1 / 18

Review of TDR Chapter 2 “ Neutron Science ”

Review of TDR Chapter 2 “ Neutron Science ”. Robert Connatser with thanks to: Marie-Louise Ainalem , Rikard Linander, Luca Zanini and Jan Lundgren. FINDINGS - 1. The chapter meets the requirements of the TDR Mission Statement and adequately covers the entire area of its topic.

darrelltaylor
Download Presentation

Review of TDR Chapter 2 “ Neutron Science ”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Review of TDR Chapter 2“Neutron Science” • Robert Connatser • with thanks to: • Marie-Louise Ainalem, Rikard Linander, • Luca Zanini and Jan Lundgren

  2. FINDINGS - 1 • The chapter meets the requirements of the TDR Mission Statement and adequately covers the entire area of its topic. • A substantial review of the science drivers is in Section 2.1. • A description of the reference suite of instruments is in Section 2.2. • A description of the desired support facilities is found in Section 2.3. • The technical infrastructure for instrument operations and R&D areas for instrument development are in Section 2.4. • DMSC is described in Section 2.5. TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  3. FINDINGS - 2 • The contents of this chapter are relevant to supporting the decision to proceed to construction. • The science drivers and instrument suite sections discuss the current thinking on areas of scientific inquiry that would be available with the ESS instruments. • The methods of utilizing the long pulse to amplify the scientific output of ESS instruments is adequately described. TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  4. FINDINGS - 3 • The content of chapter 2 is not properly balanced in all cases and too much detail is given in some areas. • Section 2.2 on the Instrument Suite has descriptions of each reference instrument that are not the same length or of consistently similar content. • Section 2.4.6 (Infrastructure Requirements) is too short (one paragraph). • Section 2.5 (DMSC) is too long compared to the other sections. TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  5. FINDINGS – 4 • Chapter 2 does not adequately address the interfaces to other related systems. • Interfaces to Target Systems is not described in any detail. • While pulse length is discussed in detail, no mention of the proposed moderatorswas made. • No commentary on shutters (light or heavy) was included. • Shielding issues with respect to the Accelerator are not discussed. • Section 2.4.6 is used to describe some interfaces with conventional facilities, but in limited detail. • Section 2.5 does not adequately discuss interfaces with the Accelerator and ICS in dealing with timing signals. • Section 2.5 does not adequately connect with the other sections of chapter 2. TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  6. FINDINGS - 5 • There are duplications within Chapter 2. No significant attempt was made to compare to other chapters. • Very many of the science driver, instrument descriptions, and other sections describe the same things: • neutrons interact strongly with hydrogen • the ESS is a long pulse source • The inconsistencies within the chapter are generally format related, not content. TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  7. FINDINGS - 6 • Chapter 2 does not address all phases of the ESS life-cycle. • Concept units and R&D to address development needs were discussed. • No discussion of any importance was made with respect to the construction phase. • Science Support was the only section to discuss operations. • No discussion was made in reference to decommissioning. • No discussion was made in regards to how radioactive waste is to be handled, either for samples or instrument components. TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  8. FINDINGS - 7 • Some discussion of risk was made within chapter 2. • This was generally limited to the technical risks on detectors and choppers. • There is a lack of discussion on the timing and feasibility of these risk issues. TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  9. FINDINGS - 8 • Section 2.5 goes into too much detail. • Section 2.5.3, in discussing System Architecture in combination with illustration 2.45, does not correctly describe the use of a global clock, particularly in relationship to the timing system that comes from the ICS and accelerator. This is again mentioned incorrectly in 2.5.4. • References to 300m instruments still exist. • The use of references in the text is handled inconsistently. • Section 2.3 does not discuss how r TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  10. COMMENTS – General/format • The use of pronouns in the text is inconsistent and often inappropriate. • The use of undefined acronyms is rampant and must be stomped out. • Consistent terminology must be used throughout the text. • There are consistent style issues that need to be dealt with. Examples include the use of italics, the incorrect use of digits (e.g. 1) where written numbers are more appropriate, and overuse of capital letters (Boron vs boron, User vs user, etc.). TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  11. COMMENTS – General/content • Several reviewers think that a general abstract/introduction to the chapter would be a good addition. • Comparisons of the style and content of the Science chapter to the