Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 12:28 pm

There was a series of posts on WB-8 coil size based on the EMC2 web site WB-8 jpg, when the jpg was first posted. Tom Lignon used the flange bolt hole pattern to get a flange size and used that flange size as a reference for the coil size. Reality is though we have no contract specification for WB-8. On the other hand, it would seem to be difficult to draw scaling conclusions without both a coil size change and B field change. Just saying...

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 1:19 pm

If you go to the WB-8 graphic at the EMC2FDC web site, and assume it is mostly correct, and assume the closure plates on the chamber are the same type (ConFlats according to Tom Ligon) used before, there is only one size of ConFlat closure that has the number of bolts shown in the graphic. Using that to scale, the WB-8 is twice as big as WB-6. I did this scaling when the graphic was first published and remember the general agreement to be very nearly twice as big.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 1:26 pm

mvanwink5 wrote:There was a series of posts on WB-8 coil size based on the EMC2 web site WB-8 jpg, when the jpg was first posted. Tom Lignon used the flange bolt hole pattern to get a flange size and used that flange size as a reference for the coil size. Reality is though we have no contract specification for WB-8. On the other hand, it would seem to be difficult to draw scaling conclusions without both a coil size change and B field change. Just saying...

viewtopic.php?p=38477&highlight=60cm#38477

By the way, but another route, using LN cooled copper as a conductor, the unit has to be just about twice as big to get 8 times the field.

Twice the size gives twice the field. Cryo copper gives 6x the field. lower packing factor for cryo-channels gives ~2/3 the field.

2 x 6 x 2/3 = 8.

Ok, not in itself conclusive, but supportive of the other calcs.

Of course, the WB-8 graphic may have been totally bogus...

zbarlici · Post by **zbarlici** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 4:53 am

bump! What`s the report due date, again?

Edit: found it!

Final Report supposed to be Apr 30, 2011. Not Long now folks. If they don`t go public at least we`ll know whats goin on by the project tracker

The wait better be worth it, Mr. Nebel

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:50 am

Patience.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:28 am

Do not expect anything amazing to be written inside the final report.
Even if they do find something amazing they will probably try to keep a profile as low as possible.

I will be surprised of the opposite.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:55 am

Hmmm, final report?
That does sound like the end of a project to me...
But maybe they just always call that "final report"?
I dont know. I hope that this final report is not a final final report...

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:27 am

A "Final" report is produced at the end of each contract segment. It, along with an accompanying Form DD250 is how the money folk know to pay the final contract payment. At least that is how it works here.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:10 pm

Ok, that is good then.
Well lets hope and wait that this will keep going. I guess we will see when more contracts get awarded.

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:27 pm

Skipjack wrote:...I guess we will see when more contracts get awarded.

With respect, IF another contract is awarded.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:50 pm

yes, sorry, that should mean "IF"...
If none gets awarded, we will know too...

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:24 pm

My concern is that the contract has been let and the Justification for Sole Source has been written. The contract included an option for WB 8.1. I do not know of any mandate to publish anything further for the option. Maybe the Recovery Act will mandate it.

The problem I see is that without another contract publication, we will not know whether more money means things are good or more money means "aw sh!t, we messed up but we can fix it!".

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:06 pm

KitemanSA wrote:The problem I see is that without another contract publication, we will not know whether more money means things are good or more money means "aw sh!t, we messed up but we can fix it!".

Yup, exactly my feeling.....

ltgbrown · Post by **ltgbrown** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:58 pm

Did the original contract that made a provision for WB 8.1 also state a price/cost? If so, that could be used as an indicator of which option is being let as you describe.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:04 pm

https://www.neco.navy.mil/upload/N68936 ... R-0044.pdf

yes, see line items 3 and 4.

Also, delivery dates are on page 10.