[Pansophy] L2HE-CLNRM-CST-ASSY Rework

[Valerie Bookwalter]

Tiffany / Jacob / et al.

Opening a new traveler for "rework" per se is the procedure that has always been followed.
This allows for  full data integrity and a  more precise timeline of events.

Tiffany,
I have already spoken with Megan and we will initiate a new traveler and copy data over from original to speed up the data process.
Then you will just update areas that are being reworked.

This also keeps all reports in tact because we pull the "last date" traveler.

Please let us know if you need any additional support.


Valerie Bookwalter
Jefferson Lab, SRF Department
Pansophy Team
1-757-269-5802 (OFFICE - currently working offsite)


________________________________
From: Pansophy <pansophy-bounces at mailman.jlab.org> on behalf of Jacob Harris <jharris at jlab.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 10:36 AM
To: Tiffany Ganey <ganey at jlab.org>; pansophy <pansophy at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: [Pansophy] L2HE-CLNRM-CST-ASSY Rework


Tiffany and Pansophy Team

SNSPPU project had a similar issue when they replaced a cavity in string PPU-02. They initiated a second Sting Assembly Traveler for PPU-02 and pulled all the relevant info (changed and unchanged) into the new traveler. Pansophy Team, is this the typical method for exchanging parts in a string after the initial traveler is closed? Does this method break any of your reports than now have to recognize two CST ASSY travelers with the same SN?



Jacob



From: Tiffany Ganey <ganey at jlab.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 8:04 AM
To: pansophy <pansophy at jlab.org>; Jacob Harris <jharris at jlab.org>
Subject: L2HE-CLNRM-CST-ASSY Rework



We will need to replace some of the FPCs that were installed on the first L2HE string.  The FPCC SN for the string is captured in L2HE-CLNRM-CST-ASSY, Traveler SN 1.  Since this string had already been pushed out of the cleanroom before the damage was discovered, the traveler was already closed.  I think that I need to request that the traveler be re-opened so that we can replace the damaged FPCs and update the FPCCSNs in the traveler.  We will also need to redo the leak check, which is recorded in the traveler as well.  I think that this replacement work will also be noted in one or more D3s to be linked to this traveler.



Is this the correct way to handle this situation with respect to updating the traveler recorded data?



Tiffany Ganey


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20220512/534e74f7/attachment-0001.html>