[FFA_CEBAF_Collab] [EXTERNAL] Re: FFA at CEBAF WG mtg. this Friday, Feb. 25 at 11:00 am

[Trbojevic, Dejan]

Excellent!

Get Outlook for iOS<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aka.ms_o0ukef&d=DwIFAg&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=Ogg4WFNBwvADBq3fkmCLiJ7SaRDPYtawHzJElJMB0jE&m=g0JysdmPs8Zr2pmT9U5kU1BThLZv0nXJX8NtqDMAUDTVgD-Ios9eNv_vFdjv0N1X&s=AKASIPHY_oOOujgtm4wShuhJi6UcAzQ8GJ6-_LNh93s&e= >
________________________________
From: FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Brooks, Stephen via FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab at jlab.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 1:24:52 PM
To: ffa_cebaf_collab at jlab.org <ffa_cebaf_collab at jlab.org>
Subject: [FFA_CEBAF_Collab] [EXTERNAL] Re: FFA at CEBAF WG mtg. this Friday, Feb. 25 at 11:00 am

I was thinking we need to make a list of items that could go in the FOA response (or possibly two FOA responses if Jay's ends up separate).  The ones I know of and can think of at the moment are:

1.  Make a full-length permanent magnet ($500k-$1M).  In some senses this isn't a huge mystery beyond what I'll be doing in my BNL LDRD, but perhaps it would improve confidence to make a full-size one.

2.  Do we need to put lattice and design studies in the FOA?  We still need to do many person-years of these.  But the FOA is only 2 years I think.  Or could we rely on our existing funding and leave the paper studies out of the FOA?

3.  Jay's Magnesium Boride magnets, which either could fit in this FOA or even might justify an independent submission if they have multiple applications.

4.  I'd like to see an experiment and other studies about how small the CEBAF beam pipe can be, as the FFA has a very steep cost dependence on this.  Perhaps moving collimators or manufacturing narrower pipe sections to be inserted into a CEBAF line and tested with full current beam.

Please suggest items #5 and beyond if you think there's something else that could be addressed.  Perhaps not all of these will fit in the FOA but we should put them all on the table and discuss which to include at our next meeting.

     -Stephen

________________________________________
From: FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Jay Benesch via FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab at jlab.org>
Sent: 21 February 2022 15:23
To: ffa_cebaf_collab at jlab.org
Cc: Camille Ginsburg
Subject: Re: [FFA_CEBAF_Collab] FFA at CEBAF WG mtg. this Friday,  Feb. 25 at 11:00 am

Colleagues,

Attached find a 400 word summary of the possible FOA response I brought
up ten days ago.  We can discuss this Friday at the meeting or by email
before then.  I will NOT contact Ramesh Gupta, the only SC magnet person
remaining at BNL that I knew from SSC days, without sign-off from the
group and management.

For those with JLab Ops accounts: the drawings I used to compile the
table are in ~benesch/magnets/FFA .  The BdL values used are from CED.
The txt file has CED field maps and notes I made in preparation of the
table in the pdf.

Jay

_______________________________________________
FFA_CEBAF_Collab mailing list
FFA_CEBAF_Collab at jlab.org
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/ffa_cebaf_collab
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/ffa_cebaf_collab/attachments/20220222/0d762762/attachment.html>