[Pansophy] C100 RF Incoming Inspection QextFPC

Wed Apr 13 06:26:36 EDT 2022

Sounds good to me.

Kind Regards,
Danny Forehand
Cavity Assembly Team
Jefferson Lab
________________________________
From: Allen Samuels <samuels at jlab.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 2:10:54 PM
To: Roland Overton <overtonr at jlab.org>; Danny Forehand <forehand at jlab.org>; Kirk Davis <kdavis at jlab.org>
Cc: pansophy at jlab.org <pansophy at jlab.org>; Tiffany Ganey <ganey at jlab.org>
Subject: FW: C100 RF Incoming Inspection QextFPC

Roland, Danny, and Kirk

Apologies for not bringing you into the loop sooner. A quick recap, an R3 was put out for C100R-CAV-RFIN while the R2 was waiting for radcon coding. Because the traveler hasn't actually hit production yet, we could just make this an R2. Furthermore, because the change amounts to adding QextFPC acceptance criteria that Haipeng supplied, this could be simply added to the traveler already approved and avoid going through the approval process all over again. As the approvers, do we have your permission to make these changes?

-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Samuels
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 12:03 PM
To: Tiffany Ganey <ganey at jlab.org>; pansophy at jlab.org
Subject: RE: C100 RF Incoming Inspection QextFPC

Tiffany,

I have added the revisions and the revision note to the R2 we are putting into pansophy. I also noticed that the step numbers are a bit off, skipping 2 entirely. Was this a mistake? I can go in and fix that quickly if so.

Allen

-----Original Message-----
From: Tiffany Ganey <ganey at jlab.org>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 2:48 PM
To: Allen Samuels <samuels at jlab.org>; pansophy at jlab.org
Subject: RE: C100 RF Incoming Inspection QextFPC

Hi Allen,

Yes- the change to step 3 (adding the specification range and instructions to initiate an NCR if not in range) was the only change.

Frank Marhause (who is no longer at the lab) used to look at each of these travelers individually to determine if the measured value was acceptable.  We realized last week that we had a "gap" since Frank left since no one was looking at those values anymore and we (Roland, Danny and I) didn't know what was an acceptable value.  Haipeng agreed to take on the role that Frank held once we realized this gap, but creating the acceptance specification in the traveler will help us keep identify any problems quickly.  If there could be a 5th person on the traveler, then I would suggest adding Haipeng but I thought that the travelers were limited to 4 reviewers.

Tiffany Ganey

-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Samuels <samuels at jlab.org>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 2:39 PM
To: Tiffany Ganey <ganey at jlab.org>; pansophy at jlab.org
Subject: RE: C100 RF Incoming Inspection QextFPC

Tiffany,

We are still in the process of uploading the R2 of this traveler to pansophy. As a result, we do not need to make this an R3.
Furthermore, the only change I noticed was in step 3. Were there any others done? If not, we can skip the approval process on this one and just add the data to the traveler already being uploaded.
Lastly, I was wondering if we should add Haipeng to the approval process going forward? Was this something that could've been avoided if she read through the traveler during approvals, or were the numbers not available until now?

Allen

-----Original Message-----
From: Pansophy <pansophy-bounces at mailman.jlab.org> On Behalf Of Tiffany Ganey
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 8:52 AM
To: pansophy at jlab.org
Cc: Danny Forehand <forehand at jlab.org>; Haipeng Wang <haipeng at jlab.org>; Kirk Davis <kdavis at jlab.org>; Roland Overton <overtonr at jlab.org>; Tony Reilly <areilly at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: [Pansophy] C100 RF Incoming Inspection QextFPC

Good morning.

C100R-CAV-RFIN-R3 has been uploaded to the Ready for Approval folder and is ready to route for signatures.

https://jlabdoc.jlab.org/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-49545

Tiffany Ganey

-----Original Message-----
From: Haipeng Wang <haipeng at jlab.org>
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 2:00 PM
To: Tiffany Ganey <ganey at jlab.org>; Tony Reilly <areilly at jlab.org>; Kirk Davis <kdavis at jlab.org>; Danny Forehand <forehand at jlab.org>; Roland Overton <overtonr at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: C100 RF Incoming Inspection QextFPC

