[Pansophy] Mircea - SNSPPU-CAV-INSP-FPC - revised (skiny) incoming inspection traveler

Mircea Stirbet stirbet at jlab.org
Wed Jan 27 17:36:30 EST 2021 

Naeem,

You mentioned that you had a chance to see something somewhere, I suppose in a shared folder. Can you please sent me the QA files you had access to?

By the way, on 21 Jan, Gary sent an interesting email. And here you have my direct request to Megan and Val (see Cc pansophy at jlab.org):
[cid:424e465d-8fc8-4d71-ba1e-8d78be59e255]
Dear  Megan and Val. Can you please help me to access the ORNL FPC data folder? Many thanks! Mircea[cid:754f2206-5c4f-465b-87ca-e839fc4d0124]

Naeem, if you already had a chance to see what if in ORNL FPC data folder, please share these files with me. I am not sure how soon I will have access to it.

Thanks,
Mircea




________________________________
From: Naeem Huque <huque at jlab.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 17:10
To: Mircea Stirbet <stirbet at jlab.org>; Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org>; Kirk Davis <kdavis at jlab.org>; Danny Forehand <forehand at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: Mircea - SNSPPU-CAV-INSP-FPC - revised (skiny) incoming inspection traveler

Hi Mircea,

I mentioned that Valerie had access to the share drive containing the files. If you want to see them, please contact her for access to the drive. The files have no bearing on this draft being updated for review.

I haven't seen a version of the traveler with my comments integrated; that is the version that Danny and Kirk should check

Thanks,
Naeem


________________________________
From: Mircea Stirbet <stirbet at jlab.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:55 PM
To: Naeem Huque <huque at jlab.org>; Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org>; Kirk Davis <kdavis at jlab.org>; Danny Forehand <forehand at jlab.org>; Mircea Stirbet <stirbet at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: Mircea - SNSPPU-CAV-INSP-FPC - revised (skiny) incoming inspection traveler

Hi Naeem,
 Hope you can forward a link to ORNL QA data related with these couplers. You mentioned Val, nothing happened. Are you sure there John sent any QA data for these couplers? Start to wander why is so difficult and it takes so long. Is something out of order?!

Would like also to have this traveler (not only the DRAFT) signed and uploaded in Pansophy  as soon as possible. It already took more time than expected. Kirk and Danny, can you please review the 22 Jan version for SNSPPU-CAV-INSP-FPC.

Thanks,
Mircea

P.S. Four cold SNS PPU couplers are in the clean room. It was quite difficult to have them cleaned (high particulates on external surfaces).

We still have to check:
a) If particulate counts on external surfaces remain low in time (Silver plated bolts related).
b) Particulate counts on internal volume ... we are going to have issues if the initial counts are high.


________________________________
From: Naeem Huque <huque at jlab.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 16:32
To: Mircea Stirbet <stirbet at jlab.org>; Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org>; Kirk Davis <kdavis at jlab.org>; Danny Forehand <forehand at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: Mircea - SNSPPU-CAV-INSP-FPC - revised (skiny) incoming inspection traveler

Hi Mircea,

Please rewrite the traveler as per my email on 1/22. Any further feedback from Danny and Kirk should be to that version. I'd like this to be in the DRAFT folder by the end of the week.

Thanks,
Naeem
________________________________
From: Mircea Stirbet <stirbet at jlab.org>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 8:43 AM
To: Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org>; Naeem Huque <huque at jlab.org>; Kirk Davis <kdavis at jlab.org>; Danny Forehand <forehand at jlab.org>; Mircea Stirbet <stirbet at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: Mircea - SNSPPU-CAV-INSP-FPC - revised (skiny) incoming inspection traveler

Yes... thanks Ed.
Mircea
________________________________
From: Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 8:38
To: Mircea Stirbet <stirbet at jlab.org>; Naeem Huque <huque at jlab.org>; Kirk Davis <kdavis at jlab.org>; Danny Forehand <forehand at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: Mircea - SNSPPU-CAV-INSP-FPC - revised (skiny) incoming inspection traveler

Hi All,
I have no additional input for the traveler.  It is coming together nicely.
Thanks,
Ed

________________________________
From: Mircea Stirbet <stirbet at jlab.org>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 5:31 PM
To: Naeem Huque <huque at jlab.org>; Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org>; Kirk Davis <kdavis at jlab.org>; Danny Forehand <forehand at jlab.org>; Mircea Stirbet <stirbet at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: Mircea - SNSPPU-CAV-INSP-FPC - revised (skiny) incoming inspection traveler

Hi Naeem,
Will re-number section 2, before uploading incoming inspection traveler in Docushare.

