HLRF Technical System Weekly Meeting

Thursday 5 Jul 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.

1 Agenda & Goals

Speaker: Raymond Larsen (SLAC)

agenda HIGH_LEVEL_RF_AGENDA_070507.doc HIGH_LEVEL_RF_AGENDA_070507.pdf

Slides SLAC_ILC_Electronics_Work_Packages_062807_R5.pdf

HLRF MINUTES OF JULY 5, 2007 Attendees: KEK – Shigeki Fukuda; FNAL, Oleg Nezhevenko; SLAC, Chris Nantista, Ray Larsen (Chair) Agenda: This was posted to the website: HIGH LEVEL RF AGENDA JULY 5, 2007 1. STRUCTURING THE EDR EFFORT 2. DISCUSSION a. DEFINING HLRF WORK PACKAGES b. MANAGEMENT, R&D TASKS c. IDENTIFYING CONTRIBUTORS d. HOW TO STRUCTURE WORK, MEETINGS, COMMUNICATIONS i. USE OF TV, TELCON, WEBEX Before getting into the agenda we discussed the following issues briefly: 1. Waveguide in tunnels a. Cooling: Fukuda-san requested that we agree on whether WG will be water cooled in the tunnels. They have waveguide with the plumbing attached which interferes with flanges and requires modification. If we are going to cool this way we need a common specification that should be used at KEK, SLAC and FNAL. Although others of us did not recall that it had been decided to cool the long waveguide runs with water, Chris Jensen’s table does make that assumption. However the amount is only 3.9 kW over 36m: (See table in posted C. Jensen Document) Therefore it appears that cooling the WG long runs with water is significantly more expensive than dumping 3.9 kW to air. At any rate this needs discussion and a final decision. b. Pressurization of Waveguide: A similar question of standardizing the approach concerns the pressurization scheme. One certainty is that SF6 will not be allowed; it will have to be dry nitrogen. Nantista reported that tests are underway with the VTO to determine hold-off power with 2 or 3 bar pressure of air. Some windows will be necessary in the system and tests will determine whether they can be cheap (low power) or will have to be expensive ceramic ones (high power). If the hybrids can stand the power the cheap windows can be on the low side but there are twice as many of them. Again, this will be revisited as test progress and decisions made that can be the basis of a common design. 2. Discussion on Structuring the EDR Effort The slides for discussion are posted on the Indico meeting website at: http://ilcagenda.linearcollider.org/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1035 entitled “EDR Work Packages - High Availability (HA) Electronics”. The EDR tasks are interpreted with examples from the electronics program including HLRF ACD designs. Points made were as follows: a. The EDR task has a management component and an R&D component. b. EDR Management includes development and supervision of the Work Package (WP) including the R&D, as follows: a. Subsystem Engineering b. R&D & Overall Project Plans c. Cost Analysis & Schedules d. Manufacturing & Installation Models e. Develop EDR Report f. Develop Bid Packages for all Regions (w/R&D) c. EDR R&D includes: a. Design, Build, Test b. Document Prototypes c. Develop Vendors via prototype procurement d. Assist Bid Package development d. Cost analysis for HLRF is well developed but not complete. For example the manufacturing models make certain assumptions that need further detailing and review to test their reasonableness and to make sure nothing large is missing. e. Schedules for production are very general and not developed in the detail needed for EDR. f. The costs depend on the various manufacturing, installation and test assumptions which are stated in detail but few people have ready them. In other words they have not been “scrubbed” against a more detailed set of assumptions. The only cost not included is for the actual installation itself. g. The documents describing these assumptions will be circulated and discussed at future meetings. h. A major topic of EDR is “Industrialization.” What does this mean for HLRF? The HLRF components are very specialized, not found “on the shelf” in industry. Therefore the goal of the HLRF R&D program is to determine whether we will stick with a baseline unit or go to a successful demonstrated alternate. The only reasons to pursue alternates are (i) to gain a needed performance improvement; or (ii) to reduce costs; or (iii) both of the above. By 2010 the HLRF components will still not be “industrialized” if that is to mean “off the shelf.” Rather, we expect to have the following: a. Demonstration of successful prototypes b. Demonstration of at least one DFM prototype c. Fully documented requirements, specifications and build-to-print documents d. Fully developed bid packages, tailored by discussions with industry in three regions, for a build to specification OR build to print bid possibility. i. Fukuda-san brought up the important issue of enough commonality of design in competing bids to make maintenance and interchangeability as easy as possible. This could mean that after industrial first DFM prototypes are received and evaluated, the project may down-select to a narrower range of options for the final specifications and bid packages. The bid package development process should bring the three regions closely together, and their respective industrial suppliers, for the final products to be ordered. Modularity for high availability maintenance is another core goal that will appear in the requirements and specifications. j. Oleg questioned whether we knew in detail what DESY’s procurement plans are. The answer is that we know they are procuring baseline designs for both modulators and klystrons with industry, and are working closely with industry to develop waveguide components. They now appear to have more than one manufacturer for both modulators and klystrons and are bidding to specifications. They are also having difficulties getting waveguide components because there are no large reliable manufacturers, so this is an area of concern for ILC that may require special development of manufacturers with quality volume capabilities. We should continue to discuss our overall plans with DESY and learn from their experience. 3. Next Meeting Ray will be absent next week so suggests that Fukuda-san or Chris Adolphsen can develop and agenda and chair the meeting on July 12th. Ray Larsen

2 KEK Progress

Speaker: Dr Shigeki Fukuda (KEK)

3 Main Linac & Klystron Status

Speaker: Chris Adolphsen (SLAC)

4 Distribution System Progress

Speaker: Dr Chris Nantista (SLAC)

5 Waveguide 3D Modeling

Speaker: Jerry Leibfritz

6 Distribution Costs

Speaker: Mike Neubauer (SLAC)

7 Modulator Progress

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

document Main_Linac_Power_and_Cooling_Information_posted_010307.doc Main_Linac_Power_and_Cooling_Information_posted_010307.pdf

8 Controls/Interlocks/Protection Status

Speaker: Richard Cassel (SLAC)