[Pansophy] L2HE-INSP-FWM-R2 Ready for Approval

[Gary Cheng]

Tiffany explained the reason for using 32 in Step 2. That sounds good to 
me. My only other comment is on the "Polish" as being unclear

On 6/8/2022 10:03 AM, Allen Samuels wrote:
>
> Tiffany,
>
> The traveler looks good from the standpoint of getting it into 
> pansophy, but I don’t want to send it out for approval if you all are 
> still discussing it. If you all are in agreement, let me know and I’ll 
> route it as is. If not, let me know when you are and put a revised 
> version in ready for approvals if any changes are needed.
>
> Allen
>
> *From:* Pansophy <pansophy-bounces at mailman.jlab.org> *On Behalf Of 
> *Tiffany Ganey
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 8, 2022 9:27 AM
> *To:* Gary Cheng <cheng at jlab.org>
> *Cc:* John Hogan <hogan at jlab.org>; George DeKerlegand 
> <georged at jlab.org>; pansophy <pansophy at jlab.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Pansophy] L2HE-INSP-FWM-R2 Ready for Approval
>
> The vendor is still being asked to make the port window to the drawing 
> specification (16 uinch).  Based on FNAL’s input, I revised the 
> traveler (which is for JLab use only and is not provided to the 
> vendor) to allow for 32 as a surface finish.  This is still a more 
> polished finish than the FNAL requirement of 64, but will allow us to 
> evaluate port windows that might be questionable to verify if they are 
> acceptable for use.
>
> Tiffany Ganey
>
> *From:* Gary Cheng <cheng at jlab.org <mailto:cheng at jlab.org>>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 8, 2022 9:19 AM
> *To:* Tiffany Ganey <ganey at jlab.org <mailto:ganey at jlab.org>>
> *Cc:* George DeKerlegand <georged at jlab.org <mailto:georged at jlab.org>>; 
> John Hogan <hogan at jlab.org <mailto:hogan at jlab.org>>; pansophy 
> <pansophy at jlab.org <mailto:pansophy at jlab.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: L2HE-INSP-FWM-R2 Ready for Approval
>
> Hi Tiffany,
>
> I took a glance at the R2. A couple comments:
>
> 1. Step 2 says 32 Polish not 64 uinch as mentioned in revision notes
> 2. Not sure if "Polish" is an accurate unit/jargon that everyone 
> understands. Suggest to use "uinch" or "microinches" instead. On some 
> drawings, surface finish is specified in micrometers so "Polish" may 
> not be clear.
>
> I'd suggest that we don't let vendor know of our internal hard limit 
> on the surface finish, i.e. 64 uinch, so that they don't deliver 
> windows with poor finish.
>
> Thanks,
> Gary
>
> On 6/8/2022 8:29 AM, Tiffany Ganey wrote:
>
>     Good morning Pansophy Team,
>
>     A new revision of L2HE-INSP-FWM is in the Ready for Approvals
>     folder.  The traveler was revised based on the lessons learned
>     from the inspection of the first two manifolds.
>
>     Added Step 1 Note on acceptable deviations from the Port Window
>     Drawing (F10040909) - these are normal deviations for a stock
>     blank flange. Added Step 1 Images Comment field. Added Step 2
>     instructions on when an NCR is needed for surface finish - based
>     on input from Brian Hartsell (FNAL) and FNAL's Vacuum Window
>     Safety Chapter requirement for surface finish of at least a 64
>     uinch. Added Step 3 instructions on dimensions requiring an NCR -
>     since this manifold is removed from the cryomodule prior to
>     shipment to SLAC, only dimensions critical to vacuum safety will
>     require an NCR.
>
>     Tiffany Ganey
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20220608/e7e33420/attachment-0001.html>