[Isotope-prod] Letter to Marc Garland - Revised

[Hari Areti]

Dear Steve, 

Basically, the tests we want to do for the R&D are: 

We want around 10 MeV beam around 5 mA for the following tests. 

1. Test Be window and tungsten radiator at >=1.25 mA. This is to test that we can keep Be window integrity at that current. Since we think that 40 MeV is optimal for Cu-67 production, this works out to be 50 kW beam power. 
2. We want to test BN with cooling to 50 kw (10 MeV and 5 mA) 

We should be able to do these two tests at LERF injector at 10 MeV. Correct me if I am wrong. 

Then we want to do tests at 18.5 MeV (threshold energy for Cu-67 production), 40 MeV (for production itself) and 100 MeV) at around 5 micro A. 
If we cannot get to 100 MeV without investment and disruption, we will have to abandon that. 40 MeV tests are critical and we can go as high an energy as LERF can provide. 

If you think that 2F line is the proper for the high power tests, please indicate its location on the figure. We will say that all tests will be done at one place in LERF 
(not LERF injector) but 2F line. For high power tests, we should get to 50 kW. I hope we are not limited to 40 kW as implied by 20 MeV and 2 mA. 
Note that year 1 has only higher energy and low current tests to produce Cu-67. High power tests happen starting quarter 6. 

As far as the shifts for ding the work are concerned, please modify the previous FWP as you see fit. If operating LERF costs less, please adjust that item in the budget as well. 

I will revise the letter once I hear from you. We will wait for Doug to respond about the student. We need to transfer George K's work to a student. If NMT does not have a student, we will try ODU. 

Thanks. 

-H 




From: "Steve Benson" <felman at jlab.org> 
To: "Hari Areti" <areti at jlab.org> 
Cc: "isotope-prod" <isotope-prod at jlab.org>, "Mike Spata" <spata at jlab.org>, "Todd" <satogata at jlab.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 5:19:23 PM 
Subject: Re: Letter to Marc Garland - Revised 

Hari, 

I wanted to make clear what the LERF can and cannot do in the short term. With only a single cryomodule the maximum energy would be about 45 MeV. At this energy we could accelerate up to about 1 mA, assuming that the 8 kW klystrons are still available. We won’t have a high energy spectrometer however so I am not sure we can measure the energy higher than about 20 MeV. The current available is limited by the klystron power so we might be able to go to 2 mA at 20 MeV. We cannot reach 100 MeV in the current configuration. We could get close if we swapped out the C50 for a C100 but I don’t see use getting permission to do that in the near term. 

I also want to clear up what we are promising to do in our statement of work. Are we still going to do a high current, low energy run to test thermal characteristics? We can do this in the straight ahead line (the 2F05 region). Also, can we assume that we will not do any exposures in the LERF injector? It will be to disruptive to LCLS II operations if we do and we would have to build a beam line, which would be rather expensive. Using the 2F line would be much cheaper. 

If we run both the high energy and low energy runs in the LERF we will need more than two shifts. Also, we have to have time to do hot check-out and beam line setup and this is in addition to the shifts on the machine. Since we only have to do the injector and one module the preparation would be a couple of weeks to get the gun back up and conditioned, a week to check out the magnets, diagnostics, and vacuum systems and get the RF on, and a week to burn in the RF systems before running. Once all this is done, the labor needed to run the machine is pretty small, especially if CEBAF is running. 

As far as personnel goes, it is not clear what we do for George K.’s part. We had 11 person weeks for him so I don’t know who we would charge to. Also I thought that we were funding a student at North Dakota. Are we still funding a student at New Mexico. Can he or she be based at Jefferson Lab? 

Steve Benson 




On May 28, 2018, at 9:31 PM, Hari Areti < areti at jlab.org > wrote: 

Please ignore the previous :"Dear Marc" Attachment. I have added an item which I missed previously. Thanks. 
-H 

From: "Hari Areti" < areti at jlab.org > 
To: "isotope-prod" < isotope-prod at jlab.org > 
Cc: "Steve Benson" < felman at jlab.org >, "Mike Spata" < spata at jlab.org >, "Todd" < satogata at jlab.org > 
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 8:55:33 PM 
Subject: Letter to Marc Garland - moving all experiemts to LERF 

Dear Collaborators, 

Here is a draft letter to be sent to Marc Garland enumerating the changes in our proposal.Send your feedback. We should plan to send it to Marc by week's end. 
I also would like to add personnel changes as follows: 

The following set shows minor changes of personnel that do not impact the execution of the proposal 

Dr. Andrew Hutton stepped down as Associate Director of Accelerators and is a full time scientist at the lab. 
Prof. Douglas Wells moved from SDSMT to New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and continues to participate in the collaboration 
Dr. George Kharashvili left the lab 

The work that George has been doing should be picked up by some one 

Other things to note.- 

Doug: 
We said that you had identified a student when you ere at SDSMT. Do you want to address that? 

Kevin Jordan and Steve Benson: 

I did not want to change the energies we planned to use at CEBAF injector. I am assuming that we can use LERF to reproduce the energies. 
In the figure in the letter you will see that I identified a place for higher energy LERF beam. Please verify and modify as suitable. 

Steve Benson: 

We will have to edit the budget numbers on page 1 of the proposal with the LERF hot checkout costs. Please work with Kelly Hanifan to get a revised FWP. 

Thanks. 

-H 




<Letter to Marc Garland.docx> 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/isotope-prod/attachments/20180529/b9df0575/attachment-0001.html>