Thank you. Tiffany. That is correct.
Haipeng

On 4/8/2022 1:43 PM, Tiffany Ganey wrote:
>
> Haipeng - Thank you for the information.
>
> All - I've updated the C100R-CAV-RFIN traveler step 3 to include the
> acceptance criteria for QextFPC (see screen shot below and
> attachment).  If any changes or corrections are needed, please let me
> know.  Otherwise I will submit the new revision for approval early
> next week.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Tiffany Ganey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haipeng Wang <haipeng at jlab.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 11:15 AM
> To: Tom Powers <powers at jlab.org>; Jay Benesch <benesch at jlab.org>;
> Tiffany Ganey <ganey at jlab.org>; Robert Rimmer <rarimmer at jlab.org>;
> Michael Drury <drury at jlab.org>; Curt Hovater <hovater at jlab.org>;
> Charlie Reece <reece at jlab.org>
> Cc: Tony Reilly <areilly at jlab.org>; Kirk Davis <kdavis at jlab.org>;
> Danny Forehand <forehand at jlab.org>; Roland Overton
> <overtonr at jlab.org>; Roger Ruber <ruber at jlab.org>
> Subject: Re: C100 RF Incoming Inspection QextFPC
>
> Tiffany,
>
>     As I have communicated to you yesterday and based on the fact that
> this C100R cryomodule  is being refurbished from its original location
> at NL25. Its fabricated cavity geometry  by sheet metal can not be
> modified anymore. I would like to set original specification as this
> Frank's recent publication paper in 2021 indicated in Table 1 for the
>
> C100 7-cell (Low Loss cavity) as 3.2e7, but I am relaxing the lower
> error boundary to -68% and keeping upper error boundary to +20%. That
> will give the Q external value for the QA from 1.02E7 to 3.84E7 range.
>
> This change would easy the new Qext requirement and an accommodation
> of stub tuning range for the CPP and High Power runs on all C100
> cryomodules for the CEBAF operation in near future.
>
>     Please let me know if any paper work and a technical review need
> to be done accordingly.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Haipeng Wang
>
> Senior Staff Scientist, SRF System Group Leader Thomas Jefferson Lab
> Accelerator Operation and R&D Division
>
> 600 Kelvin Drive
>
> Suite 8, MS 55H, Bldg 58_2, Room 2232
>
> Newport News, VA 23606, USA
>
> Phone
>
> (O): 757-269-5435
>
> (C): 804-836-0539
>
> (F): 757-269-7658
>
> E-mail: haipeng at jlab.org <mailto:haipeng at jlab.org>
>
> On 4/6/2022 11:12 AM, Tom Powers wrote:
>
> > Attached is Jean's technote where they set the spec to 3e7.  I also
>
> > included is the references which were the basis for the numbers.  Of
>
> > course Jean used the most current microphonics data at the time
> > which
>
> > was from SL21 and the F100 which have a different cell shape than
> > the
>
> > production C100 cavities.
>
> >
>
> > In fact from a microphonics standpoint, SL21 is the quietest
>
> > cryomodule in the machine and the F100 is second.
>
> >
>
> > So they changed the cavity shape then took out the stiffening rings,
>
> > (??assumed that the microphonics would remain constant??) and never
>
> > revisited the loaded-Q.
>
> >
>
> > *Thus the cavity which was basis for setting C100 loaded-Q to 3e7
> > was
>
> > the WRONG CAVITY.*
>
> >
>
> > T
>
> >
>
> > On 4/6/2022 10:37 AM, Jay Benesch wrote:
>
> >> Haipeng,
>
> >>
>
> >> JLAB-TN-05-009 Charlie Reece
>
> >> SRF Cavity Cell Geometry Options for the CEBAF 12 GeV Upgrade is
> >> the
>
> >> closest thing I could find to a C100 spec in the TN repository.
>
> >> https://jlabdoc.jlab.org/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-12484
> <https://jlabdoc.jlab.org/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-12484>
>
> >>
>
> >> Looking at the plots Tom has generated for me recently, I propose
>
> >> bandwidth 115+-5 Hz for all cavities; QL 12.5E6 to 13.6E6
>
> >> C25/C50/C75/C100 would all eventually be equipped with stub tuners
>
> >> and so adjusted.  I recognize that the sheet metal tolerance is
>
> >> +-30%. It will be a lot easier for the RF techs if there is just
> >> +one
>
> >> number for all cavity types.
>
> >>
>
> >> See my J-Future talk for two of Tom's plots and the present CED
>
> >> distribution of QLs.
>
> >>
> https://indico.jlab.org/event/520/contributions/9437/attachments/7695
> <https://indico.jlab.org/event/520/contributions/9437/attachments/7695
> >
>
> >> /10741/J_Future_J_Benesch.pdf
>
> >>
>
> >> Other talks at the meeting may be of interest.
>
> >> https://indico.jlab.org/event/520/timetable/#all.detailed
> <https://indico.jlab.org/event/520/timetable/#all.detailed>
>
> >>
>
> >> Jay
>
> >>
>
> >> On 4/6/22 10:19, Haipeng Wang wrote:
>
> >>> Tiffany,
>
> >>>      I can take Frank's role to fill this spec. However in a
> >>> recent
>
> >>> activity by EES to use 3-stub tuners at service buildings of
> >>> CEBAF,
>
> >>> we have to lower the Qext to ~1e7 than 2~3e7 on the C100
>
> >>> cryomodules. For this refurbished C100R cryomodule, we might have
> >>> to
>
> >>> lower the Qext as we are going to run higher beam current for CPP
>
> >>> and High Power CEBAF programs in coming years. I would like to ask
>
> >>> higher managers to start a meeting with stake holders of Jay, Tom,
>
> >>> Curt, Charlie and me to discuss about this. It should be straight
>
> >>> forward decision process for the new spec. However, the cavity end
>
> >>> cell iris to the FPC center-line dimension is fixed in the old
> >>> C100
>
> >>> module, I don't think it is easier to change the design and modify
>
> >>> on it. So I might have to find the original C100 spec to fill in
> >>> the
>
> >>> Qext spec. Charlie or Mike might be able to find where does this
>
> >>> C100R module come from, what is the original Qext spec?
>
> >>> Regards
>
> >>> Haipeng
>
> >>>
>
> >>> On 4/6/2022 9:49 AM, Tiffany Ganey wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> For the C100R project, the C100R-CAV-RFIN traveler needs to be
>
> >>>> updated to provide a specific range of acceptable QextFPC
> >>>> measured
>
> >>>> during a cavity’s incoming inspection.  The current traveler has
> >>>> a
>
> >>>> data field to capture the measured QextFPC but no specification
> >>>> is
>
> >>>> provided. It’s my understanding that previously Frank looked at
> >>>> the
>
> >>>> travelers and approved the data as he knew the required range for
>
> >>>> this value.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Can you please provide the QextFPC specification range for a C100
>
> >>>> cavity so that the traveler can be revised to provide this
>
> >>>> information going forward?
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Thank you,
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Tiffany Ganey
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>

_______________________________________________
Pansophy mailing list
Pansophy at mailman.jlab.org
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/pansophy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20220413/d1be95f3/attachment-0001.html>