[Pansophy] DL 202 C75 Pair 4

[Marhauser]

Bob, ok, done!

Frank

On 12/1/2020 1:26 PM, Robert Rimmer wrote:
> Frank, an NCR has been created and you are on the list of authorized 
> persons to disposition it. I would appreciate you taking a look at the 
> data and making a disposition. Thanks,
> Bob.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Tony Reilly <areilly at jlab.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:52 PM
> *To:* Gianluigi Ciovati <gciovati at jlab.org>; Robert Rimmer 
> <rarimmer at jlab.org>; Frank Marhauser <marhause at jlab.org>; Chris 
> Dreyfuss <dreyfuss at jlab.org>; Ed Daly <edaly 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
> 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/dfccd283/attachment-0001.html>