Action List

Friday 4 Nov 2022, 09:00 → 11:00 Europe/Zurich

*Priority: level 1 needed for 2
Red: how it is proposed to formalize/approve/arbitrate the outcome of the study item
Green: action completed
Study item	Related actions	Priority (1-2)*	Status
2. Create tables with functional spec/requirements	A. Organize dedicated discussion with A. Chancé & B. Dalena to agree on alignment and stability booster requirements (on top of other booster considerations: length of magnets, etc.)	1	Ongoing, meeting organized on November 2nd
	B. Complete with information already existing on the collider / update them in dedicated accelerator pillar meeting on November 1st	1	Ongoing, meeting on November 1st
	C. Add alignment scales as an alignment table parameter, link with Study Item 5	1	Ongoing, meeting with Helene on November 4th
	D. Document spec/requirements with references, ask help to the Advisors for this (experience on past studies & machines)	2	To start
	E. Submit table(s) to Tor, Frank, Katsunobu, Antoine for approval	2	To start
3. Propose 2 robust horizontal & vertical booster/collider configurations (Ø5.5m tunnel)	A. Organize dedicated discussion with G. Peon to review cooling specifications to update (reduce…) pipe diameters (and relaunch with users about power capacity and acceptable deltaT’s)	1	Ongoing, Guillermo contacted, he is working at the minimization of the diameter; on top of that, Jeremie and Cedric/Roberto are reviewing their cooling requests. We start on the base of a D40cm pipe
	B. Space occupancy for alignment systems to be minimized taking into consideration innovation (e.g. structured laser beam)	1	Ongoing, starting on the principle of BBA with removal of mechanical alignment system after alignment (less space occupancy)
	C. Optimize the design of booster support related to the vertical configuration, and calculate eigenfrequencies / ground motion amplification. If horizontal shift of booster beneficial, iterate with other WG coordinators for its feasibility	1	Ongoing, Callum prepared the design, Lucie performing calculations. Also, discussed in a meeting with booster responsible (B. Dalena, A. Chance)
	D. Launch study with Fani of “3rd option configuration” with central corridor	2	Ongoing, launched with Fani.
	E. Consider impacts on other aspects (e.g. radiation, activation, beam optics, BvsC horiz. order, etc.)	2	Ongoing, collected in the list of pros and cons
	F. Once “robust” configurations are available, complete list of pro’s and con’s, and submit to -) 18/11/22 Advisors for feedback and recommended solution  -) 25/11/22 Pillar Coordinators + M. Benedikt for evaluation / decision	2	List prepared, to be finalized
4. Girder vs individual support concept	A. Add quadrupole transfer function to the two solutions already calculated (girder & single supports); ideally, complete with transfer function between magnetic axis and beam axis + crosstalk between the two machines	1	Ongoing, Lucie working at this calculation
	B.If needed, increase the number of feet of the girders (4-6 feasible) to increase its stability (use of feet with wedges for alignment)	2	Part of action 4.A
	C. Progress in the qualitative cost estimation (comparison between girder vs single support options), initially considering the cost of the equipment only	1	Ongoing, girder cost estimated, VSC contacted for flanges/bellows
	D. Complete list of pro’s and con’s  (consider also impedance budget, alignment duration, etc.)   and: -) Week 45 arc half-cell regular meeting: discuss and come out with a preferred option -) 18/11/22: Present (with preferred option) to Advisors for validation	2	List prepared, to be finalized
5. Propose alignment strategy over different length scales	A. Organize dedicated discussion(s) with Helene and colleagues, Tor, Frank, Roberto to review state of the art and envisaged R&D (structured laser beam, alignment concepts, BBA)	1	Ongoing, several discussions and visits with Helene already organized
	B. If trim circuits judged to be needed, requirements to be communicated to TE/MSC for integration in the magnet design	2	It follows action 5.A
	C. Organize dedicated discussion with M. Wendt for BPM space reservation / integration	1	Completed, discussed in mid-October and space reserved
6. Propose a 1st configuration of the half-cell mock-up	A. First proposal on main objectives and possible configuration from Federico, Lucie	1	Ongoing, moving from low to high energy considerations
	B. First iteration with Jeremie, Cedric, Manfred, Helene on the objectives and on the contributions in terms of prototypes	2	To start
	C. Dedicated discussion at the arc-half cell internal meeting	2	To start
	D. To be refined / confirmed at the end of the Phase I (or after)	2	To start