Meeting 19 November 2010 (14:30 GMT)
- EB secretary (I have asked Chris Tunnel if he would be willing to
seve as EB secretay, and he -- and his boss-- agreed.
- actions (click here to view current actions ) and follow up.
- matters arising from the Technical board and MICE project management (Andy Nichols)
- Coupling coil review (Bross -- paper was distributed)
- matters arising from VC (all)
- RF tests at CERN (Alain)
- MICE FAC meeting in January
- MICE operations in 2011 (MOMs etc)
- MICE paper preparation
- MICE presentations to conferences in 2011(Palladino)
- Preparation of MICE paper on Step I
Added by Tunnell, Christopher over 12 years ago
Executive Board Meeting Minutes¶Present:
Christopher Tunnell is now the secretary. Discussions approving this happened whilst the secretary wasn't present.
Current Open Actions¶
Proposal for MICE meeting in fall 2011 (Bross)¶
Discussions underway with various potential institutions (for instance, U.-Mississippi). Have to fit within teaching schedule.
CURRENT ACTION: OPEN still. Must be converged by next collaboration meeting.
prepare proposal for MICE meeting in OXFORD July 2011 (Cobb)¶
Cobb has booked accommodation at a nearby college from Tuesday July 5th until Sunday July 10th, which is 5 nights. However, the meeting runs from the 6th until the 9th following the standard 3.5 day meeting. The 9th is a half day. These dates are not flexible.
The rooms that include breakfast cost 73.70 GBP per night. Other colleges and RAL's Cosener's House would be similarly priced. Cobb says it's just an expensive town.
There is a funding meeting of the Italian IFN in early July that may lead to conflicts.
CURRENT ACTION: CLOSED
NEW ACTION: Cobb to send email to Collaboration Board members to tell them about the dates and ensure there aren't major conflicts.
UNSCHEDULED: RAL Meeting in February 2010 (Nichols)¶
Next collaboration meeting at RAL. Nichols is responsible and booked rooms in Ridgeway. The meeting starts on the February 15th and ends on the 18th, but the rooms are reserved starting on the 14th.
Need physicist to do the agenda. Cobb is unavailable due to teaching and preparation for July collaboration meeting, but he suggested his post-doc Victoria Blackmore to create the Indico site. Can Chris Booth create the programme? The programme needs to be done in January to not leave it to last moment.
NEW ACTION: Blondel and Victoria Blackmore to do agenda.
prepare calendar of video conferences in 2010-2011 (Coney)¶
No reported progress. Blondel will enquire.
CURRENT ACTION: OPEN
prepare and distribute to EB a first job description of integration physicist (Coney)¶
No reported progress. Blondel will enquire.
CURRENT ACTION: OPEN
NuFact talk rehearsal (Palladino)¶
There was a successful talk rehearsal before NuFACT 2010, but we need to develop an official policy for official plots. There are two suggestions on how to do this. Either, as Blondel suggests, plots should be prepared in analysis group, then go to the VC, then get final approval at the collaboration meeting. Or, as Palladino suggests, there could be a new special phone conference for plots for difference parts of the detector.
The main purpose of this, as Blondel points out, is that there were some discrepancies between our NuFact 2010 presentations and a set of official reviewed plots would solve this issue. Cobb reminds us that this issue has just arisen given this is our first data.
Palladino sees the plots we need to produce as falling into 5 or 6 sectors. Despite not being near 'final' plots as Cobb suggests (and Mark Rayner reasonably wanting to graduate could slow this down), we still need to start thinking about plots for two things: 1) Jean-Sebastien Graulich at WINN 2011 entitled "First results from MICE" and 2) Marco Apollonio's organization of plots for the stage 1 paper. Apollonio has been getting feedback on what plots should go into this paper, but it sounds like the list needs to be reduced and more cohesive such that it addresses the physics goal of the first paper: Cobb suggests nobody cares about the exact value of the emittance or beta, for instance, of the beamline, but rather that we're able to measure it.
ACTION: CLOSED since NuFact rehearsal successfully done.
NEW ACTION: Organization of a meeting between Blondel, Graulich, Cobb, Rayner, and Apollonio to discuss first MICE paper plots. Apollonio should report by the next VC.
NEW ACTION: Palladino will propose a mechanism for defining and approving "standard plots"
Length of RFCC module¶
This item was mainly discussed in the technical board session of the meeting. The issue is that the RFCC module needs to be 4 cm longer due to a real estate squeeze between the coupling coil cryostat and the RF cavity couplers. This will slightly affect the optics and the Hall layout: Blondel points out that a 9.7 mm beam blows up to 10 mm in this situation.
CURRENT ACTION: STILL OPEN - was presented at VC, but needs a proper proposal to TB. Action by Dec. 14th.
magnetic measurement plan (Hanlet)¶
Hanlet to show plan at next VC meeting. Should be then presented at next TB.
CURRENT ACTION: STILL OPEN
Step 3 v 4 (Hayler)¶
Successfully addressed at the video conference the day before. The specifics need to be addressed in writing. If one wants to do step 3 then 4, there are certain things that don't need to be performed twice. For the switching of absorbers, more detail is needed on what specifically is required in order to more accurately evaluate the time that needs to be taken.