chapters on the Target and Accelerator will be made. There are significant (but appropriate) differences, primarily due to the stage of each project. This needs to be explained in some fashion. TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  12. COMMENTS – 2.1 • The excellent description of the following sections made in the introduction is not carried out. • Not enough information on the benefits/what will be done better or new at ESS compared to existing neutron sources. Example: 2.1.7 Archeology and Heritage Conservation makes a good description of recent experiments, but no forward looking statement of what will be better at ESS. TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  13. COMMENTS – 2.2 • The reference suite of instruments is presented in a table format multiple times. The order in these tables should be the same to allow easy comparison. This same order should be used to structure section 2.2. • There is not a paragraph on reflectometers commensurate with the other instrument types. • A section on the “natural length” of instruments is presented, but not in enough detail for a lay person to understand why instruments need to be different lengths. • The instrument description pages in 2.2 state the reference instrument to be described in the title, then immediately repeat it in the first sentence. Lose the repetition. • The instrument description for the Fundamental and Particle Physics beam station should be different from all the other instrument description pages as it does not describe a neutron scattering instrument. TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  14. COMMENTS – 2.3 • Reading this section leads to worries about the scale of the additional facilities requested to operate ESS. • More should be done to discuss options for sharing facilities with Max-IV. Coordination with Chapter 10 is needed in this discussion. • Table 2.2 is very good, although some of the numbers/descriptions need to be made more clear. • A chart for the laboratories, similar to Table 2.6, would be very useful. • Insufficient information is found dealing with the needed facilities for receiving, tracking, transporting, distributing internally, disposal, and shipping of samples. TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  15. COMMENTS – 2.4 • 2.4 and 2.4.5 make references to a “safety interlock system”. The Personal Protection System (PPS) will be handled by the ICS. While 2.4.5 makes this point, it is unclear on p63. • 2.4.1 makes the statement that “Count rate capability is likely to be a limiting issue….” - need concrete examples or links to other sections of the TDR. (p72) • Discussion of testing facilities (2.4.3, p73) is unclear on the usage of these facilities and the fact that this is an in-kind contribution. More details are requested. • Section 2.4 discusses Prompt Pulse Suppression choppers and uses the easily misunderstood acronym PPS. • Discussion of engineering challenges in this section is unclear as to the type of chopper is generating this challenge. This may simply be a formatting issue. TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  16. COMMENTS – 2.4 • Each subsection of 2.4 should have a short, but meaningful opening statement like 2.4.2 does. • The ability of the R&D efforts made in these technical areas to reach the technical goals in sufficient time for meeting the project goals should be described. If this is a significant risk area, it should be stated as such. • 2.4.3 p82 makes the strong statement “None of the instruments will be exposed to the neutron source with a direct line-of-sight. In all cases, ...”. This needs to be toned down and verified against the reference instrument suite. TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  17. COMMENTS –2.5 • Figure 2.41 should be removed as it is irrelevant to the mission of the TDR. • Figure 2.42 should have the question marks removed from the upper left bubble. • Figure 2.48 is a near repeat of figure 2.42 except where it goes into too much detail. • Section 2.5 does not show enough integration with the rest of chapter 2. I fell that this is a symptom of the communication issues between DMSC and ESS AB. • Discussion of the instrument control on p99 needs to be integrated with the ICS chapter. • Chapter 2 needs to end on a different note. TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  18. RECOMMENDATIONS • Move many of the fine details from section 2.5 into an internal document that can be referenced, before delivery of Draft 3. The final section should be better coordinated with the interfaces DMSC has with the rest of ESS. • Standardize the presentation of the of the science drivers (2.1) and include references to specific instruments in the reference suite, before delivery of Draft 3. • Limit the instrument suite list (2.2) to one page per instrument, presented in a standard format, with easily compared information while eliminating duplication, before delivery of Draft 3. • Make connections to Chapter 12 for dealing with radioactive waste in section 2.3, before delivery of Draft 3. • I should meet individually with the section and sub-section authors to discuss other minor issues prior to delivery of Draft 3. • Write a conclusion for the chapter for inclusion in Draft 3. TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

More Related