Date

Attendees

Overview

Text in the excerpt box will show up in lists of meetings.Impressions from APS DPP

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
Walk-in

Impressions of APS DPP
  • ELI Beamlines - looking pretty advanced about target delivery and have discussed a lot with GA
    • Conversations with Florian
    • Call for proposals until November 5 for 600 J, LP experiments. Dimitri has been in contact- could collaborate on diagnostic operation (VISAR/SOP) commissioning experiments with interesting samples. Also target fabrication: ELI NP can make targets.
    • Tape drive target results shown - including debris on blast shield
    • Good description of the use of the chamber design with modular breadboards
  • Nick Hartley: 2-color following shock of Si. Getting to much higher temperatures
    • Helps motivate KB pair – want to probe with same size as pump.
    • Needs significant separation between photon energies - SACLA seems better at this: up to 300 fs temporally; 1 keV separation (100-200 µJ)
  • Michelle Marshal shock compressing epoxy to create diamond, matching with Dominik's results
    • Difference in result between DAC and laser shock. 
    • Recent DAC + X-ray heating at XFEL made diamond show up on the microsecond timescale.
    • Bruce Remmington conversation: shaped pulses from high rep-rate driver to crawl along low temperature adiabat to map out transitions as they relate to astrophysical objects. 
    • µs timescale lends itself well to LCLS-II-HE
    • Puts stringent requirement on pulse shaping. 3 orders of magnitude shaping – NIF quality shaping. 
      • Luke B. Fletcher to connect with Bruce Remmington to collect some model pulse shapes for RR-LP
    • Zeus laser facility poster

Ideas for LANL addition to UAP ("balancing" Jon Eggert addition – LLNL)
  • Dana Dattelbaum (Shock physics)
  • Kirk Flippo (HED plasma flows/instabilities)
  • Brian Albright
  • Yin Lin
  • Kyle Ramos

Beam transport / focusing requirements for RRLP beam

  • Determine appropriate integration time to use for calculating beam uniformity for FES application (1 kJ or RR LP) - SSD
  • Focal spots of RR LP
  • Focal volume and angle requirements

  • SSD question:
    • Very target dependent question (especially ablator) - this would possibly call for a hydro simulation
    • It may be that Rochester scientists are the best to contact 
  • 4.5 m chamber for looking at f number

    • The HE-LP beams will be ~20 cm diameter → ~11.25 f number at chamber edge

    • RR-LP tentatively 12.8 cm x 12.8 cm → fnum ~ 17.6 fnum from chamber edge

    • Compare to current MEC fnum of 3.8 - 4 
  • Angles of short pulse laser
    • Straight forward / bore line applies most to a wakefield type experiment 
    • With pointing behind target, can get more separation on X-ray axis but then changes the game for diagnostics
    • Consider that 10cm may not be enough for some applications (energy selector of ions)
    • Perpendicular case is currently considered to be just a rotated version - is that appropriate?





Description of cavern size retreat

Hey everyone, Alan Conder has asked me to put together a retreat to verify the cavern size is sufficient and that we are not over constraining the facility.


I have put together this rough agenda and charge of how we might structure a day to get together with all our stakeholders and hash everything out. The plan is to try to hold this retreat the week of October 31st. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Once we agree on the agenda, charge and attendees, I’ll send this to Ji for her to schedule with everyone.


Topic

Time

Duration (minutes)

Attendees

Charge

Introduction

8:30am

30

All

Go over scope of retreat, show overall cavern layout, highlight pinch points, present schedule.


Main charge.

  • Is the cavern layout over constrained?
  • Are we setting ourselves up for failure with our current cavern size, or is it sufficient to deliver the goals of the project?
  • If we do find out we are over constrained in the future, does an increase in cavern length easily fix the problem, or do we need a wider cavern?

HELP Laser Hall Layout Review

9am

60

LLE/LLNL/ILS Team

Review HELP Laser and Beam transport layout in this area.

  • Do we have the correct size for the laser and amplifier?
  • Have we given enough room for the harmonics and diagnostics in the amplifier stage?
  • Are the racks laid out sufficient?
  • Is the system serviceable?

Review the Beam transport layout in this area

  • Is the beam transport interface proper?
  • Is the beam transport system serviceable?

Are we over constrained?

Break

10

15



RRL Laser Hall Layout Review

10:15am

90

LLE/LLNL/ILS Team

Review RRL Laser Layout in this area.

  • Do we have room for all the optical components we will need (i.e. DM, diagnostics, fast steering mirror, number of front ends, etc.)?
  • Is the system serviceable?

Review the Beam transport layout in this area

  • Is the beam transport interface proper?
  • Is the beam transport system serviceable?

Are we over constrained?

Laser Hall Summary discussion

11:45am

15



Lunch

12pm

60



Mezzanine Layout Review

1pm

60

LLE/LLNL/ILS/Controls Team

Review RRL Laser Equipment in this area.

  • Do we have enough racks to support the RRL?
  • Are the chillers and helium blowers serviceable?
  • Are access pathways proper?

Review HELP Laser Equipment in this area.

  • Do we have proper space and access for the PCUs?
  • Do we have enough racks for to support the PCUs?
  • Are the racks close enough to the laser to perform properly?
  • Are access pathways proper?

Review the LCLS Controls Equipment in this area

  • Do we have enough racks in this area?
  • Are they placed properly to support the equipment they are for?
  • Are access pathways proper?

Are we over constrained?

Experimental Systems Layout Review – Laser and X-ray beam transport

2pm

60

ILS/ES Team, LLE/LLNL optional

Review Laser Beam transport layout in this area

  • Do we have room to get the beams from the laser hall into the target chamber?
  • Is there a feasible path to a support structure that can hold these optics properly?
  • Is the beam transport system serviceable?

Review X-ray Beam Transport layout in this area

  • Is there a feasible path to providing a stable platform for X-ray beam transport to be placed on with all the laser beam transport conflicts beneath it?
  • Is the length of the X-ray transport alcove sufficient to support the requested beam transport components?
  • Is the x-ray beam transport system serviceable?

Are we over constrained?


Break

3

15



Experimental Systems Layout Review – Experimental Systems

3:15

45


Review ES layout in this area

  • Given the laser and x-ray beam transport layouts, does the current chamber size give us a path towards success? (do we have room for laser ingress and the diagnostics required for the project)
  • Do we have room for the diagnostics we need for the project?
  • Is the target area serviceable?

Are we over constrained?


Closeout Summary

4pm

30

All

Summary of issues discussed. Clean up notes

Closed Session

4:30pm

30

Management team, System Managers, Tom?/Liz?

We will have had a full day of debate and likely some topics at which we will have disagreement on. Let’s discuss to ensure we have a unified path forward from the project leadership team.


  • Attendees
    • Management Team
      • Alan Conder
      • Alan Fry (if available)
      • Gilliss
      • Kai
      • Ginger
    • System Managers
      • Steven
      • Corey
      • Charles
      • Jing
      • Ray Rodriguez – Really need his input on serviceability and installation realism of design
    • Science Team (attends all except closed session)
      • Eric Galtier
      • Eric Cunningham
      • Luke Fletcher
      • Chandra Curry (if available)
    • Bahram Talison
    • Ted Osier
    • Quinn Clausen
    • Brice Arnold (Diagnostics hat)
    • Michael Greenberg
    • Brice Arnold (Beam Transport hat)
    • Konstantin Tolstov
    • Mitchel Cabral
    • Help me Jing!
    • Attendees to all sessions
    • ES Team
    • ILS Team
    • Controls Team


Action items

  • Type your task here, using "@" to assign to a user and "//" to select a due date