MEETING 9-2-05

Present: F. Calviño, P. Delahaye, A. Dorsival, L. M. Fraile, T. Fritioff, T. Giles, M. Kowalska, J. Lettry, M. Lindroos, F. Locci, J. Parra-Lopez, I. Podadera, D. Porret, K. Rudolph, F. Wenander, R. Wilfinger.

Topic: Status and planning for the ISCOOL project.

Presentation: an introduction presentation about the proposed topic was given by I. Podadera  (transparences to be opened as read only ).

• F. Locci requested to know which are the parameters that must be controlled. I. Podadera specified that all the DC power supplies, the gas flow, and the RF amplifier must be for the cooler itself. In addition vacuum valves, pumps, gauges and diagnostics must be integrated in the control system. Frank also asked about the responsible for the gas system in long term. Action: T. Giles, F. Locci, I. Podadera and D. Porret.
• J. Lettry pointed out that a possible installation of ISCOOL in the HRS directly after off-line tests should not block the HRS.
• T. Fritioff asserted that if not separation is done before the cooler the mixed beam from the FE6 could cause wrong figures of the efficiency of the device. A. Jokinen comments after the meeting that although Tomas is right, mixed beam can be used for many tests and efficiency figures one should not trust too much.
• P. Delahaye explained that the experience in LPC suggests that after a very complete off-line tests, no on-line tests should be required and a direct installation in HRS is feasible. A. Jokinen comments after the meeting that tests at HRS position can be performed in parallel to GPS operation.
• A. Dorsival asked about the project of storage radioactive pumps. Mats answered that the project is included with the study of the integrated recovery line for REX.
• J. Lettry suggested using steering plates after the RFQCB to avoid beam losses due to misalignments between the extraction of RFQCB and the merging switchyard. Action: T. Fritioff and T. Giles.
• F. Wenander asserted that the benefits of the installation of the cooler will be the bunched beam and the decrease of energy spread and asked why not to rebuild the HRS and place the cooler before the separator. Mats replied that 2 years of physics gain is expected with the cooler before rebuilding the separator, which is technically very difficult.
• F. Wenander and P. Delahaye pointed out that in principle the cooler will not be used as injection for EBIS since Penning trap can manage a higher space charge. A. Jokinen comments after the meeting that in fact the capacity of RFQCB, specially in cooling-only mode is quite high. Thus even without bunching the availability of reduced energy spread should be beneficial for an injection into REXTRAP.
• J. Lettry remarked that the moving operation of the cooler could be quite delicate due to the contamination inside the cooler chamber and suggested the possibility to include valves just before and after this part. To be verified by I. Podadera.
• L. Fraile asked about the time necessary to change from RFQCB to drift tube. The time was estimated around 1 day.

Minutes by Ivan Podadera.