Subject:
Re: Review of NuMI Power Requirements
From:
Leon Beverly <beverly@fnal.gov>
Date:
Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:47:24 -0600
To:
"Nancy L. Grossman" <grossman@fnal.gov>

Nancy,

I did not multiply out all the power calculations, but the power supply
parameters listed are all good matches with the given magnets and their
operating currents and voltages. Thus the power totals should compute
correctly.

I don't quite understand the MI 62 load. The memo says the total MuMI
additional load is 68kVA. The spread sheet adds up to 87kVA. In either case,
NuMI causes only a small increase on the loading of that transformer.

As stated, the MI60N and MI65 loads are near the limit of those transformer
ratings. The solution are reasonable. So cost and future expansion will
determine which option to choose.

My review was done quickly, but hopefully is sufficient for an independent
look, any questions, let me know.

Leon 

From:Nancy L. Grossman
To:Leon H. Beverly
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 3:08 PM
Subject: Review of NuMI Power Requirements

Leon,

We have some issues with the sizes of the transformers that we had planned to
use for MI-60 and MI-65 for NuMI.  EE Support in BD has made some
recommendations as to how to resolve these issues.  We (NuMI) would like to
find someone outside BD that might review the numbers and recommendations and
give us a reality check. Could you do that?  Or can you suggest someone who
might?  The documentation is at:
http://www-numi.fnal.gov/numwork/reviews/mar_PS.html Namely the two documents:

* Updated NuMI Power Supply Requirements Spreadsheet (.xls): Look at the first
page of this workbook (PS Reqs). Do not update links. This power supply
spreadsheet has been updated since the TDH update and is under review. It looks
to the issue of transformer specifications/loads.

* Transformer Issues at MI-60 and MI-65 Memo (.doc): This memo discusses EE
Supports view of the NuMI transformer load issues at MI-60 and MI-65.

We need to have this reviewed in a timely manner if at all possible (in a
matter of a few days).  I think George K. and company have done a good job of
summarizing what they see as the issue, so I don't think the "review" would
take more than an hour or two.  I do not expect the person to recalculate
things, but simply to look at George and companies calculations for a reality
check (assuming the currents and such are accurate) and their subsequent
conclusions and comment on them.  Could you or someone you know do this?

Please let me know,
Thank you very much,
Nancy