[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [CCB-92] Change request for BCD - RTML by PT



Dear GDE Colleagues,

Concerning the RTML change request which was submitted by PT on Jan.27
and which was forwarded by me to all of you with an email of
Jan.27, 2006, 11:20JST, I have received a remark from W.Bialowons
this morning (Jan.30, 2006).

I am forwarding below Wilhelm's remark and my response to him.

I am requesting Drs. PT, Kubo (CCB reviewer) and Schulte (CCB reviewer)
to assess Wilhelm's remark, and Kiyoshi and Daniel to take it into 
their review consideration.

And all are welcome to bring in any inputs on this or other subjects
related to this change request (the deadline is the end of Monday, 
Jan.30 2006 PST <-- i.e. in California, as stated earlier).

Sincerely,

- Nobu Toge (KEK, Accelerator Lab)
  email: toge@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  voice: +81-29-864-5224
  fax:   +81-29-864-3182
--- Begin Message ---

Nobu,

 

Thank you for sending the change request from Peter Tenenbaum. I have red it very carefully. I can°«t agree the item 4. °»A DR stretch region of approximately 610 m length is inserted to adjust the location of the DRs within the site footprint°… because this argument is site dependent if it is right at all as Nick already mentioned at the KEK ASL meeting. The two beam lines cause additional cost (several 10 M? or $ or OkuYen) without additional value. In Europe the ILC tunnels must not fit in a surface footprint otherwise LHC at CERN and HERA at DESY won°«t exist and the ILC wouldn°«t be possible in Europe. The BCD should be site independent as I understood. Only site dependent options are allowed for the RDR.

You can read more about the underground property right of the surface landowners all over the world from the IATA report °»Legal and Administrative Issues in Underground Space Use: a Preliminary Survey of ITA Member Nations Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 6, Nr. 2, pp. 191 - 209, 1991 on page 6. The corresponding German law is: °»Property owners rights extend into the space above and into the ground below. Owner cannot prohibit intrusion in such height or depths that he °∆has no interest in the exclusion°«.°…. By the way the corresponding laws in Japan and Switzerland are similar.

 

 

Sorry for my objection and regards from Hamburg

Wilhelm Bialowons

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wilhelm Bialowons                 Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron (MPY)

Phone(Cell):  +49-40-8998-(9)-3859                        NotkestraŹ©őe 85

Fax:          +49-40-8994  -  3859                         22607 Hamburg

eMail: Wilhelm.Bialowons@xxxxxxx                                 Germany

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

>-----Original Message-----

>From: owner-ilcgde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-

>ilcgde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of N.Toge

>Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 3:20 AM

>To: ilcgde@xxxxxxxx

>Cc: ml-ccb@xxxxxxxxxxxx

>Subject: Fw: [CCB-92] Change request for BCD

>

>Dear GDE Colleagues,

>

>As per the CCB change procedure (v.0.3, Jan.5, 2006) I am forwarding

>a change request for the RTML part of BCD we received from Peter Tenenbaum

>today (Jan. 27, 2006, JST).

>

>Unfortunately the complete mechanics (electronic bulletin board etc) of

>change control procedures are not yet in place. However, I believe that

>CCB must act as quickly as possible to help the colleagues make progress

>towards the Bangalore meeting and RDR. Therefore, I would like to

>compress the action schedule drastically, and would like to proceed

>as follows -

>

>1. Based on the preliminary screening that I have done, I agree that

>?? this request belongs to Class 1, so this will be treated

>?? as a Class-1.

>

>2. I would like to request comments from the ML area system leaders

>?? (C.Adolphsen, H.Hayano, L.Lilje, N.Solyak) and DR area system

>?? leaders (J.Gao, S.Guiducci, A.Wolski), as to -

>

>?? - Whether you agree with PT's change request, particularly

>???? in relation to redefinition of the area boundaries, and

>?? - Whether you have any additional comments or remarks.

>

>?? The deadline I would like to set for this is the end of Monday, Jan.30,

>?? 2006 PST (because California is the last time zone). Comments

>?? from any other members within GDE should also meet this deadline.

>

>3. I would like to ask two CCB members

>

>??? ?????Daniel Schulte and Kiyoshi Kubo

>

>?? to review PT's change request report, and comments from the ML and

>?? DR area system leaders and share your assessment, as to -

>

>?? - Whether you agree with PT's change request,

>?? - Whether you have any additional comments or remarks.

>

>?? The deadline I would like to set for this is the end of

>?? Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2006 PST.