CURRENT ACTION: CLOSED
NEW ACTION: Somebody to create a document of the specifics. Blondel to find somebody to perform this.
Solid absorber program (Cobb)¶
Cobb gave a presentation at the video conference that appears to be a good start. Blondel thinks it would be ideal if we could take a week of data then take a week to swap absorbers, with maybe the weekend in reserve. Long reminds us that the design requirement for the liquid-hydrogen absorber system was that it takes a week to change the absorber. Long also believes that the main hurdle is getting the AFC module into the parked position rather than it being the actual swapping of the absorber.
CURRENT ACTION: Closed
MICE MoU (Bonesini)¶
Bonesini needs information from the US DOE and US NSF. Specifically, a table of what's been contributed with estimated cost and value (if these are different). The MICE funding agency is January 21st, so the document needs to be complete before then.
NEW ACTION: Zisman for DOE. Kaplan for NSF.
NEW ACTION: Bonesini sends Blondel the CERN MOU on the day timescale so Blondel can send this to Eva Rondio (sp.?) then to everybody.
ACTION: OPEN Bonesini should send around a draft of the MOU well before the MICE funding agency.
RF cavity tests¶
Derun Li addressed RF cavity tests at the video conference, but Blondel and others believe there should be a document on the 'fundamentals' instead of a detailed measurement plan. This should be done hopefully this year, but definitely before the collaboration meeting.
ACTION: UPDATED to ask Li for a document by the next video conference.
Technical Board (TB) Matters (Nichols)¶
You may view the minutes from the TB here. Comments within these minutes are just on information that is in addition to the TB minutes.
Mike Courthold looks to VectorFields for second opinion¶
Courthold is still waiting for this second opinion. Hayler and Nichols are looking to Daresbury Lab to extra help as well.
Absorber brackets in magnetic field¶
Cobb asks is the absorber brackets aren't strong enough to give support within magnetic fields. Nichols suggests we check this.
Shipping LiH absorber to RAL through AWE¶
6LiH is classified as nuclear material: it's not that it's dangerous in MICE. The 6LiH isotope puts it in this category. Bross points out that the LiH absorber must go to AWE because it has enriched 6Li. Additionally, he also points out that the LiH chemical reactivity is low and is also coated with paralyne. Blondel says the LiH abosrber will not react with water. Nichols will investigate further.
Different solid absorber types¶
Blondel asks Cobb about if it's possible to have different materials with the same energy loss. Cobb says it's possible to increase the thickness of solid absorbers to retain the same energy loss: for example, 65 mm of LiH has the same energy loss as a liquid H absorber. Chris Rogers was working on this.
Blondel says we need 5 absorber designs that are the same dE/dx as LiH, but made of different materials
NEW ACTION: Tunnell will do this with Cobb.
The issue is if we want to define our tolerances cylindrically or spherically. Cobb points out that it's about a millimeter, but somebody that isn't him should check it since we shouldn't trust this to one individual regardless of who they are. Zisman thinks the main uncertainty is where the flanges are, which is why Jason (?) wants to understand the whole design and manufacturing process to know where the flanges are from the 'real center'.
Given that forces move the modules thus affecting tolerances, Long points out that we're going to thoroughly review and document all of the force calculations in order to provide an audit trail. Zisman noted that we have bellows that can give us freedom in the longitudinal and angular directions, but transverse tolerances need to be tighter.
Courthold is doing force calculations. Long states that forces are taken to ground, which Nichols says the floor can take. Long is exploring Daresbury for consultation with these force calculations.
There is a general consensus that these original alignment studies should be repeated even if there were no problems with the original calculations.
We have to extract the cryogens from the hall for safety reasons. But also: does not extracting helium damage PMTs? There's historical evidence that says this could be a problem.
Bonesini says that the PMTs have survived for years and that contamination has never been an issue.
Long says that we need to move the air in the hall for heating reasons anyways, so this shall reduce the diffusion time.
Nichols wants to redefine what MICO meeting does. And how we control milestones. This should be driven by L2 managers.
Coupling Coil Review¶
Nichols plans to exercise the change control process for the RFCC module, but the CAD file was corrupt so it's unclear what's being changed.
Blondel asks if it's alright if the RFCC module is 4 cm longer. The 0th order issue is this. The next question then becomes where does this 4 cm go.
Nichols points out that if the CC cryostat has shoulders, then it will be heavier and this may affect the floor design. There's also the question about the feasibility of getting it past the doors in the hall, though Zisman doubts this is an issue since it can be tipped such that its axis is vertical. Similar questions need to be asked about the EMR.
ACTION on Nichols: Change request template needs to be created
ACTION on Nichols: By the 19th of December, is there anything from the coupling coil review worth the EBs attention?
Matters arising from VC¶
The RFCC issue was the main thing, as previously discussed.
RF tests at CERN¶
This has been talked about for months and CERN wants to contribute. Gersende Prior is currently pushing this through, but she is not an RF expert so a 'champion' is needed at CERN. There may be personnel and managerial issues with getting a 'champion' for the project at CERN.
