sPHENIX HCal discussion

[Edward Kistenev <kistenev AT bnl.gov>]

John, with boxes gone I began to read CDR. Some of my comments I tried to post with a reference from Megan’s mail, probably failed (my DROPBOX account was screwed). They were not really critical - I’ll get back to it if we’ll be further updating CDR. What is certainly critical is on

- I would suggest not even mention rad. source as a test tool - hope we’ll never need to use it on a regular basis;

- p126 - there are no stainless plates in Outer calorimeter;

- p126 - tilted plates transfer no load - they are not supported anywhere except on the ends.   Tilted plates contribute somewhat to structural stability of this design but the load transfer is 100% via steel plates at the ends of modules (plates are built into solid rings using “dog bones”). 

- The simulation section should also explain why we pay so much attention to standalone HCal - even knowing the story I feel confused by what I read in that part of the  document;

- The 5.5.2 section is not about "hadron measurements with EMCal”. This is the most important part of calorimeter document, it is about system performance and deserves better then  “level 3” treatment.  

 

Sorry for being late with my comments. They are not to diminish the value of the work done, this is a very comprehensive summary. Simply like everything in sPHENIX this is the developing story.

Edward

On Feb 12, 2018, at 4:04 PM, John Lajoie <lajoie AT iastate.edu> wrote:

Hi Megan, Ron, Songkyo, Stefan:

    Here is a Dropbox link to an annotated PDF with my comments embedded:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dre00vzx42kudg5/sphenix-conceptual-design-HcalReview020918%20-%20JGL%20comments.pdf?dl=0

You should be able to see the comments in Acrobat or Adobe Reader, but let me know if you have any problems with them.

    You have all done an outstanding job of updating the CDR and pulling everything into a coherent hole. Most of my comments are just suggestions to improve the clarity even further - there are a lot of differences and design variations discussed, especially when we compare what was done in the test beam to what we want to build.

    Thanks again for all your effort!

Regards,
John Lajoie

On 2/9/2018 12:39 PM, Megan Connors wrote:

Dear all,

As we discussed at Wed's meeting, we updated the CDR and I made a pdf of the HCal section of the CDR. It would be great if you can look it over this weekend and get comments back to us by Monday so that we can edit the CDR before it has to be frozen for the review. To avoid overflowing your inbox, I uploaded it Wed's agenda page. You should be able to get it directly from here:

https://indico.bnl.gov/getFile.py/access?contribId=1&resId=0&materialId=0&confId=4220

Thanks,

-Megan, Ron, Stefan and Songkyo

_______________________________________________
sPHENIX-HCal-l mailing list
sPHENIX-HCal-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-hcal-l

--

John Lajoie

Professor of Physics

Iowa State University

 

(515) 294-6952

lajoie AT iastate.edu

Contact me: john.lajoie

_______________________________________________
sPHENIX-HCal-l mailing list
sPHENIX-HCal-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-hcal-l