sPHENIX EMCal discussion

[John Haggerty <haggerty AT bnl.gov>]

Anne,

You're right, and of course I go to a lot of meetings so I have heard 
things, but I think we should get a written concurrence about the scope 
of work between the laboratory, the project, and the collaboration, and 
I think we need that on the timescale of the next few weeks so we can 
make good decisions on prototypes, R&D, and continued design.

On 6/30/16 3:25 PM, Sickles, Anne M wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> I agree your questions are good ones, but I was wondering what the
> timescale for hearing back on the EMCal options considered in the cost
> reduction exercise document.  There were a lot of big changes to the
> EMCal considered, but I don’t know which of them we will need to do.
>  Has there been any feedback?  I don’t think the EMCal group itself can
> provide an answer to your first question:
>
> > - Do we even test an eta=1 calorimeter?  No need to test it if we're not
> > going to build it.
>
> without that input.
>
> Best,
> Anne
>
> > On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:43 AM, John Haggerty <haggerty AT bnl.gov
> > <mailto:haggerty AT bnl.gov>> wrote:
> >
> > You probably saw a very similar post to the HCAL list... the questions
> > for the EMCAL are the same, only harder:
> >
> > Very soon, we need to agree to changes in the "reference design" of the
> > calorimeters engendered by the descoping exercise.
> >
> > In particular, I think the next prototypes we test should be as close to
> > the final design as possible.   In the case of the EMCAL, there are some
> > real questions that we need to answer very soon:
> >
> > - Do we even test an eta=1 calorimeter?  No need to test it if we're not
> > going to build it.
> >
> > - Do we test "2x2" towers?  Do we have 4 little light guides with a lot
> > of corners, or bigger light guides?  I could imagine a single stuby
> > light guide could result in more uniform light collection, but it's not
> > at all obvious.
> >
> > - Do we design preamps that can take 16 SiPM's?  This is a thing that
> > Steve would have to test before we did it, and it would have to be moved
> > to the front burner if we want it for January.
> >
> > - Projectivity.  Enough said.
> >
> > With the substantial changes to the EMCAL we're talking about, we may
> > also wish to consider delaying our appointment with the FTBF a month
> > or two.
> >
> > Since not everyone attends every meeting, I think it's important that we
> > discuss this with a wide audience on the lists.  So fire away.
> >
> > --
> > John Haggerty
> > email: haggerty AT bnl.gov <mailto:haggerty AT bnl.gov>
> > cell: 631 741 3358
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sphenix-emcal-l mailing list
> > Sphenix-emcal-l AT lists.bnl.gov <mailto:Sphenix-emcal-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-emcal-l
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Anne Sickles
> Assistant Professor, Department of Physics
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> --------------------------------------------------------------


--
John Haggerty
email: haggerty AT bnl.gov
cell: 631 741 3358