IR Eng. workshop, WG-C


Meeting of a working group in preparation to the ILC Interaction Region Engineering Design Workshop, IRENG07.

WG-C, group meeting.

Start time:
06:00 San Francisco
08:00 Chicago
09:00 New York
14:00 London
15:00 Geneva
22:00 Tokyo

Webex connection: go to , browse meetings, choose IRENG Working Group C, use password cfswgc

    • 6:00 AM 6:30 AM
      Utilities, current assumptions 30m
      Speaker: Emil Huedem (FNAL)
    • 6:30 AM 6:50 AM
      Discussion of cryo-strawman model & CFS 20m
      Speaker: Dr Brett Parker (BNL)
    • 6:50 AM 7:00 AM
      Discussion of interface document (may be obsolete!) & CFS questionnaire 10m
    • 7:00 AM 7:05 AM
      Minutes of the meeting 5m
      WG-C, July 31, 2007. Present: Herve, Gaddi, Seryi, Parker, Volk, Oriunno, Meyners, Asiri, Aarons, Lackowski, Kuchler, Burrows, Sanami, Huedem (and possibly other colleagues) First, Emil Huedem presented current assumptions about CFS utilities (see attached). The loads for IR are unknown at the moment, there are no specific instruction. There are numbers for BDS and dumps, see slides. Emil listed questions that need to be answered. It was suggested that Emil and colleagues look at CDF and D0, trying to fill in tables, that could be than compared with ILC numbers (when they come). Andrea Gaddi is also preparing such table for CMS, and this will be presented next week at WG-A (Monday) anb WG-C (Tuesday) meetings. Tom Lackowski asked about self-shielding detector and air activation. For example, do we need to have negative pressure, of hermetically sealed detector? Sanami-san said that current design will have much less beam losses, so air activation in IR region will not be a problem. (This issue will be brought to WG-D meeting). For the moment we can assume that air activation in IR is not an issue provided that there is separation from other high loss areas (beam dump or collimation). Brett Parker described cryo-connection model and comments for CFS (see slides). In discussion of services placed at the service cavern, Tom Lackowski stressed that the service cavern is there really for BDS (access and services) and not much for IR. This would certainly be a question for further interface optimization. Question was asked what is done with shielding during commissioning, when detectors are off beamline. The model is that local shielding is build around the IR beamlines. Norbert suggested that larger diameter pacman could be beneficial, since then one cann access the IR elements, such as kicker, from the beamline tunnel. And also the tunnel-hall connection could be easier in terms of minimization of radiation leakage if the beam is lost in the tunnel. This needs further design study. For the next week, we agreed to continue this discussion, and also to review the CMS and CFD/D0 numbers that would be prepared by A.Gaddi and E.Huedem.