SlideServe
Télécharger Obtenir Pro
Menu
Accueil Pro
Préférences
ApparenceLight Aide et commentaires
© SlideServe · v2026

SB2009 Rebaselining Proposal Overview and Status Report

mieko avatar
mieko
18 diapositives · 260 Views · Aug 06, 2014

Explore the current status and progress of the SB2009 Rebaselining Proposal document, including key considerations and updates from various sections. Find out what remains the same, potential issues, and classifications. Get insights on the layout, parameters, and critical issues that need attention.

#sb2009 rebaselining proposal overview and status report #sb2009 rebaselining proposal overview and status report ppt #powerpoint #presentation
SB2009 Rebaselining Proposal Overview and Status Report - slide 1
01 / 18SB2009 Rebaselining Proposal Overview and Status Report
1 / 17

Télécharger la présentation

SB2009 Rebaselining Proposal Overview and Status Report
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation

Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement. Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien. Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.

F I N

Plus de contenu associé

Transcription de la présentation

  1. Status of SB2009 Rebaselining Proposal Document, Known to the Editor As of 20091201vers.A N.Toge Check: http://ilc.kek.jp/SB2009/SB20091201A.pdf

  2. ½. Introduction / Overview (PMs)http://ilc.kek.jp/SB2009/Intro20091201A.docx • Formatted Manuscript on the web? • Yes, although still partially in WIP by PMs • Remarks • Intro • needs minor clean-up • Overview • List of what remains the same as RDR? • Cavity performance “reserve” issue • Classification • PROBABLY OK, IF PMs WORK HARDER

  3. 3. SB2009 Layout (PM + Paterson)http://ilc.kek.jp/SB2009/Layout20091130A.docx • Formatted Manuscript on the web? • Yes • Author – Editor iteration? • Once • Remarks • ML length needs to be stated. • One more critical editing, anyone? • Classification • Worry but probably OK

  4. X.X Parameters (PMs + Toge)http://ilc.kek.jp/SB2009/IntroDraft20091105A.docx • Formatted Manuscript on the web? • No • Remarks • Classification • Given up. • Has been absorbed as part of 2.2.

  5. 4.1 Gradient Issues (Yamamoto)http://ilc.kek.jp/SB2009/SRF20091130D.docx • Formatted Manuscript on the web? • Yes, although still partially in WIP by PMs + Experts • Remarks • Needs clean-up cavity performance summary • Needs sort out the statements to make in the cavity performance reserve issue • Classification • Near the edge. Needs attention.

  6. 4.2/3 Electron and Positron Sources (Brachmann, Clarke)http://ilc.kek.jp/SB2009/Injectors20091130A.docx • Formatted Manuscript on the web? • Yes • Author – Editor iteration? • Once but w. open loop • Classification • Likely to be OK, pending authors’ timely response

  7. 4.4 Damping Rings (Guiducci)http://ilc.kek.jp/SB2009/DR20091130A.docx • Formatted Manuscript on the web? • Yes • Author – Editor iteration? • Done once • Classification • Mostly OK, pending small fixes.

  8. 4.5 RTML (Solyak)http://ilc.kek.jp/SB2009/RTML20091130B.docx • Formatted Manuscript on the web? • Yes • Author – Editor iteration? • Done once • Classification • Mostly OK.

  9. 4.6 ML (Nantista, Fukuda)http://ilc.kek.jp/SB2009/ML20091130A.docx • Formatted Manuscript on the web? • Yes • Author – Editor iteration? • Done once, but • KCS known to be in WIP by authors • Important Comment • Pulse length issue needs to be explained. • Classification • Perhaps OK, pending authors’ timely response

  10. 4.7 BDS (Seryi)http://ilc.kek.jp/SB2009/BDS20091130B.doc • Formatted Manuscript on the web? • Yes • Author – Editor iteration? • Done once. • Minor open issues fixable on the spot. • But what about phys/det inquiry issues? • Classification • Likely OK, pending addressing phys/det vs accelerator interaction issues.

  11. 4.8 CFS (Kuchler)http://ilc.kek.jp/SB2009/CFS20091201A.docx • Formatted Manuscript on the web? • Yes • Author – Editor iteration? • Done once. • Classification • Likely OK, pending small touch-ups.

  12. 5. Costing (Garbincius)http://ilc.kek.jp/SB2009/Cost20091120A.docx • Formatted Manuscript on the web? • Yes • Author – Editor iteration? • Done once. • Final text / tables known to be in WIP by the author. • Classification • Likely OK, pending guideline clarification by PMs and the work by the author.

  13. 6. Risk Analysis (Ross)http://ilc.kek.jp/SB2009/RiskDraft20091105.docx • Formatted Manuscript on the web? • No • Author – Editor iteration? • No • Classification • Major schedule threat

  14. A. Availability Analysis (MCR/Avail)http://ilc.kek.jp/SB2009/AvailDraft20091104.docx • Formatted Manuscript on the web? • No • Author – Editor iteration? • Authors known to be at it. ETA unclear. • Classification • Major schedule threat

  15. Critical Issues • ML length • Path length matching known to be addressed • QWT compensation needs to be stated • Energy reserve needs to be stated • ML alternate pulsing • Handling of lowE beam in highE in ML needs to be stated • Costing Reference • “Starting point” needs to be stated • Summary statements need group-wide confirmation

  16. Sections Recovering From Crisis (Still needs intense care) • Intro / Overview • SRF Gradient

  17. Sections in Crisis • Risk analysis • Availability

  18. To Do at DESY Face-to-Face • Triage process • Critical open issues  • Group-wide or semi-group wide discussion and surgery on the spot. • With some follow-up work on subsequent days. • Semi-trivial touch-ups  • Identify issues on the spot. Fixes be applied by the primary authors on the fly. • With some follow-up work on subsequent days if needed. • ~17 subsections x 30 min = 9 hrs .eqv. 1 Full Day + reserve • Time is limited: We need to-the-point and concise-efficient discussion and response. No digressing speech, no tangential commentary, no unproductive ranting, please. • Prep and org for AAP • One quarter day