>

>The goal is to make a final decision and approval of this request by

>the end of Feb.3, exactly one week from now.

>

>If you have any problems with this plan, please let ml-ccb@xxxxxxxxxxxx

>know a.s.a.p.

>

>------------------

>

>Now, while this change request #1 is on its way, I have a comment.

>

>At the document repository for the Area Leaders Meeting of Jan.19-20

>at KEK (http://lcdev.kek.jp/GDE/ASL2006KEK/) there is a document

>drafted by EC which outlines the BCD beamline descriptions.

>

>?? http://lcdev.kek.jp/GDE/ASL2006KEK/FollowupTor.21JAN2006.pdf

>

>PT's change request for RTML comes along the lines of this document,

>with his additional statements.

>

>If the whole Area System Leaders could submit a set of change requests

>to update their beamline descriptions in one shot, it would greatly

>improve the efficiency of the related change process collectively.

>

>While exactly how the Area Leaders and EC coordinate this work should

>be left up to the responsible parties, if a coordination of this

>sort takes place on the part of change requesters, I would like to

>coordinate the CCB responses accordingly.

>

>------------------

>

>OK, this is all for now.

>

>Sincerely,

>

>- Nobu Toge (KEK, Accelerator Lab)

>? email: toge@xxxxxxxxxxxx

>? voice: +81-29-864-5224

>? fax:?? +81-29-864-3182

>

 


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dear Wilhelm,

Thank you for your comment re: Change Configuration Request #1 (RTML)
(http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?id=bcd:bcd_history ).

I am forwarding your remark and my response below to the rest of CCB
and GDE shortly, so the CCB members reviewing this (and everyone) can
take some chances to give thoughts to the points you raise. 

My understanding from the KEK Area Systems Leaders Meeting (Jan.19-20,
2006) is that BC represents a canonical machine configuration which
is to be considered commonly by all groups as the baseline. 
If any regional or local constraints lead the relevant groups to 
develop a variation (or variations) of the machine layout,
they will be treated as AC.

Rather, the outcome of the Area Leaders meeting at KEK was that the 
participants there wished to urge the relevant regional groups to assess 
the CF/S issues both qualitatively and quantitatively and produce specific 
feedbacks to the entire GDE in the form of either AC proposals or 
inputs towards RDR.

I take it that PT's change proposal pertains to this canonical
part of the RTL configuration, I do not see fundamental problems with it. 

As for the cost impacts, two of the ~610m stretches" are likely
to incur an additional cost of several 10M$ as you point out. 
However, it needs to be weighed relative to an elimination of an 
extended site footprint that would be caused by the DR installation
otherwise. This might not result in much difference in some regions,
but it could in some others. PT also states that these "stretches" 
will accommodate fast BPMs for generating signals to use in the 
bunch-by-bunch feed forward corrections.

My goal still is to converge on acceptance or rejection of this Change 
Request by the end of Friday, Feb.3, 2006.

Sincerely.

- Nobu Toge (KEK, Accelerator Lab)
  email: toge@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  voice: +81-29-864-5224
  fax:   +81-29-864-3182

> Thank you for sending the change request from Peter Tenenbaum. 
> I have red it very carefully. I can't agree the item 4. "A DR stretch 
> region of approximately 610 m length is inserted to adjust the location 
> of the DRs within the site footprint" because this argument is site 
> dependent if it is right at all as Nick already mentioned at the KEK 
> ASL meeting. The two beam lines cause additional cost (several 10 M? 
> or $ or OkuYen) without additional value. In Europe the ILC tunnels must 
> not fit in a surface footprint otherwise LHC at CERN and HERA at DESY 
> won't exist and the ILC wouldn't be possible in Europe. The BCD should 
> be site independent as I understood. Only site dependent options are 
> allowed for the RDR.
> 
> You can read more about the underground property right of the surface 
> landowners all over the world from the IATA report "Legal and Administrative 
> Issues in Underground Space Use: a Preliminary Survey of ITA Member 
> Nations Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 6, Nr. 2, 
> pp. 191 - 209, 1991 
> <http://www.ita-aites.org/cms/fileadmin/filemounts/general/pdf/ItaAssociation/ProductAndPublication/WorkingGroupsPublication/WG4/Tust_Vol_6_2_191-209.pdf>  
> on page 6. The corresponding German law is: "Property owners rights extend 
> into the space above and into the ground below. Owner cannot prohibit 
> intrusion in such height or depths that he has no interest in the exclusion".. 
> By the way the corresponding laws in Japan and Switzerland are similar.

--- End Message ---