sPHENIX discussion of the superconducting solenoid

["Lynch, Don" <dlynch AT bnl.gov>]

Dave makes a valid point that we shouldn’t dismiss without some thought.  With the fitting on the bottom of the new doghouse we do protrude a few more inches lower plus the mating fitting and the cables. However, the mating fitting and cables can be routed horizontally if we use a tee or elbow out of the new port which then puts a fixed limit on that protrusion. 

Going through the existing chimney to the valve box we run the risk of disturbing the insulation, sensors, cables inside the chimney which we know now to be in reasonably good shape. A new port in the valve box would also require machining and welding on the existing valve box such that it is unclear if this could potentially cause problems. 

Since the new dog house is beyond the pole tips would not interfere with the simulated pole tips in the high field test, and the (hinged) pole tips in the final installation have not yet been designed, so they would need to take the new port into consideration in their design and operation.  I don’t believe that that would be a significant problem. All of the sPHENIX detectors are located inside of the pole tips, so I can’t see any real interferences with their installation/servicing.

The only other thing to consider is future upgrades and they are not well enough defined to give us any guidance. Again, it is my feeling that this is not a significant impediment to any imagined future upgrade to design around. 

So, all things considered, it is my opinion that we should stay with the new port in the bottom of the new doghouse.

Other opinions?

-Don

From: <sphenix-magnet-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of Kin Yip <kinyip AT bnl.gov>
Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 3:13 PM
To: "Phillips, David B" <phillips AT bnl.gov>, "Kovach, Paul E" <kovach AT bnl.gov>, "sphenix-magnet-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <sphenix-magnet-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Sphenix-magnet-l] voltage-tap flange/connector at the bottom ... power supply test only up to 750 A (whatever Pablo can do currently)

Hi,

Don Lynch has promised to write to answer Dave's questions/worries ...

I just add a point here :

> How difficult/impossible is it to bring the signals up through the chimney to the valve box and put a new port on the valve box for the connector?

Paul Orfin actually checked yesterday that there is at present still some space if one really (!) wants.   But he also likes having the port at the new doghouse
because when we need to get new/additional cables out in the future,  the new-doghouse-port can provide a place for these future desire/expansion.

Kin

On 07/26/2016 01:07 PM, Phillips, David B wrote:

Locating this connector on the bottom of the new dog house instead of the valve box won’t be a future interference headache with the pole tip and detector installation?

How difficult/impossible is it to bring the signals up through the chimney to the valve box and put a new port on the valve box for the connector?

 

Dave

 

From: sphenix-magnet-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov [mailto:sphenix-magnet-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov] On Behalf Of Kovach, Paul E
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 9:11 AM
To: Yip, Kin; sphenix-magnet-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: Re: [Sphenix-magnet-l] voltage-tap flange/connector at the bottom ... power supply test only up to 750 A (whatever Pablo can do currently)

 

Here’s the new location for the 35 pin voltage tap connector. If everyone is happy I’ll revise the drawings.

 

Paul

 

From:sphenix-magnet-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov [mailto:sphenix-magnet-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov] On Behalf Of Kin Yip
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 12:26 PM
To: sphenix-magnet-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: [Sphenix-magnet-l] voltage-tap flange/connector at the bottom ... power supply test only up to 750 A (whatever Pablo can do currently)

 

Hi,

I've sent emails to various people and talked to D. Phillips, D. Lynch and P. Orfin.   It seems that putting the voltage-tap flange/connector at
the bottom of the new doghouse/junction-box works (for both the high-field test and future sPHENIX in 1008).  

So, Paul (Kovach), let's just put the flange/connector at the bottom of the doghouse which is your "favorite" (or the easiest) choice :-)

On another subject, in the last Friday's power supply meeting, people wanted to test higher current than 750 A (what Pablo currently can do). 
But D. Phillips advised us and talked to J. Sandberg that there will be too much work to test the power supply to full current (~4600 A) before
the full-field test and our "full-field test" is a test anyway !  ( And if it works at 750 A, it likely works for 4600 A. ) And if whatever comes up,
we'll fix the power supply at the high-field test.  

So, Pablo will just test the power supply (in EEBA) to 750 A using whatever magnet/load, cooling, cables etc. that he's already got.

Kin

On 07/25/2016 10:19 AM, Lynch, Don wrote:

I think the bottom of the dog house will work. I think we should put an elbow and a tee on the fitting with one of the tee ports then reserved for the multipin connector and the other for possible future use.

