Meeting slides
260528_InterLAC_prepMeeting_II_MACuGSIintern.pdf
Meeting minutes
Attendees: H. Vormann, U. Scheeler, R. Assmann, U. Weinrich, R. Hess, M. Galonska, J. Mäder, U. Fabig, A. Seidel, A. Giesler, S. Soundararajan, R. Lotz, G. Loisch, P. Gerhard, K. Siegl, A. Reiter, F. Maimone, T. Radon, D. Severin, S. Mickat, M. Vossberg, M. Bevcic, D. Acker, T. Brühne, E. Dierssen, H. Welker, C. Hunkel, B. Walasek-Höhne,
- Discussion about boundary conditions for InterLAC
- if HLI and InterLAC have to be operated independently, the most economical option for InterLAC is using HLI
- if HLI and InterLAC can share infrastructure (e.g., RF), their operation is not independent, but there is a significant reduction in the required resources --> R. Assmann: parallel operation is no requirement!
- Discussion about possible issues with InterLAC setup in tunnel
- D. Severin: users are aware and accept the permanent removal of A4
- spaces for infrastructure/racks have to be identified
- TU cellar: radiation & shallow space
- Proposal T. Radon: call tunnel end part of EH after division by temporary radiation protection wall
- comment A. Krämer: vacuum control in EH not operational and requires significant work --> only M-branch & TK in 2028! (full EH in 2030)
- tunnel option seemed preferable under these conditions
- request for comments to all working groups:
- BEA: tunnel best option
- IOS: tunnel is significantly more work but manageable
- NCM: tunnel option requires least work
- TRI: no significant difference in workload; planning of A4 removal needs decisions (storage in tunnel, permanent removal, new beamline, etc.)
- Bau: tunnel option requires least work
- ARP: tunnel best option --> need information about expected dose rates; new entrances/exits have to be planned
- ACO: no significant additional work expected for tunnel option
- LIN: will be able to manage any option
- --> decision is taken: setup of InterLAC in tunnel section of A4/single gap resonators with a temporary rad. prot. wall is baseline for now