Related with external particulate counts, if the silver plated bolts are still in place, we can return the waveguide back to chem area for re-cleaning. Have no experience on how successful is cleaning of the sliver plated hardware. These, notoriously are shading particulates. For that these are replaced with Nitronic hardware. We'll learn on the first couplers.

Dealing with internal high particulate counts will be the next challenge: if we cannot drop this to less than 10 counts, we could expect affecting, first our clean pumping systems, used for vacuum leak checks and controlled bleed-up, then FE onset. Sure we can generate NCRs only if particulates counts will not drop bellow 100/10. And the particulate history will be captured in uploaded graphs.

Special line, I am waiting with great interest to see ORNL QA data saved in JLAB. Please let Val know I am waiting. Will reconsider pct.1.2 once I see  the ORNL QA data for the six couplers at JLAB.

Then , lets not be scared by using NCRs: these are quite useful tools in documenting findings and addressing issues. If there is nothing to report, these NCRs will and should not be generated.

Good to know you could open the link. I had also a different drawing with the SNSPPU cold coupler assembled: Inner-L ( window assembly), Outer-L (outer conductor) and vacuum gauges. Had to see how I can link two drawings at the same time. Sent this drawing to Danny, in support of vacuum leak checks - he can see all flanges and joints.

Naeem, appreciate you found again time to reviewed this traveler.  I am waiting for some more
input from the other dear reviews.
Thanks,
Mircea
________________________________
From: Naeem Huque <huque at jlab.org>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 16:55
To: Mircea Stirbet <stirbet at jlab.org>; Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org>; Kirk Davis <kdavis at jlab.org>; Danny Forehand <forehand at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: Mircea - SNSPPU-CAV-INSP-FPC - revised (skiny) incoming inspection traveler

Hi Mircea,

Comments in red below:


  *    Lets keep the pct. 1.2. related with ORNL QA data. No QA files are going to be uploaded in this traveler (your request). However, will have check if we have pertinent QA data.  Relaying only in inventory traveler will put a heavy burden on Mike's shoulders. By the way, there is no trace anywhere of any kind of ORNL QA data for the six FPCs delivered.
  *   ​All received couplers are accepted by ORNL so we'll use them regardless of whether files are in the inventory traveler, so this step should be removed

  *   Yes, you are right, there could be a super position between pct.1.1 Eventually,  will remove pct. 2.1 and re-number everything in section 2.
  *   ​This should be changed on this traveler, not the revision

  *   If particulate counts are high (not excessive high, less than 50000 lets say) the area can be clean, using filtered nitrogen. Is time consuming,  but... eventually we can reach the acceptance  particulate levels ( external surfaces less than 100 counts, internal surfaces less than 10 counts ). 100000 counts is like the external surface was never cleaned, 1000 counts on internal surface is ... well, you should never see such values to vacuum and RF exposed surfaces.
  *   ​Reword to issue an NCR only if the counts cannot be brought down to the 100/10 levels

  *   For the moment, the only QA related with vacuum leak checks are ... permanent ink marks on the outer conductors. I think we want something better before we proceed.  What is your opinion Naeem?!
  *   ​Valerie can direct you to the leak test and other data that was sent from ORNL. We can request additional data from them but, as far as I'm concerned, we have what we need to go forward.