 

-Don 

 

From: "Yip, Kin" <kinyip AT bnl.gov>
Date: Friday, July 22, 2016 at 9:47 AM
To: Don Lynch <dlynch AT bnl.gov>, "Phillips, David B" <phillips AT bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Sphenix-magnet-l] Brief Summary of sPHENIX Magnet biweekly meeting on July 20, 2016 at 1:30 pm at the conference room

 

Hi,

 

So, can we put the flange/connector at the bottom of the new doghouse ?

 

Kin

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

 

------ Original message------

From: Kovach, Paul E

Date: Fri, Jul 22, 2016 8:32 AM

To: Yip, Kin;sphenix-magnet-l AT lists.bnl.gov;

Subject:RE: [Sphenix-magnet-l] Brief Summary of sPHENIX Magnet biweekly meeting on July 20, 2016 at 1:30 pm at the conference room

 

Both sides of the dog house are access covers that need to be removed to work inside. Adding the feedthrough to either cover  would require another connector inside (for which there is no room) or a long service loop to allow the cover to be laid back out of the way during work inside the dog house.

Putting the connector on the bottom would work for me, but I don’t know what your plans are for supporting the valve box. It’s your choice.

 

 

 

From:sphenix-magnet-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov [mailto:sphenix-magnet-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov] On Behalf Of Kin Yip
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 5:12 PM
To: sphenix-magnet-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: Re: [Sphenix-magnet-l] Brief Summary of sPHENIX Magnet biweekly meeting on July 20, 2016 at 1:30 pm at the conference room

 

Hi Paul,

I've discussed Paul Kovach's email/picture with Dave Phillips, Paul Giannotti and Don Lynch ...

1.  The side of the yellow plate that you put the flange on would be obstructed by steel and/or very difficult to get access to.

The other side that we can see in your JPG picture seems to be a "door" (yellow plate with a lot of holes) that people need to open
it up in order to work inside (this new doghouse) ==> you may need to take off the cables or make the cables longer etc... => inconvenient.

So, by elimination, the logical or the best choice is to put the NW40 flange on the side that we can't see in your picture.   

Furthermore, Don Lynch agrees with what I have just said and he thinks the future sPHENIX detector would NOT obstruct or in the way.

Do you see any problem with this "new" choice   ?

 

2.  I was told that Sonny seems to know of a connector (of ~30 pins) which would fit into the NW40 flange (which SMD guys like to use).  I'm looking for

Sonny ... And I hope Piyush will agree that that connector with NW40 is good enough.  [ Piyush uses some more expensive stuff for his LARG setup ... ]

So, the connection choice hopefully will be sorted out soooooon ...

Kin

 

On 07/21/2016 04:41 PM, Phillips, David B wrote:

On the High Field Test setup that location points back to the steel and even if it does fit it will be very difficult to access.

Dave

-----Original Message-----

From: sphenix-magnet-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov [mailto:sphenix-magnet-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov] On Behalf Of Kovach, Paul E

Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 4:09 PM

To: Yip, Kin; sphenix-magnet-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: Re: [Sphenix-magnet-l] Brief Summary of sPHENIX Magnet biweekly meeting on July 20, 2016 at 1:30 pm at the conference room

This is where I suggest that we add an NW40 quick flange to the new doghouse. I don't know what your plans are for supporting the valve box, but I assume you will be supporting it from the bottom of the dog house so I added the feedthrough on the back. If someone picks the NW40 flange and mating connector that you want to use I'll add them  to the drawings. The tube on the flange is 1-1/2 dia.

-----Original Message-----

From: sphenix-magnet-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov [mailto:sphenix-magnet-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov] On Behalf Of Kin Yip

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 4:05 PM

To: sphenix-magnet-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: [Sphenix-magnet-l] Brief Summary of sPHENIX Magnet biweekly meeting on July 20, 2016 at 1:30 pm at the conference room

First of all, a very personal/subjective feeling here:

This meeting is a candidate for the most productive meeting of all sPHENIX Magnet biweekly meetings (so far).

=======================================================================================

Powerpoint/Agenda page: 

https://indico.bnl.gov/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=2269

=======================================================================================

1. Today's meeting is mainly about the placement of voltage taps and temperature sensorsfor the Cryo extension (the component of which is being made in the BNL central shop).

Paul Giannotti's very useful powerpoint presentation (39 MB) can be found in the above indico page as well as at the top of the "past presentations" page of our sPHENIX Magnet webpage :

https://collab.external.bnl.gov/sites/sPHENIX-Magnet/Past%20Presentations/

In the meeting, Paul showed us his understanding of the voltage taps and temperature sensors with pro-E drawings from Paul Kovach, photos of the 

existing system as well as his own design/schematic drawings.   He's 

proposed to add 12 new voltage taps (VT18-VT29) in addition to the existing (VT01 - VT17)and there was no objection to his proposal.

