Risk Based R&D Plan

1. Risk Based R&D Plan Martin Cooper Los Alamos

2. Outline • The Process • Reevaluation of the Program • Iteration on the Contents • Risk Methodology • The Plan • Assumptions • Schedule Overview • Risk Overview • Contract Project Manager Actions • The Schedule Challenge • News • Summary

3. The Process

4. Reevaluation of the Program • One day of the October collaboration meeting was devoted to reevaluating every part of the R&D plan • The CPM appointed an advisory committee • Jan Boissevain (Consultant) – Chief Engineer • Bob Golub (NCSU) • Geoff Greene (Tennessee/ORNL) • Mike Hayden (SFU) • Steve Lamoreaux (Yale) – Co-spokesperson • Committee reported their evaluations individually • CPM made decisions

5. Iteration on Contents

6. Risk Methodology R&D Project

7. Risk Methodology

8. The Plan

9. Assumptions • Most R&D will be completed by the end of CY’07 • Technical feasibility will be established by the end of CY’07 • Resources will move as needed • Some small amount of new funding will be found • The R&D will be evaluated by the impact of all results on the sensitivity of the EDM experiment

10. Cost during FY’07

11. Schedule Overview

12. Schedule Overview

13. Risk Overview

14. Risk Overview

15. Contract Project Manager Actions • Promote duplicate effort on 3He relaxation • Get other institutions to assist in valve development • Search for addition funding for full valve test • Encourage NCSU team not to distract Duke team • Get agreement on magnet uniformity requirement • Search for addition funding for the 3He holding coil • Increase scientific staffing on the HV tests • Redirect engineering and technician efforts to the new cryostat • Get Yale to coordinate the SQUID effort • Get other institutions to assist in the 3He injection test • Decide whether to fund the laser fluorescence work • Withhold funding of the slow controls prototype • Request a set of standards for slow controls

16. The Schedule Challenge

17. The New Cryostat ABS HV Test Cryostat

18. Transition Region “Film Burner” pump out “Film Burner” “Cs Region”

19. Holding Coil Tri-coil Helmholtz magnet

20. 3He Collection Volume Kapton seal 40mm Pyrex O-ring joint Polarized 3He beam NMR pickup coil

21. Cs Film Controller Teflon O-ring to seal Cs when warm Cesium ring

22. The Film Burner “Film burner” pump out Heat sink to 4K shield Heat sink to 1 K pot Super-fluid film flow Solenoid magnet, Φ4” Heat sink to DR still

23. Film Burner Detail .5mm gap to create gas flow impedance Knife edge Super-fluid film flow

24. News

25. Measurement Concept 1/Fill Time = Production Rate - Loss Rate Absorption Time 1/Detector Loss Rate Storage Time

26. 100 s holding time Counts (/s) Time (s)

27. Results – 300 & 50 K 230±5 s ln(counts) 110±10 s Delay Time (s)

28. Crazing

29. Summary • The Process • Reevaluation of the Program – No major changes but some additions where possible in response to the CD-1 review • Risk Methodology – Separate impact evaluation from the main project • The Plan • Assumptions – The technical challenges dominate • Schedule Overview – New cryostat is the critical path • Risk Overview – 6 high and 12 medium evaluations out of 60 • Contract Project Manager Actions – Working to optimize our effectiveness • The Schedule Challenge – The new cryostat is a significant experiment in its own right • News – Storage time measurement