[Pansophy] WCD for EIC591

[David Savransky]

Thank you for the information Megan!!

________________________________
From: Megan McDonald <megan at jlab.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2025 12:29
To: pansophy <pansophy at jlab.org>; David Savransky <dsavr at jlab.org>
Cc: Ashley Mitchell <ashleya at jlab.org>; Tony Reilly <areilly at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: WCD for EIC591

Hi David,


  *
Will we require a separate incoming inspection traveler for a tanked and bare cavity?
     *
If the inspection steps are the same, we can include a radio button in the first step to select if its tanked or bare
  *
Most of the cleanroom components will require some form of cleaning outside of de-grease, whether HPR, Bake or other.   Would it make sense to have two sets of chemistry traveler for these actives, one set focused on the cavity and other set focused on the other 4-5 cleanroom components, or just have one for everything?
     *
We can do COMP chemistry travelers. This way it is one task but can be used by multiple components. Take a look at L2HE-CHEM-COMP-DEGR for an example. As far as pulling the cavity out for a separate one, I am not familiar with the process and would probably be best to consult the chemistry group on this
  *
For Components that might have exactly the same traveler but a different component ID, would we need a traveler per ID?
     *
For example, we will receive a varity of RF seals that will have to be tracked ranging from 6" to 16" in size. Can we have a single inspection traveler that covers all of them or would each size need its own traveler?
     *
I would say this depends on how these components will be serialized and if they each have their own acronym. Once that is determined, we can decide how to move forward. For now, I would plan on them each needing their own. I mainly say this because there are likely different measurements needed and different drawings to be compared to. However, if they just need a visual inspection, we could maybe do a component type on this. Open for discussion on it
  *
Whilst most of cryomodule will be the same between the HSR and ESR cryomodule, the HSR CM might have slight differences (i.e. a added piezo).  For such a difference, would it make sense just to have a check box in the traveler for which one was which when it is built, or would a separate traveler be needed?
     *
I think in this situation it would be preferred for them to be separate travelers but I am open to discussing this
  *
Is there a good rule of thumb of who else, other than the people listed on the approval of the traveler or procedure and the work center leads, should be listed on the D3 and NCR lists?
     *
We request that there is more than one dispositioner so that there isn't a bottleneck with that. Project people and/or supervisor is also a good add, especially on informative
  *
For the inventory travelers, should I add all of the line items for that now, or can we get this document signed off with the assumption that we will add all of these in the future?
     *
Please list necessary inventory travelers in the WCD so we can go ahead and get started on those. Inventory travelers are ONLY needed if there are documents that come with the component that need to be uploaded by the INV staff. Think CERNOX sensors with associated calculation graphs. All received components will be uploaded to PRIMeS and can be tracked, inventory traveler or not. It would be good to consult with Mike Dickey if you have further questions on this. Keep in mind, we handle the creation of inventory travelers (if they are needed) so they do not fall on you.

Hope this helps! Please feel free to reach out with anymore questions

Megan McDonald


________________________________
From: Pansophy on behalf of David Savransky via Pansophy
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 5:46 PM
To: pansophy
Cc: Ashley Mitchell; Tony Reilly
Subject: [Pansophy] WCD for EIC591

Good afternoon Valerie and Megan,

I have attached the first draft of the WCD for the EIC 591 MHz CM (EIC591).  All of line items on it will have to be reviewed as we move through our final design review and assembly readiness review, but hopefully this will serve as a starting point.

My few question for you as I am working through it:


  *
Will we require a separate incoming inspection traveler for a tanked and bare cavity?
  *
Most of the cleanroom components will require some form of cleaning outside of de-grease, whether HPR, Bake or other.   Would it make sense to have two sets of chemistry traveler for these actives, one set focused on the cavity and other set focused on the other 4-5 cleanroom components, or just have one for everything?
  *
For Components that might have exactly the same traveler but a different component ID, would we need a traveler per ID?
     *
For example, we will receive a varity of RF seals that will have to be tracked ranging from 6" to 16" in size. Can we have a single inspection traveler that covers all of them or would each size need its own traveler?
  *
Whilst most of cryomodule will be the same between the HSR and ESR cryomodule,the HSR CM might have slight differences (i.e. a added piezo).  For such a difference, would it make sense just to have a check box in the traveler for which one was which when it is built, or would a separate traveler be needed?
  *
Is there a good rule of thumb of who else, other than the people listed on the approval of the traveler or procedure and the work center leads, should be listed on the D3 and NCR lists?
  *
For the inventory travelers, should I add all of the line items for that now, or can we get this document signed off with the assumption that we will add all of these in the future?

Thank you,

David S.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20250403/d79216b7/attachment-0001.html>