Notes from Engineering meeting - including a list of "interfaces"

(Revised) Notes from Braidwood Engineering Meeting
December 1, 2004

Attending: Ed Blucher, Matt Worcester, Elizabeth Pod, David Reyna,
Maury Goodman*, Hans Jostlein, Vic Guarino, Larry Bartoszek
(*) took these notes

There was much discussion about goals, previous documents, and specific
engineering issues. In particular, Maury wanted to be sure that he
understood the specific goals for the next round of documents, and
participants offered input for that.

Interfaces
Motivated by the particular need to establish and understand the
interface between the veto system and the inner detector, we discussed
the interface needs, item by item
1. Detector/Veto
a. What would be the thickness of the passive detector?- one meter
b. How is the steel detector moved in and out of the veto detector?
(Hans Jostlein handed out a design sketch how to do this.
c. Is there a hole in the top of the veto counter for a source system?
d. If there isn't, what are the implications for the design of a
calibration system?
e. What is the method of liquid installation into the inside of the veto
system?
f. Is all the electronics inside the veto system?
g. Will there be need for human access inside the veto system on top of
the chimney? Will it be regular? Will it be occasional?
It was concluded that we probably had more of an impact on the veto
system than the other way around. We should ask that some distance, at
least one meter, be kept clear above the chimney inside the veto
system. This specification will be clarified later.
2. Interface with the calibration group
How will the calibration system be designed?
3. Interface with electronics
There will probably be a low number of cables coming in and out to the
detector through the veto system. Is that correct?
4. Interface with the scintillator group
How will liquid handling be done?
Will there be containment underground?
5. Interface with Civil Construction
What are the total dimensions needed for detector plus veto?
How far from the shaft should the detector be?
Will there be need for other space underground?
6. Interface with lifting contract
This will be done (?) by Belding
7. Interface with simulations
A list of specifications and tolerances will be needed.

Work Division (with respect to Detector Engineering for the near term)

Chicago - Calibration Deployment System
                Phototube Support system

Fermilab - Underground motion and support systems
                Mechanical aspect of interfaces with civil
                Roads and Utilities
Argonne Acrylic vessel
                Steel vessel
                Liquid handling
Bartoszek Engineering - Veto System (?)

[The (?) reflects the fact that we should expect minimal work other than
attendance at meetings until funds are identified.]

Document Plan
Our plan for document preparation is basically the following. The
collaboration will continue to design the experiment and label decisions
and these will be incorporated in the "baseline detector" document which
will be maintained on the web page of the University of Chicago.

An engineering baseline document will be maintained at Argonne with
contributions from all engineering groups. Between now and March,
progress is to be expected on conceptual design. After March (or
whenever R&D funds are received), an effort will be made to extensively
update the cost estimate in the R&D proposal.
Received on Thu Dec 2 17:57:14 2004