05:00 Controls/Interlocks/Protection Status

Speaker: Richard Cassel (SLAC)