From: Mike Cole
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 11:04 AM
To: Michael E. Viola
Cc: Nelson, Brad E.; Henry W. Kugel; Thomas G. Brown; Wayne T. Reiersen; Goranson, Paul L.; Phil Heitzenroeder

Attachments: SMC100-001-NB_RevA.pdf

Mike V,



Tom Brown asked that I look at the interface between the NB and the NB port to determine if a chamfer on the inside edge of the port is required. I have attached a pdf file showing the clearance between the NB and the vacuum vessel NB port. 



Tom Brown, Henry Kugel and I had a discussion about this area last year and agreed that we would have to place a scrapper and some protective armor around the vacuum vessel NB port at the mid-plane to reduce the heating in this area. 



If we allow an increase in the tolerance of .5 inch (total tolerance of .1875 + .5 = .625) the vacuum vessel/NB Port will be into the fringe area of the beam. This clearly makes the problem worse in this area. If it is acceptable to have protective armor and scrappers in this area then we probably will not need to chamfer this area of the port. If we determine later that a chamfer is needed it would seem to be a minor modification to chamfer a small area at the mid-plane. At this point it would be difficult to estimate the amount of chamfer that might be needed.



If everyone is in agreement with the approach described above then I would recommend that we not chamfer the NB port at this time.



Mike C.







Michael J. Cole 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory 
Bldg 5700, Rm. G306, MS 6169 
Bethel Valley Road 
P.O. Box 2008 
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6169 

Phone 865-574-2954 
Fax   865-241-1038 
E-mail: colemj@ornl.gov