Login

5-m long block (M-BOND): Status and next steps

→ Europe/Zurich
Hide

Main comments from the discussion:

  • Ezio - Naming:
    • We will use BOND-M  instead of M-BOND. Size in the naming always comes in the form of suffix (MQXF - MQXFS - MQXFB)
  • Ezio - Slide 7: 
    • The statement " Develop an alternative to the tie rods + endplate system for medium and long size magnets" requires / deserves a proper study that shows that the rods work or not for 15 m / 20 m magnets.
  • Ezio - Slide 10:
    • The choice on making 2 coils from one unit length may need to be better supported. The current coil provides 12 T with 20 % LL margin in a 35 mm aperture. One should also show the load line and conductor requirements for a 14 T version (BOND).
  • Ezio - Slide 13:
    • We should also clarify why we went from a mirror (understood as the first idea) to the current version. 
      • Note that this was discussed in the first conceptual design meeting. We will add the slide to this PPT version.
  • Ezio - Slide 22:
    • The comparison between coil physical and magnetic length is not fair between BOND-M and MQXF. 
      • The aperture is extremely different. If BOND-M would have the same aperture as MQXF, the end length would be much longer to allow opening the required space. 
      • We should compare it with 11 T.
  • Ezio - Slide 24:
    • Please rephrase "BOND relies on novel systems like ESC/E-CLIQ ..." because we have not proven this yet.

 

There are minutes attached to this event. Show them.
Powered by Indico v3.3.7-pre