I just talked with Nancy about the status of the proposal for using the C prototype as a production casting.  She said it's still in limbo, given the high level of activities for the C1 casting.  MTM gave them a cost proposal which needs an update, and she needs to get MetalTek's input about what their "give back" may be if one casting was deleted from their scope. She asked my opinion, and I said it would probably only be interesting to us if it was cost neutral or almost cost neutral and if there was a significant schedule advantage.  I believe Nancy still feels much like she did a few months ago - that this casting would potentially be different than the others and this is a concern.  She noted that the interest really came about when the pattern schedule and pour schedule looked in doubt in November, and maybe the case isn't as compelling now. She's going to see if she can move the costing / contract issues along, but most likely it won't be until after the Holidays.  

 

The problem we have is finishing up the fracture properties in time for the FDR.  The most representative specimens will be those cut from the wall of the prototype.  I'm concerned that cast test plates may have more oxides due to the relative crudeness of their molds;  also, they will not be subject to the same thermal history as the "real" casting.

 

My suggestions:

·        Wait until after we return to see if the C proto proposal comes together, but I think we need to expect that this will not be particularly attractive to us.  

·        Barring big issues with the C1 when they de-mold it, I’d suggest we stay with our current production plan and not use the prototype for anything other than machining development, test specimens,and feedstock. I’d suggest we set a target decision date of Jan. 7.

·        In the meantime, Brad is putting together a marked-up drawing showing where we want the test material cut.  Per Wayne’s suggestion, I will put together a 1 pg. statement of work that calls for MTM to cut out the specimens and MetalTek to weld some of them.  Brad, do you think we can limit the cutting to the port cut-out regions just to hedge our bets?

o       Sufficient material for 6 welded CT specimens and 6 unwelded.

·        PPPL’s shop will then do the rough machining, and then we need to get a new contract with Crystal Engrg. to wire edm the CT specimens and Bob Walsh to do the tests.  Schedule no doubt will be tight.

 

PS: We talked about the proposed January visit, at which time a major goal will be to accept the C1 as a good casting so we  can close out of the cost reimbursement contract and proceed with Production. She’s going to ask Joe his opinion about date, but I suspect the week of January 10 may be it.  Please send me agenda items so I can begin to work that with Nancy and Joe.      

 

Comments?

 

Thanks

Phil  

 

Mr. Philip Heitzenroeder

Head, Mechanical Engineering Division

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Princeton, NJ 08543

e-mail:  pheitzen@pppl.gov

Phone:  609-243-3043;  Fax 609-243-3030