TM4 has been reconnected to ITE after the module moving. The roughing is started . The water will be supplied to ITE after  testing  the water  pumps . The water interlock check will be done on next week also.

Chad and I did the TM4 heat shield leak check yesterday at SHC. The leak detector was pumped to 4.6 xE-9atm.cc/sec, and 0.0xE-4 torr after 1.5 hours pumping. Chad sprayed helium twice on both VCR fittings. There is no response had been found during each 45 seconds waiting time. Since the module moved to ITE directly,we didnt have helium pressure test this time. I  would say thee heat shield circuit is leak tight. so far.

3 turbo pumps on TM4 and CS have been started. The pumping down is good so far, The TM4 PNG1 reading is more than 10 times higher than IG1 which is at the same chamber. It could be a controller problem.  Other 3 high vacuum gauges behavior normal.  The TM4 IG1 is replaced today and it works fine now.

TM 4 had been leak check in ITE due to   relatively high PNG1 and IG1 readings.All TM4 primary and secondary  vessel air to vacuum seals had been leak checked. All water lines in TM4 had been helium pressured . There is no leak had been found so far.

 TM3 with new target SiC#46 was connected in ITE.

Initial Summary:

TM3 sparking behaviour in ITE has been very disruptive both with and without protons. Protons are at 60uA, target heater at 540A. Max voltage achieved so far is 51kV, limited by time and a current limit on the BIAS supply.

The ITE:EL trips off every couple of minutes. Just needs to be restarted. Mike investigated and found that the trip is happening inside the power supply, then a moment later the canbus is defining the supply off when it cant get it to respond. Trip frequency decreased over time but still disruptive.

All the waterflow signals, including ones controlled in the cyclotron system, were tripping off regularly. These have all been forced, then we implemented a 5s delay in the ISAC waterflow interlocks. This seems to have solved the issue.

The ITE:BIAS supply has also been limited at 500uA instead of 5mA. Probably something hardcoded into the canbus - this was fixed by Keiko and the hardcode limit was set to 20%(?) of 5mA.

TM3 has been very sparky, even at low voltages. I can't understand why. A new ground path would be explicable but the excessive sparking is difficult to understand.

Possible avenues:

1. make sure the module outer surface is connected through a copper sheet to the sheet on the wall.
2. check that special ground still grounds all the gnd power supplies in the electrical room - this I checked but some of the grounds are connected through wires instead of sheets, this can be improved.
3. try running the module with only HV hooked up and nothing else.
4. try running TM3 in ITW.
5. Search work permits and shutdown jobs for any changes made to the system that could affect this.
6. hope there is a software solution for the EL problem, or start moving towards PLC control - no software solution because the canbus card is only reacting to the power supply refusing to turn on, so it seems the issue originates in the PSU. Moving to PLC is possible but may not help and increases the risk of frying the PLC module.
7. Add a spark gap or limiting resistor to the EL somewhere. Resistor only helpful if the EL itself is sparking. Difficult to find a spot for the spark gap.
8. Get a bipolar supply that can sink the current of a spark and replace the EL supply. - Tomislav doesn't seem to think this is viable.
9. Add protection on the controls cables.

Spark recording:

60uA/50kV/540A July 3 02:30 - 05:30 : average of 50 sparks per hour. data file https://isacwserv.triumf.ca/onlylocal/isacdata/ITE_TM3_SiC46_HVConditioning_2_20240704

60uA/32kV/540A July 3 19:15 - July 3 21:45 : average of 8.4 sparks per hour. data file https://isacwserv.triumf.ca/onlylocal/isacdata/ITE_TM3_SiC46_HPSIS_HVConditioning_20240704

50uA/42.8kV/540A July 4 8pm - July 5 2pm : average of 20 sparks per hour, or if you cut out the last two hour that were very sparky, 14 sparks per hour. data file http://isacwserv.triumf.ca/onlylocal/isacdata/TM3commissioning_July4_52024.dat

50uA/42.8kV/540A July 8 00:00 - July 8 18:00 : average of 3.4 sparks per hour. data file http://isacwserv.triumf.ca/onlylocal/isacdata/TM3commissioning_July82024.dat

50uA/42.8kV/540A July 10 10am - 3pm : 3.6 sparks per hour

50uA/53kV/540A July 17 5am - 10am : 4 sparks per hour

45uA/53kV/540A July 20 8pm - July 21 6:30am : 24 sparks in 11 hrs, avg 2.2 sparks per hour.

EL trip recording (first 2 entries from the archiver, verify with ops elog):

50uA.42.8kV/540A July 4 23:00 - July 5 16:00 : 9 trips, average 0.5 trips per hour

50uA/42.8kV/540A July 6 12:00 - July 7 03:00 : 6 trips with 2.5hrs off, average 0.5 trips per hour

50uA/42.8kV/540A July 7 05:00 - July 8 18:00 : no trips in past 30hrs. Last trip July 7 at 3am.