Prior and MICE people had a discussion yesterday and then went to Garoby to discuss. Garoby comments that we should just finish the proposal then send it to CERN management.
There appear to be a few RF experts who would be willing. Zisman thought we don't need to find a specific person but just say that there are a few people that are willing. Blondel says that in the end it's Steve Myers decision. The specifics of the time required have to be determined: estimates are that half a year of a fulltime RF expert would be required, or an RF expert for 1.5 years at 30% FTE. Both of these fit the MICE schedule. Zisman reminds us that most of the work required will be done by technicians rather than directly by the RF expert.
There will be a new phone conference in a weeks time after Thanksgiving to discuss this.
There's another issue to the test though: in MICE, we need a 300 kWatt amplifier for the RF cavities. Need to estimate price of amplifier if CERN built and tested it with RF cavity, then ship to RAL. It couldn't be SPS spare then but would rather need to be MICE bought. This has advantages because it's then a CERN contribution.
NEW ACTION: We need a good proposal first. Garoby is the person to talk to about this and Myers has been informed.
MICE FAC meeting¶
MICE FAC meeting moved to 21st of January. Need to re-edit the status report and upate it since last one was in August. Stategy to be determined: attach nufact papers? They'll be interesting in SS/schedule more than papers. However the winding of FC hasn't started. We need to make sure there aren't hidden suprirses with other magnets.
We can attach to the FAC note the SS review, a short note that is half a page per magnet system on where we stand, and also the NuFact physics papers.
To view the common fund report, please click here
Roy Price has been spending a lot of time on this. The main issues revolve around whether or not the common fund is appropriate for maintenance. For instance, 21k GBP for servicing the coldheads of the tracker and also for compressors. If this isn't appropriate usage, then who pays for this type of stuff?
There's another issue that Long brings up: the coldheads are rated for 10,000 hours of usage so what's the right policy for dealing with this? Rather, if there's a shutdown of a week, month, few months, then how do we want to have a policy where we warm these up to not spend those 10,000 hours.
Currently, the expenditure when linearly interpolating for the rest of the year is less than the levy on the various groups. However, Blondel is worried about the cost of maintenance creeping up. Zisman mentions that liquid helium costs a lot. The main concern is that we haven't estimated the number of quenches we expect which involves us paying for liquid hydrogen, says Blondel, but as Long suggests we just need to wait until we have more experience because we can give a fair estimate.
Blondel points out that we need administration help with these numbers. Zisman notes that it took 6 months to get the invoices out which is past the US fiscal year and we need to think about how not to do this in the future. There's also the issue with how to deal with the Missippi charge which was requested to be "in kind" but Zisman would like to know if he has been charged for this.
Long with initiate levy with Blondel. This will be done better next time.
There is an issue with people not being reimbursed. Blondel points out that there have been various complaints from transnational access people, but Long comments that similar problem exist for people from UK institutions. It is unclear if more secretarial help is needed to address this.
M. Bonesini commented that INFN is getting out of time for in-kind contribution (due to end-of-the year administrative issues). He suggested as INFN contribution to the CF the last item of Ken list (CAMAC crate+... rated 15Kpounds). It was agreed that this is a useful item, but a cross-check with the DAQ responsible (Jean Sebastien) was required.
NEW ACTION: M. Bonesini to contact Jean Sebastien to define details
MICE operations in 2011¶
Blondel send an email to potential MOMs with a doodle poll to get their availability. We need suggestions for who should be there during the restart. ISIS restarts in January, but will TOF1 be back by then? Blondel and Long agree that not having a concrete runplan for 2011 is a problem. Long thinks we should have a continuous block of running in the summer, which Blondel points out works because there was a request for EMR commissioning that would take 3 weeks that is requested for the summer. However, before we can ask for MOMs we really need to know a runplan. Running during the reconstruction period of the SS would be wise.
NEW ACTION: Blondel to create a runplan: 1) ask Long what target people need to do activiation stuff, 2) Cobb for analysis, 3) Vassil Verguilov about EMR, and 4) most importantly Andy to understand how this fits in with hall work.
MICE paper preparation¶
Marco Apollonio is getting too much input; not sure where to go. He is also simultaneously preparing NuFact 2010 papers whilst preparing a list of plots for the first paper.
ACTION: Apollonio to present at next video conference then a draft at the next collaboration meeting
MICE at conferences (Palladino)¶
Palladino had left the meeting by this time. In his absence, Blondel noted that there is the WINN conference in South Africa and then also Moriond.
Cobb points out that the mice.iit.edu webserver is flaky.
NEW ACTION: Blondel wants Kaplan to know what's needed to help. Is it manpower?
MICE website and redmine (emailed addendum)¶
NEW ACTION: Colling to figure out how the main MICE website fits in with the MICEmine website hosted at RAL. Various working groups want their working group page on the mice.iit.edu website to point to their MICEmine project. Do we consider mice.iit.edu to be the external face of MICE like it is and then the RAL website to be the equivalent of an "Internal" website that exists at other experiments?