We have spent quite some time discussing how to route the new voltage tap cables out of the system(extension/valve-box/doghouse). Paul first suggested to route the cables through an existingcross as shown in page

15 of his presentation by making new connections.  Paul Orfin commented that he needed to check with Richard Meier to see whether there is enough room left there.  But later, Paul Kovachsuggested using flanges at the doghouses/junction-box so that the cables can come out directly from the doghouse instead of routing all cables through the entire extension.

The old doghouse has a flange that we can use but Ed O'Brien and Don Lynch told us that there is not enough room as they're surrounded by the HCAL.  Don said that we don't even have enough space to put the flange at the side and let cables coming out at 90 deg.

So, it's decided to put a new flange at the new doghouse and Paul Kovach said that it's an easy enough task to do.  He'll modify his extension drawings and send to central shop to make this modification.

The voltage taps will be added when the extension components (made by the Central Shop) are being assembled in Bldg. 902.

2.  We then discussed about the temperature sensors.   The cryo group 

has planned to add 4 temperature sensors as shown in Paul Giannotti's 

presentation page 2 (TE1786H, TE1787H, TE1788H & TE1789H) at the joints 

of both ends of the extension (for both + and - paths).  Cryo group is 

using the CERNOX type of temperature sensor.  [ The Cryo group had 

already planned to add two for the low current test but they were not 

added because that location was wrapped before they could manage to 

install the sensors.

Carl Schultheiss suggested to add a total of 2 more temperature sensors, 

each next to the (He) outlet beneath both the current leads, for 

diagnostic/debugging purpose when we see a quench or something wrong, 

even though the voltage taps would tell us about the quench (etc.) 

before the temperature sensors.

However, Paul Giannotti told us that those are wrapped inside the 

chimney and are not accessible unless we break open the chimney and all 

those wrappings.  People felt that this was an action too risky to 

take.  Furthermore, Joe Muratore (who has been very experienced in the 

diagnosing magnet quenches or other problems) told us that the voltage 

taps actually may tell us more than the temperature sensors and he 

felt/thought it's enough to have the voltage taps (without the 

additional temperature sensors) if it's impractical to add the 

temperature sensors.

So, it's decided not to add additional temperature sensors. Peter 

Wanderer and Joe promised that Joe will come to debug/diagnose the 

problem when the sPHENIX Magnet has a problem like that in the future :-)

3a.  I mentioned that, through email communication with John Cozzolino, 

John told me that after changing the "current" to "current densities" in 

his ANSYS Maxwell model, John's simulation/calculation now obtain a 

central field  very close to Wuzheng's (and the real measurements that 

we have had at 100 A test).   John told us now, he's using the new 

B-field results (in 2D) and going through the ANSYS stress analysis.  

He's comparing  this all-ANSYS result with his stress analysis results 

that he used Wuzheng's B-field/force (from Opera) as input to ANSYS' 

stress analysis.  He'll probably show us in the next meeting.

3b. This coming Friday (July 22), there will be a small 

discussion/review with Pablo Rosas' changes on the sPHENIX Magnet Power 

Supply (originally from BaBar) such that Pablo will show a few of us 

(including some power supply experts) his changes to the power supply.

3c. Carl Schultheiss has also promised to show us (including Bob 

Lambiase) a scheme of the quench detection/DAQ for the full-field test.  

He said this may happen in a couple of weeks.

4. Jim Mills asked about the scheduling.  I informed people that the 

Cryo group (Paul Orfin/Roberto Than) has sent their changes to the old 

version of the Microsoft Project file and I've passed them to Dave 

Phillips.   Frank Achim (who has just got back from vacation) and Carl 

haven't done the scheduling modification yet.  Carl said he'll make the 

changes after discussing it with Pablo, esp. after the above-mentioned 

Friday's review.   Dave Phillips told me after the meeting that he still 

thinks the welding is the critical path --- here we assume that the 

extension works will be done on time.

4.1  Ed O'Brien has asked me to ask Jon Hock for his cost estimate for 

the welding and bracket etc. for the return yoke (for full-field 

test).   I sent an email when I couldn't find Jon.  But just before 

writing this, I met Dave and Jon and Jon said that he'll do this on 

Friday (as he had to work on the ERL-related stuff tomorrow on Thursday).

_______________________________________________

Sphenix-magnet-l mailing list

Sphenix-magnet-l AT lists.bnl.gov

https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-magnet-l