  *   [cid:c71d910f-aed7-403e-b2ab-f61af82c1fa1]

  *   Step 3.2.1 if we see high particulate values (in excess of 1000 counts on internal surfaces) NCRs should be generated, put the coupler apart and check  with ORNL what they have been doing, during coupler cleaning or back-fill with Nitrogen post RF Qualification tests . Hope it will not happen... For the moment , all 6 couplers are under nitrogen over pressure and will be kept like this until they will be removed to be installed on the cavity .
  *   ​This step can stay as is

  *   Naeem, related with steps 3.2.3 and 3.2.4: at ORNL, suppose they had  visual inspections of RF exposed surfaces (including all sort of RF contacts, which are not intended to be inspected at JLAB) before the couplers have been cleaned and assembled on the test waveguide. However, once the qualification steps are done at ORNL (vacuum leak checks, bake and RF testing),  they did not had a chance to visually  inspect any of the vacuum and RF exposed surfaces. If any issues are found during incoming inspection done here, (not only copper plating flakes), these should be properly recorded. All these, could affect intended coupler during machine operation. Sure, some could lead to rejections. It is easier to replace a coupler before string assembly than later, in the machine.
  *   ​Recording imperfections is okay, but I don't want everything warranting an NCR. Change the NCR language to state only loose copper should warrant an NCR. We can talk about any other defects that you think should be included.

  *   By the way Naeem, I sent an link for a drawing. Have you been able to open it?
  *   ​The cleanroom assembly? Yes, I saw it. We will have the ORNL drawings, but don't have any of the manufacturing drawings from RI

Take care and be safe,
Mircea
________________________________
From: Naeem Huque <huque at jlab.org>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 12:59
To: Mircea Stirbet <stirbet at jlab.org>; Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org>; Kirk Davis <kdavis at jlab.org>; Danny Forehand <forehand at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: Mircea - SNSPPU-CAV-INSP-FPC - revised (skiny) incoming inspection traveler

Hi Mircea,

Some more questions/comments from me:


  *   Remove step 1.2, as per my previous edits
  *   Is there meant to be a difference in the dates in 1.1 and 2.1?
  *   Step 2.3 - Is anything done if the particulate count is over 100, or over 100,000? If the parts are just blown down if the counts are too high, then the NCR should only be written if the counts cannot be brought down below 100 (or 100,000 if 100 isn't suitable)
  *   Step 3.2.1 - Is a particulate count of over 1000 cause for part rejection or does it require further discussion from SMEs? If not, what count would make us reject a part, or require more discussion? If there is such a limit, that should be used for NCRs.
  *   Steps 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 - NCRs should only be written for something that can cause rejection of a part; I think flaking is the only thing that we would consider. Scratches, blisters and dents would not mean rejection, as the parts have been tested at ORNL and they have okayed their use in this form.

Part of making the travelers skinny is reducing the number of NCRs which don't necessarily have a purpose. Data about imperfections can still be recorded in the traveler as the techs see fit.

Thanks,
Naeem
________________________________
From: Mircea Stirbet <stirbet at jlab.org>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 11:53 AM
To: Ed Daly <edaly at jlab.org>; Kirk Davis <kdavis at jlab.org>; Danny Forehand <forehand at jlab.org>; Naeem Huque <huque at jlab.org>
Cc: Mircea Stirbet <stirbet at jlab.org>
Subject: Mircea - SNSPPU-CAV-INSP-FPC - revised (skiny) incoming inspection traveler

Dear All,
Here you have the revised traveler for SNSPPU FPC incoming inspection traveler. Is based on yesterday discussions. I took out all steps which are presumed to be found in ORNL provided QA documentation ( vacuum leaks, bake and RF processing ).  Probably all incoming inspection will be done just prior to coupler installation on the cavity string. Make sure there will be enough time allocated for this activity.

Till now, had only Naeem's input (see attached file ending in NH. Thanks Naeem). Seem my version is 4-5 KB skinnier.

Will appreciate any other suggestions.

Take care and be safe,
Mircea
P.S. The first two couplers are ... almost (had to take out a shipment restrains and shipping files)  ready for cleaning.

[cid:c4e5cb83-3bc8-4960-b0d8-4ab94668d6bd]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20210127/1c0b65a3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 15558514 bytes
Desc: image.png
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20210127/1c0b65a3/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1013670 bytes
Desc: image.png
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20210127/1c0b65a3/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 12591 bytes
Desc: image.png
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20210127/1c0b65a3/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 91311 bytes
Desc: image.png
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20210127/1c0b65a3/attachment-0007.png>

More information about the Pansophy mailing list