Agenda

Safety: The entire weekly meeting was devoted to safety and ISM. As many of you do not make it to the weekly meeting we will now send out an Email notifying you that this week's meeting notes are available. We expect you to look at and understand them. This is partcularly true about safety.

Translation Stage Overrun: The translation stages of the SUT overran its limits and damaged the translation stages. Here are a few pictures showing the damage (p1, p2, p3, p4). The concern here was not that we damaged a piece of equipment, but possibly what might have happened. The translation stage hold the undulator. The question is if it breaks what keeps the undulator from falling. Although we do not feel that in this case it was possible the fact remains that we did not fully think through the work and what possible problems might come up. We did not follow the ISM principles. Because of this the meeting was devoted to a review of ISM and to a discussion of how we can improve.

ISM Presentation: A presentation was extracted from the ANL ES&H area and used to duscuss ISM in light of the recent translation stage overrun. (See below.) Please, if you were not at the meeting, look at the presentation, and if you have any questions come and ask one of us. ISM is an important methodolgy that we use to ensure safe work for ourselves, others, our equipment, and the laboratory. I would rather you spend a little more time ensuring everything is safe and following whatever procedures are in place than to hurry up the job and possibly do something that is unsafe.

Discussion: Elroy Chang led off by making the simple observation that it's not about complex methodlogies, it's about thinking. Take a moment to think about safety. If there is a question ask someone. He also offered himself up to create any necessary signage that you might think is needed.

Jim Lang next chimed in to say that communications are key, and not just any communications but open, free communications. One should not feel inhibited to speak up to a senior scientist/engineering or manager if, for instance, you are a technician. Everybodys constructive input on safety isses are welcome and this communication should go both ways.

We next discussed the use of the logbook. People have been using it, but Milton suggested that had it been used more regularly we might not have had this problem occur. We should be making a better effort at writing everything into the logbook. In fact we are requiring that all work be described in the logbook. This is our record of our decisions and work process. Please keep it current.

Another possible source of confusion is that this project relies heavily on matrixing people into the work. We discussed the overall chain of command of the LCLS project. This runs through Milton, Pile, then to Walters, White, and Stein, but in the end each of us is responsible for overall safety. Our project safety representative is still Richard Hislop, but our eyes and ears of safety localling are Jim Lang and Elroy Chang. Job hazard questionaires are still the responsibility of the Group Leaders and the People within their group. Group Leaders have been informed of people within their group that are working on the LCLS project and it is the responsibility to carry this further by having people have periodic interactions with their respective group leaders.

Marion White brought up the need for having turnover procedures. These would be short procedures that say how one "passes over" the SUT to the next group who will be working on it. We will think about how this should be done and implement it in cases that are appropriate.

Management Report: Milton discussed he and Fran Clark's visit to SLAC for the Earned Value Management System certification review. In short it is nothing you want to have to go through.

He also discussed the recent problem with the webpages and stated that it had been fixed, but if other problems are seen to let him know about it.

Geoff Pile Report: There was a power supply meeting at SLAC. Geoff and Josh met with the appropriate people to discuss how power supplies for the undulator magnets will be handled. SLAC will be responsible for all controls and power supply purchases. They will also be responsible for the cabling. ANL will be responsible for providing specifications.

Josh and Geoff attended another meeting with Catherine and Franz to discuss the HLS and WPM system and its inclusion into the SUT. SLAC will make the prototype supports for the SUT and ship these to APS for inclusion onto the girder. These are expected to arrive roughly 2 weeks before the SUT phase I test is complete.

During the visit to SLAC we found out about bolts that were stuck in te prototype. Geoff reports that we will be doing testing to understand what went wrong. We suspect there is galling between the SS both and SS inserts. We have never seen this at APS on the prototype.

Geoff and Josh also met with Mario Ortega to discuss cable trays. Right now there are only 2 shown in the construction files yet we need three. ANL will create tables to be used for final design. We will specify all cables and SLAC will be responsible for the final choice of compliant cables that satisfy ours and their specifications.

Marion White Report: Good news first. The 1st article undulator from metalex has arrived. The photo is of the 1st article right before it was shipped to ANL.

Lead/Mentor/Consult is the philosophy that we are using in all our interactions with SLAC. In the case of the magnet measurements this mean we lead and teach SLAC how to do the measurements so that the devices achieve the desired performance. Members of SLAC then need to write the tuning procedure and this needs to be discussed and ultimately approved by ANL. ANL oversees the first couple of measurements and then it is up to SLAC with ANL acting in the consult role.

We need to get Zak and/or Yuri here for a couple of weeks to work with Isaac on the tuning of the 1st couple of articles. Next week might be a good week, but those involved need to decide.

Also, in light of the overall mechanical complexity of the entire undulator system, a mechanical engineer from SLAC should be assigned to the undulator system. We (ANL) believe it is a necessity.

Isaac 1st Article Tuning Report: Isaac has now had a few days to work on tuning the 1st article Hi-Tech undulator and gave a presentation with his initial results.

A few questions came up. HD requested a field plot of the 1st article measurements. Isaac said he would send one along. Because there seemed to be some confusion as to the overall measurement procedure, Milton offered up a step by step description. We then went on to a discussion of the mu-metal shield and whether more holes could be put into it so that one does not need to remove it to set the gap. There is a strong difference of opinion here right now that does not seem possible to reconcile until Zak and/or Yuri come out to work with Isaac.

Emil Report About Bolt Testing: Emil had one viewgraph and a small mounting block to show. He emphisized that there were SS inserts and that the only way to really jam the bolts is to over torque. The specified torque is 40 N-m (29.5 ft-lb). He is constructing a small test fixture to test whether the bolts are jammed under ordinary torqueing. There are 2 pairs of two bolts in the fixture. these will be lossened and torqued 20 times. Zak asked that we add shims to make it more realistic (4.5 mrad cant). He will do this. Yuri feels that 3 pairs of two bolts would be a better simulation. It was not clear whether Emil will do this, but it is so easy to do so why not. Heinz-Dieter wondered how close to damaging the threads we are at 40 N-m. We will check that too at the end of the 20 cycle test.

We then went on to a sshort dicussion about the mu-metal shields. Emil described their installation and removal. It is a 5 minute 1 person job. Isaac has already proven that. The shield are merly unbolted and bent outward slightly to remove. There was the question as to whether they needed to be annealed. Emil did not think so, but we are going to have them annealed anyway.

Collins Report on the Segment Replacement Testing: Jeff gave a short presentation showing the initial results of the replacing a undulator to high precision.

A question that came up was what is the tolerance we are shooting for? Jeff showed numbers of 100 um H and 70 um V, but I do not feel these are appropriate. These are what is required for all tolerance buildup. We need to do significantly better than this.

Although the results of the tests were very good there are opportunities for improvement. Future shims will be made of hardened polished steel. We also need to get more realistic and install quadrupoles and beam finder wires. This places more constaints on where we mount the keyance cubes. We also need to determine how to do this measurement with 2 different undulators and make it believable. There were some suggestions about how to do this, but no conclusion.

Powerpoint file showing a representation of the SUT. (Note: this is a big, dimensionally speaking, file).