|
17 June 2003 |
Location |
Phone Number |
Access Code |
|
WH-2 NE |
865-673-6703 |
334823 |
Progress Updates and Issues
- Upstream Beamline
- Targets
- TPC - Time Projection Chamber
- Magnets
- CKOV - Cerenkov
- DC - Chambers
- TOF - Time of Flight
- RICH - Ring Imaging Cerenkov
- ECAL - EM Calorimeter
- NCAL - Hadron Calorimeter
- Gas Systems
- DAQ - Data Acquisition
- MC - Monte Carlo
- Installation
- MC7 - Enclosure and Counting House
- Meetings
- Project Management
Leon Beverly's meeting summaries in italics.
Win Baker:
This is a reminder that we (MIPP) need an Operational Readiness Clearance (ORC) before we can take beam to our experiment. This has to be approved and signed by the Head of Particle Physics Division (John Cooper) and the Head of the Beams Division (Roger Dixon).
For PPD approval, each element of the experiment must have a Partial Operational Readiness Clearance (pORC) approved by the PPD Head. In turn, for that to happen a formal recommendation is made by the PPD Senior Safety Officer (Martha Hefflin), by the chairman of the Fixed Target ES&H Review Committee (that's me) and most importantly by the Chairmen of the appropriate Subcommittees, who are listed below.
To determine if the detector or equipment that you are preparing needs a pORC (in most cases it will) go to this address for the Laboratory regulations:
http://www-ppd.fnal.gov/Operating_Manual/PPD_ESH_006 Rev of Exp.pdf
The Chairmen of the Subcommittees are:
Electrical and Electronic Safety
Mechanical Safety
Fire and Gas Safety
Most of us are already involved in this process; those who are not should get started. It helps to be in contact with the appropriate Chairmen as early as possible to avoid retrofits. Please copy me with your emails to the Chairmen, so that I will know what is being taken care of.
Helpful material describing what is required can be found at these sites for electrical review, and for gas. In addition, here is a copy of the Electrical Design Standards for Experiment Apparatus. It gives the detailed requirements to satisfy the lab's electrical safety standards. People responsible for equipment should provide the documentation described for the review committee.
Note that all radiation safety associated with the beam line is the responsiblity of the Beams Division. Other radiation issues, lasers, sources, etc., are reviewed by PPD.
For much smaller test experiments in the MTest beam, this approval process has taken a depressingly long time lately, so it behooves us to keep the approval process for the components of MIPP moving as fast as possible.
If you have any questions please let me know, and if I can't answer them I can at least get you in contact with someone who can.
BEAM - Beamline
Eric Ramberg:
Chuck has made excellent progress with the modest amount of time allowed for tuning the SY120 beam. As of today, it seems that he has achieved 70% transmission of beam all the way to the switchyard dump. This is a significant achievement and he should be commended for his late night/early morning work with the MCR crew. Progress is still slow due to the fact that we are not allowed to do tuning studies for the SY120 project during Tevatron operations. This means at the most we get a few hours every day or so. Once it can be shown that beam can be delivered consistently and stabley to Switchyard dump, then the next big hurdle is to do so during Tevatron running. If this has no affect on Tevatron conditions, then there should be no restrictions for doing the rest of the tuning down to Meson area.
From a Fermilab computer, you can look at the progress by accessing the SY120 machine log.
UBL - Upstream Beamline Detectors
BCKOV
TGTW - Target Wheel
Peter Barnes:
Quote from Goodfellow on standard sputter target:
AU009206 Gold Target Au 99.95%
Thickness : 1.0mm
Diameter : 50.8mm
Quantity : 1 pc Price : $ 1100.00 / pcCTGT - Cryogenic Targets
NTGT - NuMI (MINOS) Target
Leon Beverly:
Pictures taken after the TPC was placed in it's cart at MC7 this morning. We have not yet exercised the cart which is used to roll the TPC in and out of the JGG aperture. However, each of the "pegs" of the TPC's three support points fit perfectly into each peg socket on the cart (Ingrid's design). The move itself only took an hour, with Mike Mascione, Craig Rogers, and John Buckley. The months of prep work and a cast of dozens made it so easy.
Holger Meyer:
I have a plot of the fringe field of the JGG. It looks like the field is rather large for a substantial distance upstream of the JGG. The plot shows the absolute value of the field in T as a function of the z-distance from the JGG center in mm. The upstream face is around z=-1200 mm or so. The direction of the field varies in y; its magnitude is almost independent of y (outside the magnet). This is shown in the 3D plot. 0.1 T = 100 Gauss, so the field is still 60 Gauss 2 meters upstream of the JGG center. Since it is not strongly varying with x, I would guess that the field at the position of the racks (a little further out from x =0 than where the plots are made at x=+1250mm) is almost as large as shown in the plot. Final note: The field does not suddenly drop to zero at 2 meters upstream. This is where the ziptrack stopped.
