[Pansophy] DL 202 C75 Pair 4

[Tony Reilly]

An NCR should have been created by the person performing the test.  It was not.  One will be created now. I will ask the Pansophy team to see which SME are on the NCR approval list.

It's clear there are other issues that we need to manage with respect to the traveler itself and the process.

________________________________
From: Gianluigi Ciovati <gciovati at jlab.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:48 PM
To: Robert Rimmer <rarimmer at jlab.org>; Frank Marhauser <marhause at jlab.org>; Chris Dreyfuss <dreyfuss at jlab.org>; Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org>; Tony Reilly <areilly at jlab.org>; Kirk Davis <kdavis at jlab.org>; Kurt Macha <macha at jlab.org>; E. Anne McEwen <mcewen at jlab.org>
Cc: Charlie Reece <reece at jlab.org>; Danny Forehand <forehand at jlab.org>; pansophy <pansophy at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: DL 202 C75 Pair 4

Being the SME, I think Frank should be on the list of authorized NCR dispositioners as well as the list of notified people when an NCR is generated.

Gigi

________________________________
From: Robert Rimmer <rarimmer at jlab.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:44 PM
To: Frank Marhauser <marhause at jlab.org>; Chris Dreyfuss <dreyfuss at jlab.org>; Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org>; Tony Reilly <areilly at jlab.org>; Kirk Davis <kdavis at jlab.org>; Kurt Macha <macha at jlab.org>; Gianluigi Ciovati <gciovati at jlab.org>; E. Anne McEwen <mcewen at jlab.org>
Cc: Charlie Reece <reece at jlab.org>; Danny Forehand <forehand at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: DL 202 C75 Pair 4

Frank, thank you for the reminder. I think the process forward should be an NCR should be issued (if not already) and dispositioned as "use as is". As SME I think that is your recommendation. I am asking who can formally disposition the NCR so the pair can move ahead.
Bob.

________________________________
From: Marhauser <marhause at jlab.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:24 PM
To: Robert Rimmer <rarimmer at jlab.org>; Chris Dreyfuss <dreyfuss at jlab.org>; Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org>; Tony Reilly <areilly at jlab.org>; Kirk Davis <kdavis at jlab.org>; Kurt Macha <macha at jlab.org>; Gianluigi Ciovati <gciovati at jlab.org>; E. Anne McEwen <mcewen at jlab.org>
Cc: Charlie Reece <reece at jlab.org>; Danny Forehand <forehand at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: DL 202 C75 Pair 4

E.g. Recall e-mail 9/22/2020 CC to you and others. No further comments.

Scott,

That is OK, let us see first whether we are still having DL-135 in place, and correct the traveler entries as necessary.
This also concern the He pressure/temperature during the test. We should always test at 2 K.

Yes, we talked in the recent years about doglegs being marginally above the threshold in terms of losses.
There were no windows, which failed the spec by a large margin in the recent past.
Typically I made comments in the traveler system, in hindsight, if a window failed marginally but was accepted,
and we always discussed this among us.
There were a lot of windows in the distant past that should not have been accepted, and when we were not involved.

What I like to make sure is that the traveler system accounts for non-compliance/conformance to a spec with an official NCR
as is the case with other travelers, and that the discussion about accepting the window will not occur in the hallways.

Danny is right that I verbally accepted the window when he informed me that the threshold was exceeded only marginally, but at that time I did not see the actual data.
Also now I need to have clarified that DL-135 was in use. I agree with you that I see no reason for anyone taking DL-135 off the test stand.

Today, I did not accept the latest test in the traveler system simply to verify whether an NCR would be created, which seems to be not the case.

So as a consequence, the traveler shall be modified to allow that.

Frank

On 12/1/2020 12:20 PM, Robert Rimmer wrote:
Hi Frank, Chris,
     so this would require a decision to use a non-conforming part, for which there is a process to officially disposition the NCR I believe. I am not familiar with how the "Q spec" for the DL test was derived, what would be the implication of this in the module? Slightly higher heat load? Can we trace back similar accepted components that were used in pairs? If no noticeable problems occurred it would seem low risk to use this part, and we should look at the spec/traveler to see what the limit really should be? Who (officially) should disposition this NCR? Who owns the traveler?
Bob.

________________________________
From: frank <marhause at jlab.org><mailto:marhause at jlab.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:07 PM
To: Chris Dreyfuss <dreyfuss at jlab.org><mailto:dreyfuss at jlab.org>; Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org><mailto:edaly at jlab.org>; Tony Reilly <areilly at jlab.org><mailto:areilly at jlab.org>; Kirk Davis <kdavis at jlab.org><mailto:kdavis at jlab.org>; Kurt Macha <macha at jlab.org><mailto:macha at jlab.org>; Gianluigi Ciovati <gciovati at jlab.org><mailto:gciovati at jlab.org>
Cc: Charlie Reece <reece at jlab.org><mailto:reece at jlab.org>; Robert Rimmer <rarimmer at jlab.org><mailto:rarimmer at jlab.org>; Danny Forehand <forehand at jlab.org><mailto:forehand at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: DL 202 C75 Pair 4

Hello Chris,

This Q0 is below but close to the acceptable limit. Typically we still accept those values, but I won't
since none of my recommendations communicated over years have been implemented in this traveler
yet, outspoken loud, louder, and loudest. I commented on this not too long ago.
CCed people should now.

Frank



On 12/1/2020 11:55 AM, Chris Dreyfuss wrote:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20201201/edf78a53/attachment-0001.html>