From: To: Subject: RE: EMMA costing Date: 2010 November 24; Wednesday 11:41 Hi Stephen Here is the staff to project breakdown for EMMA. Please also note though, that there is engineering effort for RF as there also is for magnets and diagnostics in: EMMA MECHANICAL, SERVICES & CIVIL EMMA CONTROLS EMMA ELECTRICAL Therefore the 3 values for staff to project on the 3 engineering numbers will reduce without the RF. Lets say 25% reduction as an approximate value. There will be no motion control of the magnets on your proposal so that's a cost reduction. Hopefully you can use the same BPM electronics, which would be a big saving. The EMMA RF, magnets and diagnostics in the sheet is ASTeC staff only. The costs of the sheets I've sent you include the EMMA ring, injection line and diagnostics beamline. So, some saving here also. Although you need to include new injection, extraction configurations for the vertical injection, extraction and corresponding changes to these lines. If we can use the same footprint and cable management system then that could save on the infrastructure and installation costs. You can get a good appreciation of this when you're here next week. As a very quick broad estimate without doing much work. I would say that you are in the ball park £4.2m project. Approx £2.2 for procurement and approx £2m staff (25 sy). To be more accurate I would encourage a feasibility study that looks at the magnets, power supplies, vacuum chambers and installation effort in much more detail. I hope this helps. Please call if you wish to discuss. Regards Neil -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Brooks [mailto:sb@stephenbrooks.org] Sent: 23 November 2010 18:31 To: Bliss, Neil (STFC,DL,EID) Subject: Re: EMMA costing Basically I only need to know the big chunks - i.e. whether staff effort was associated with getting the RF up and running, which is of course effort I won't need a second time in my proposal (hopefully). Anything you come up with would be interesting to see - thanks, -Stephen -----Original Message----- From: neil.bliss@stfc.ac.uk Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 6:25 PM To: sb@stephenbrooks.org Subject: RE: EMMA costing Hi Stephen I can break the staff down approximately from data I have. Please remind me if you don't get something in the next day or so. Thanks Neil -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Brooks [mailto:sb@stephenbrooks.org] Sent: 23 November 2010 15:50 To: Bliss, Neil (STFC,DL,EID) Subject: Re: EMMA costing Thanks, I'll try and integrate these into my next costing (though not the one I'm going to show at the meeting in 15 minutes time!) There doesn't seem to be any breakdown of the "staff" element in those spreadsheets - am I right? -Stephen -----Original Message----- From: neil.bliss@stfc.ac.uk Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 3:45 PM To: sb@stephenbrooks.org Cc: david.kelliher@stfc.ac.uk Subject: RE: EMMA costing Hi Stephen Apologises again for the delay. Here are 2 sheets that don't match but are close enough for estimating purposes. Regards Neil -----Original Message----- From: Bliss, Neil (STFC,DL,EID) Sent: 22 November 2010 16:28 To: 'Stephen Brooks' Cc: Kelliher, David (STFC,RAL,AST) Subject: RE: EMMA costing Hi Stephen The cost breakdown in the attached link is the one at the start of the project, which was our best estimate at that time. I have a much more accurate cost breakdown now based on the real costs. David did ask me some time ago for this information and I apologise for not doing it sooner. I'll have a look at it now and get back to you. Regards Neil -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Brooks [mailto:sb@stephenbrooks.org] Sent: 22 November 2010 15:56 To: Bliss, Neil (STFC,DL,EID) Subject: EMMA costing Dear Neil, David Kelliher turned up this talk by you on the EMMA server. I was wondering if this was the most up-to-date cost estimate for EMMA? http://www.astec.ac.uk/emmafiles/meetings/mtg1%20-%20design%20review%20meeting%201/conform-emma-rev-mtg1-talk-0003v1.0-project-delivery-Neil-Bliss.ppt I'm asking because I'm going to have another go at costing the VFFAG, scaling from EMMA (taking account of which parts will and will not need replacing). By the looks of this talk it should come in roughly £3m or 60% of EMMA because the RF system is fully reused. So anyway, a link to any document with recent EMMA costings would be very useful! -Stephen -----Original Message----- From: neil.bliss@stfc.ac.uk Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 9:24 PM To: sb@stephenbrooks.org Cc: bruno.muratori@stfc.ac.uk Subject: RE: VFFAG EMMA proposal Hi Stephen Yes, the septum does provide the 70 degrees in a very compact space but the beam is still quite wide out when it passes through the QD and QF in the 1st cell between the septum and the 1st kicker. I guess on your configuration with the aperture being smaller in the horizontal plane then the septum could be closer in to the circulating beam than it currently is, which must help. Nevertheless it important to understand the injection geometry scheme to be sure what costs are involved with getting the beam in and out. The injection and extraction scheme (physics simulations, magnet design and engineering) for