HLRF Technical System Weekly Meeting

Thursday 19 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.

03:00 → 03:15 Agenda & Goals

Speaker: Raymond Larsen (SLAC)

agenda HLRFTV_Meeting.doc HLRFTV_Meeting.pdf

Minutes HLRF_MEETING_MINUTES_OF_JULY_5.doc HLRF_MEETING_MINUTES_OF_JULY_5.pdf

Slides AS_Kick-off_meeting_mcr-rsl.pdf AS_Kick-off_meeting_mcr-rsl.ppt

Minutes of July 19, 2007 Attendees: KEK – Shigeki Fukuda, T. Shidara; FNAL, Oleg Nezhevenko, Mark Champion; SLAC, Chris Adolphsen, Ray Larsen (Chair) Agenda: This was posted to the website by Shigeki: 1. Review of last meeting minutes technical issues - All 2. Goals of EDR planning session October - Shigeki, Ray 3. Work Packages Plans, New Proposals - Chris A, Shigeki 4. Other reports – All The agenda and presentations by Shigeki and Ray are posted on the Indico website. Discussion: 1. Corrections to and comments on July 5th meeting minutes The heat load table in these minutes was compiled by Chris Adolphsen, not Chris Jensen as reported. There was more discussion over the heat load of the waveguide distribution system and whether it needs to be water cooled. The total load is 3.9KW or about 100W per meter. The statement was made last time that it appeared that this would be easily removed by the air system. However there is concern about phase shifts due to expansion, particularly in the penetrations which ideally should be closed to airflow. Phase shifts can be compensated by a remotely adjustable phase shifter but if temperature is stable enough the remote adjustment can be eliminated. We concluded after animated exchange of differing opinions that some simple measurements could be made on the existing setup at KEK for example. Meanwhile the conservative approach would be to preserve the option for water cooling for at least the penetrations. Subject to be continued. 2. Goals of EDR Planning session October 1 at SLAC Shigeki presented slides from the recent initial discussion on Friday July 13th along with comments (in red) on Work packages. His main points were that definition of WP’s and allocation of resources will need to be more flexible than envisaged by the US methodology of “lines on a WBS.” He mentioned the particular example of Japan collaboration on the Marx, in which they would like to provide an engineer to work with SLAC on the DFM, and to define a design which they could then take away to engage with Japanese industry to productize and build a DFM prototype. (This presumably would include not only the Marx but power supply and controls/interlock packages.) Components would be modified to those available to Japanese/Asian industry. In addition he stressed that WP’s for other Asian partners, especially China, India and Korea, could be crafted in a similar manner. In effect the WP’s would be defined at a much higher level of integration than the current “dog’s breakfast”** approach in the US. (** from the expression, “scattered around like a dog’s breakfast” – R) 3. Work Package Plans, New Proposals We did not have time to discuss this topic per se except as above. KEK was very late getting connected for technical reasons and Chris A had to leave early for another important meeting. Instead we discussed the overall instructions given by the Troika for the upcoming meetings. See below. 4. Proposed EDR Planning Topics Ray posted the Troika instructions along with some added comments (in red): a. Regarding status, HLRF has a stable baseline cost estimate that is not likely to change dramatically until ACD’s are adopted. This will not formally happen until sufficient progress has been made to give confidence in the design. This should happen soon with the Marx but not so soon with the SBK for example, due to the longer development and testing cycles. b. The fact that not much industrial experience will be available on the Marx or the SBK by 2010 should not be a show stopper as far as adopting the ACD’s. Hopefully due to the R&D and XFEL work the Distribution can be assessed within this timeframe. Industrialization remains an issue due to very limited commercial suppliers; it appears that the chief hurdle here is to develop a vendor capability with one or two companies with large manufacturing capacity. This may be a build-to-print situation with the labs designing and testing prototypes for all components. In any case ACD down-select could slip until after the 2010 target since there is a projected three year preparation period before construction start. However, we should work up new budget estimates based on the ACD solutions as soon as enough prototype testing experience has been gained. c. To properly plan the construction design, procurement, installation and test scenarios Management needs to provide an early schedule with key milestones to all technical/area groups. d. The problem of managing technical systems of common elements across area boundaries is now left for the Area leaders and in some cases un-named technical leaders to resolve among themselves. This must be pursued aggressively to avoid a plethora of incompatible solutions to the same problems. e. “Value Engineering” as mentioned in the instructions is very unclear. The DOE publishes and presumably insists on a strict methodology which seems quite onerous to implement at this early stage. ILC management needs to be very specific about what they intend. Value engineering is embodied in the ACD R&D programs and simply documenting this ought to avoid wasted motion and distraction of the Value Management/Value Engineering formalism required by DOE. This does not mean there aren’t areas where the DOE formalism will be useful, but it’s hard to see in HLRF. 5. Next Meeting Shigeki will call the next meeting. Since in summer many people are away he will decide next week if there are enough discussion topics to warrant a meeting on July 26th. Ray Larsen

03:15 → 03:30 KEK Progress

Speaker: Dr Shigeki Fukuda (KEK)

Slides Consideration_of_WP_and_How_to_face_to.pdf Consideration_of_WP_and_How_to_face_to.ppt

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

Speaker: Chris Adolphsen (SLAC)

03:50 → 04:05 Distribution System Progress

Speaker: Dr Chris Nantista (SLAC)

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)