Engineering Meeting 

 

15 January 2003

Agenda and Presentations

1:30     Introductory remarks (Neilson/Reiersen)

1:45     Modeling the modular coil design (Williamson)

2:15     Modular coil insulation design (Fan)

2:30     PF/TF insulation design (Kalish)

2:45     Vacuum vessel geometry (Brooks)

3:15     Port geometry and diagnostic viewing (Johnson/Feder)

3:45     CS geometry (Brown)

4:05     Winding R&D and conductor testing (Chrzanowski)

4:30     Technical issues for the MCWF procurement (Nelson)

5:00     Adjourn

Summary

An Engineering meeting was held on 15 January 2003. Hutch Neilson opened the meeting with an update on developments outside the Project.

David Williamson reported on progress modeling the new modular coils.  The winding packs have been modeled.  A model of the shell and wing sections has also been developed.  Williamson is in the process of developing an integrated model of the shell and tees.  Williamson agreed to provide the model of the winding packs to Art Brooks for use in VV sizing.

HM Fan discussed the impact on cooldown of the thicker insulation proposed at the December meeting by Chrzanowski, Ramakrishnan, et al.  The bottom line was that it had a very small impact on cooldown.  It was agreed that the thicker insulation scheme should be adopted in the modular coil design.  Fan agreed to look at the impact of [1] adding ceramic insulation between the copper cladding and SS tee-section, [2] using a thicker copper sheet on the  outside of the winding pack (the side not in contact with the tee section), and [3] using a coolant tube embedded in the shell instead of attached to the clamp..

Mike Kalish discussed voltage standoff requirements and proposed insulation thickness for the conventional (solid copper conductor with internal cooling) coils.  His recommendations were well received.  The only question was whether we should use the same insulation throughout or have special insulation for the coils with the highest voltage (PF4 and TF coils).  Kalish discussed the possibility of using B-stage epoxy.  (Kalish to finalize recommendations re PF4 and TF coils.)

Art Brooks reviewed progress in sizing the vacuum vessel.  His code appears to be working well.  His main concern was that if we use the required builds as provided, the minimum separation between the plasma and coil centerline is inadequate. Brooks agreed to do the following (working the problem backwards):

Use Williamson's newly defined winding packs

Work with Williamson to orient the modular coil closest to the NB port to provide maximum space for the vacuum vessel

Move the VV out, centering it between the modular coils inboard and outboard.

Maintain a 1" assembly gap when sliding the modular coils over the vacuum vessel

The above steps would allow the "biggest" vacuum vessel to be defined.  Once the vacuum vessel is defined, then the "biggest" first wall could be defined.  Brooks agreed to define a first wall set based on the specified offset from the vacuum vessel.  Where this offset would reduce the plasma-FW separation to less than 2cm, the build between the first wall and vacuum vessel would be reduced to preserve a plasma-FW separation of at least 2cm.

David Johnson and Russ Feder presented a novel concept for expanding diagnostic views of the plasma, especially in the vicinity of the symmetry planes near the NB ports.  The basic idea is to re-orient the port from having a radial view to one that is canted more towards the symmetry.  The port would also be flared at the ends to increase the field of view.  Russ Feder will work with Mike Cole (ORNL) and Mike Viola (PPPL) to resolve port attachment issues.

Jim Chrzanowkski provide a nice update on recent progress and near term plans for winding R&D.

Brad Nelson previewed his recommendations for the peer review next week.  They were all generally accepted.  Next Wednesday afternoon, there will be a dry run of the presentations for the peer review starting at 1:30pm.