50uA/42.8kV/540A July 10 3pm - still no EL trips

50uA/53kV/540A July 16 8pm - July 17 10am : 3 trips in 6 hrs. Note cable in EL circuit got burned so EL is running at only ~4kV

45uA/53kV/540A July 17 3pm - July 18 9:30am : 7 trips in 18hrs

45uA/53kV/540A July20 14:00 - July 21 6:30 : 5 trips in ~17hrs

2024-11-15 EDIT, Alexander Shkuratoff:

I was not involved in this run, but I have gone through all the Elogs for TM3 up to this point and summarized all the data dumps at the bottom, so I may as well do it here.

	ITE_TM3_SiC46_HPSIS_HVConditioning_20240704	2024-07-04 01:42	4.8M
	ITE_TM3_SiC46_HVConditioning_Vac_20240704	2024-07-04 01:59	5.3M
	ITE_TM3_SiC46_HVConditioning_2_20240704	2024-07-04 05:31	1.1M
	TM3commissioning_July32024.dat	2024-07-04 17:04	11M
	TM3commissioning_July4_52024.dat	2024-07-05 14:18	12M
	TM3commissioning_July82024.dat	2024-07-08 18:03	13M

 Additionally, there is no Elog entry for August 18, 2024 for which TM3 commissioning continued in ITW, but I have found the following StripTool data:

	TM3commissioning_Aug182024.dat	2024-08-18 05:37	14M
	TM3commissioning_Aug182024_2.dat	2024-08-19 06:16	14M

 TM3 with spent target SiC#46 was disconnected in ITE and ready to move to TCS soon.

 SiC#46 loaded into pail 293 successfully along with other hotcell waste 

Upon visual inspection of the target, a spark-sign was spotted on the perimeter of the extraction electrode. Metallic looking material also found built up between the extraction electrode and the backing plate of the target 

Photo attached 

 SiC#46 (pail 293) was placed in the vault (spot 3B) on Wednesday the 14^th of August. It was 111 mSv/hr when removed from the south hot cell. See attached PDF for details.

 TM4 with new target SiC#45 installed has been leak checked and electrical checked on top of NHC.

 TM4 with new target SiC#45 was connected in ITE, all TPs are running at their full speed.

 TM4 with spent target SiC#45 was disconnected ITE  and an electrical check made right after moved on NHC. 

Looked at SiC#45 in the hot cell. Looked very clean, no deposits on the heat shield or other components. Target also looked very straight. Only issue we saw was sparking marks on the EE side that faces the ground electrode, in several spots. This target had a bout of sparking when ramping up the protons, so I guess that was the location. Will look for matching spark marks on the ground electrode next time TM4 is in the hot cell. Forgot to take picutres...

 TM4 with target SiC#44 was connected in ITE on Tuesday.

TM4 with SiC#44 installed developed a short TBHT to HV common during its first heating in ITE. Was fine before installation. Now with everything cold TBHT to HVC is 25kOhms. Removed short in electrical room, will rely on short in the module.

 Spent target move done. The SiC#44 was moved from the north hot cell to the spent target vault. It was placed in pail#275 and placed in spot#4A. It was 42.6mSv/hr when removed from the north hot cell. See attached PDF for further details about the vault.

Please note we will only have two free spots in the vault at the start of the running period after the winter shutdown 2023.

Conducted PIE on SiC#44, which failed online. It had a cathode short, a target short and an anode short by the time we called the experiment off. In the post irradiation examination, two clear marks where the target legs touched the heat shield were found (see attachments 1 and 2). No marks were found to indicate where the cathode short would have been. The fibreglass sheath covering the anode wire where it passes over top of the coil was destroyed, must have been a result of sparking (see attachment 3). No other issues noticed, grid looked fine, though close inspection is difficult.

On 2024-09-12, CNL reported difficulty with lowering Pail 275 from F-308 flask #22 into their tile hole. The four other pails associated with this shipment were successfully emplaced. It is suspected that the issue was related to a kink in the lowering cable, causing a jam during lowering. This was observed approximately 1 year ago.

Discussions with CNL to learn more about the root case are ongoing, and this e-log will be updated when more information is learned. It is expected that this flask will be shipped back to TRIUMF and the pail will need to be repacked.

Update 2024-09-12: email from A. Swan at CNL: "4 of the 5 flask were emplaced successfully with F308 #22 SiC#44 having an unsuccessful pull test and left within the flask."
This is the extent of the information they have provided and is not sufficiently helpful to determine what the issue is.

Updated 2024-10-03: an investigation was performed (work permit C2024-09-26-10). It was determined that the root cause of the issue is attributed to an assembly error - the cable was incorrectly routed through the holder part. See attached report for full details.

 On October 22 2024 the spent SIC#44 returned from CNL was repacked in a new pail it was in pail 275 and repacked into pail 298 it was 2.34mSv/hr when removed from the south hot cell.

It was placed in the very back of the mini vault. 

 Today while I was removing the SiC#43 it was noticed that the multipin guide pin was loose.

This made it difficult to remove the target, and the multipin shoulder bolts removal was required.

With the loose pin it was not possible to attach the multipin for the target C#4.

Chad was able to tighten the multipin guide pin enough, however it became obvious that the pin could not be removed when it was attempted.

With the pin tightened, the target C#4 was installed and all checks were good.

It was recommend that once the C#4 target is removed the TM4 will need some repair to remove the multipin guide pin. 

Chad - Also it was noted that the guide pin (ITA6453) in question showed signs of plating or heat (see pictures I've added)