Peter Barnes:
You [Sten Hansen] may recall we were talking about putting our low voltage power supplies for the TPC next to the TPC stand, in the fringe field of the JGG magnet. Holger reports that the field there will be ~60 Gauss. The racks contain linear power supplies (I think you mentioned saturation of transformer cores) and control relays. Would you hazard a guess as to how high a field these things will operate in?
Sten Hansen:
For ferrite core signal transformers we typically find satisfactory operation to ~200 gauss. We have some data for Vicor brand switching supplies, but I don't know that is all that relevent to linear supplies. The maximum tolerable field for power supplies depends on the details of the field orientation with respect to the transformer laminations and the percentage of the rated current at which the power supply runs. Since I think that supplies are running at a small fraction of their rated current my guess (repeat - only a guess) is that you will probbly be OK. A simple check is to measure the line current with the field off vs. the field on. If they are signinficantly different, then the first option is to orient the supplies on a different axis. If that fails, then the next easiest option is probably to move them away from the magnet. I'll bet Leon Beverly has a clamp on current meter that we could use to check this. I have no idea about the relays.
ZipTrack
JGG - Jolly Green Giant
Rosie
DC1-4 (E690 Chambers)
DC5 & DC6 (Iowa Chambers)
Peter Barnes:
I finally dug up the (only!) published description of the RMH electronics.
Peter Barnes:
I've made a pass at laying out the electronics with a rack on either side of Rosie. As you have noted, this has a number of benefits:
- crates as near TOF as possible
- crates on either side of TOF
- lots of room for splitters, etc.
I've taken the opportunity to fix a number of problems, annoyances, and optimizations:
- fixed incompatible TOF readout (2229 TDCs supposedly can't work in 4298 TDC crates, so now you have four regular CAMAC crates, which is plus two from before)
- separated CKOV from TOF (plus one crate from before)
- swapped TOF HV crate and CKOV CAMAC crate - should make both cable runs slightly shorter and easier
- rearranged both TOF and CKOV modules to put discriminators next to TDCs, and ADCs on the side
As a side effect, this change renumbers all racks and crates downstream of RR12 or so.
(Drum roll please . . .) HOWEVER
1. In order to fit between the TOF and Rosie, your racks will have to go up on blocks and overlap the Rosie pad, or even the Rosie grout. This means your RACKS WILL BE RIGHT UP AGAINST THE ROSIE STEEL. I know, the field should be "low" here, but how low? An alternative to blocking is to weld rails right to Rosie. If you are *very* lucky, the TOF support structure may stick out far enough that you can squeeze in on the floor.
2. You won't have access to the backs of your racks. If they are on blocks it will be nearly impossible to pull the racks out enough to get you access. (If welded to Rosie . . .) Your only hope is to be lucky in step 1.
Before I release this update into the wild, and cause mass confusion for everyone else, can you reassure me that the field will be acceptable and I won't have to undo it all? You can preview the new plan.
Peter Barnes:
I talked to Mike Behnke yesterday [6/13/03] about getting our electronics in bulk from PREP. For the first batch of TDCs, 3 crates for DC4, they will stuff the crates next week, and one of you [Asner, Beverley, Meyer] can pick them up near the the end of the week. I'll let you work out the handshake with PREP.
For the balance of the TDCs and CAMAC crates, as they have a few crates ready, they will ship them to MC7 care of Leon. Of the stuff from PREP this will cover 3/4 of the crates (most of the rest are NIM bins), and 3/4 of the total modules (most of the rest are for CKOV or TOF).
Mike Behnke and I took a first look at CAMAC branch cable length. It looks like he has enough of all lengths for us, except for our longest run (BC1 to BC2). However, we can join two cables to get the length. He supplied me with the parts and crimper to make the union. I handed this stuff off to Bob Jones, who will have it done by Friday.
David Asner:
I have coded up a status message receiver as an inner class to the run control gui. It is very similar to the message receiver class used by the SendMessageAndWaitAction but has a bunch of changes as discussed by Bruce and I last week.I can now update arbitrary entries in the status panel. The purpose of this class is to update status panel items such as event number using messages sent to run control.
Alignment
The next call will be Tuesday, 24 June 2003, at 1:00 PM CDT in WH-2NE, Snake Pit.
