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

[Gary Cheng]

Thanks Tiffany! I'm ready to sign the traveler.
Gary

On 6/8/2022 10:19 AM, Tiffany Ganey wrote:
>
> I replaced “Polish” with “uinch” and re-uploaded the file.
>
> Tiffany Ganey
>
> *From:* Allen Samuels <samuels at jlab.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 8, 2022 10:14 AM
> *To:* Gary Cheng <cheng at jlab.org>; Tiffany Ganey <ganey at jlab.org>
> *Cc:* John Hogan <hogan at jlab.org>; George DeKerlegand 
> <georged at jlab.org>; pansophy <pansophy at jlab.org>
> *Subject:* RE: L2HE-INSP-FWM-R2 Ready for Approval
>
> Okay good. In that case, as soon as everyone’s in agreement on the 
> polish, I’ll route.
>
> Allen
>
> *From:* Gary Cheng <cheng at jlab.org <mailto:cheng at jlab.org>>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 8, 2022 10:13 AM
> *To:* Allen Samuels <samuels at jlab.org <mailto:samuels at jlab.org>>; 
> Tiffany Ganey <ganey at jlab.org <mailto:ganey at jlab.org>>
> *Cc:* John Hogan <hogan at jlab.org <mailto:hogan at jlab.org>>; George 
> DeKerlegand <georged at jlab.org <mailto:georged at jlab.org>>; pansophy 
> <pansophy at jlab.org <mailto:pansophy at jlab.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: L2HE-INSP-FWM-R2 Ready for Approval
>
> 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>
>     <mailto: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> <mailto:cheng at jlab.org>
>     *Cc:* John Hogan <hogan at jlab.org> <mailto:hogan at jlab.org>; George
>     DeKerlegand <georged at jlab.org> <mailto:georged at jlab.org>; pansophy
>     <pansophy at jlab.org> <mailto: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/20220608/240f91b3/attachment-0001.html>