EMMA was really the most difficult tasks, because of its extremely compact nature. For a considerable amount of time we thought we had bitten off more than we could chew. Regards Neil -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Brooks [mailto:sb@stephenbrooks.org] Sent: 25 October 2010 18:24 To: Bliss, Neil (STFC,DL,EID); Muratori, Bruno (STFC,DL,AST) Subject: Re: VFFAG EMMA proposal Neil, Thanks for the information. Yes, the aperture (in the magnets, not necessarily elsewhere) is larger in the vertical than the horizontal. When I wrote it I was only really thinking about the EMMA septum that appears to produce about a 70 degree bend in a single drift of the lattice. The VFFAG magnetic field is nonlinear, so not very amenable to having the orbit go a long way off the horizontal centre, so two-kicker systems or other tricks involving off-centre orbits in the magnets are not suitable. I suppose you could try to put one kicker in the same 23cm long drift as the septum, to get the beam onto the central orbit, though it might need to be more powerful than what you currently have. (The septum in that case would produce a beam at an angle and the kicker would straighten it at the point it crosses the central orbit.) OK, this is a valid concern and I'll add items to my costing etc. and send back the document mid-week. -Stephen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bliss, Neil (STFC,DL,EID)" To: "Muratori, Bruno (STFC,DL,AST)" ; "Brooks, Stephen (STFC,RAL,AST)" Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 5:54 PM Subject: RE: VFFAG EMMA proposal Hi Bruno, Stephen, I've only had time today to have a quick scan through this and therefore have not read it in detail, so apologies if I'm on the wrong track here. Do I understand that the aperture is narrow in the horizontal and larger in the vertical direction. The opposite orientation of say a typical letter box aperture for a scaling FFAG. The reason I ask is that if that is the case then you need a new injection line, injection system, extraction system and diagnostic beamline. Or at least a major reconfiguration. Currently the beam injects into EMMA in the horizontal plane but in the new proposal the injection into such an aperture would need to be in the vertical direction ? Do I understand that correctly ? Currently in EMMA the horizontal aperture is wider through the first few quadrupoles (between the septum and the 1st kicker) i.e. in the gap between the poles. Special vacuum chambers exist locally at injection and extraction. Also, a relatively large horizontal aperture in the 2 kickers for injection and 2 kickers for extraction. I cant see the costs for the additional kit, so have I misunderstood ? The injection and extraction systems are significant cost and complexity, as we know from the EMMA experience. Finally, I'm trying to help not through a spanner in the works. So please get back to me if I can help develop your proposal. Best Wishes Neil -----Original Message----- From: Muratori, Bruno (STFC,DL,AST) Sent: 23 October 2010 16:40 To: Bliss, Neil (STFC,DL,EID); Machida, Shinji (STFC,RAL,AST); Smith, Susan (STFC,DL,AST); Angal-Kalinin, Deepa (STFC,DL,AST) Subject: FW: VFFAG EMMA proposal Dear All, I have received this from Stephen Brooks. I have not had the chance to read it in detail yet but I shall - maybe on the airplane to Japan :). It seems feasible - I have not fully understood everything that it entails yet. Best wishes, Bruno -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Brooks [mailto:stephen.brooks@stfc.ac.uk] Sent: 22 October 2010 20:05 To: Muratori, Bruno (STFC,DL,AST) Subject: VFFAG EMMA proposal Hi Bruno, Some weekend reading for you (attached)! If you want any additional information included or changes to the costing, etc. please let me know. -Stephen -------------------------------------------------- From: "Muratori, Bruno (STFC,DL,AST)" Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 2:37 PM To: "Brooks, Stephen (STFC,RAL,AST)" ; ; "Saveliev, Yuri (STFC,DL,AST)" ; "Owen, Hywel (-,DL,-)" Subject: Your EMMA proposals > Hi Yuri, Hi Tim, Hi Hywel, Hi Steven, > > > > Thank you for your EMMA / NS-FFAG proposals. I have been tasked with > putting all these > > proposals together for both the BASROC / CONFORM consortium and the > ASTeC internal > > bids and whatever other bids may come our way. This is fine by me > and I am happy to do > > it, however, I am seriously lacking in background material from any > of your proposals. So, > > what I would like from each of you is: > > > > - Reasonably detailed summary of what the proposal entails > > - Milestones / goals to be achieved by the proposal if accepted > > - FTEs required for the proposal to be put in place > > - Money required for the proposal > > > > Obviously, all of these can only be rough estimates but they are > better than nothing. The > > other thing is that I would like to have these asap - that is > considerably before the deadline > > of the 29th of October set by Jim Clarke. However, I only require a > rough (but as correct as > > possible) guideline. > > > > Best wishes, > > Bruno > > > > -- Scanned by iCritical. -- Scanned by iCritical. -- Scanned by iCritical. -- Scanned by iCritical. -- Scanned by iCritical.