sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: sPHENIX is a new detector at RHIC.
List archive
[Sphenix-l] minutes from general meeting on 4/22/2016
- From: David Morrison <dave AT bnl.gov>
- To: sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov
- Subject: [Sphenix-l] minutes from general meeting on 4/22/2016
- Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:05:56 -0400
Dear collaborators,
Dennis Perepelitsa was nice enough to take notes for last Friday’s general meeting. We’d welcome volunteers to take notes at future meetings. The agenda and slides are here: https://indico.bnl.gov/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=2019
Cheers,
Dave and Gunther
Gunther Roland: sPHENIX News
Q: is the charge to demonstrate what a particular (“baseline”) detector costing $75m can do, or to propose a $75m design and document its scope? (i.e. “THE design” or “A design”?)
A: the latter.
comment: even though response to charge not intended for DOE, content will likely be easily accessible to many
—
Ed O’Brien: sPHENIX Project update
comment: also progress with EMCal (drawings, moving towards prototyping), but at earlier stage
Q: will contingency drop as we get quotes for materials?
A: yes, since contingency drops with technical risk. this may free up money for restoring scope, but not on timescale of addressing charge
Q: cost assumes BNL overhead rate on construction and labor?
A: yes, but overhead on such major construction actually small
Q: do we save money by sending labor to universities, where rates may be cheaper? danger that using BNL labor will be seen as subsidy to BNL?
A: defer discussion for later
Q: what tracker is in “baseline” presented in the Fall?
A: TPC with 100% contingency
comment: $6.2m which needs to be saved includes contingency, so really only $4m of savings need to be found. however, has to come from M&S (red boxed items on Ed’s slides 10 and 11)
Q: explain how cost savings could come from electronics?
A: dominant cost is buying the materials, can propose to buy half within budget and then easy to amend purchase order if other source of funding is found. orders not being placed until 2018.
Q: round $ number for each sub-system too coarse, can EC get more granular breakdowns for each sub-system?
A: Dave and Ed will find the relevant breakdown from Fall review (action)
Q: is the charge to demonstrate what a particular (“baseline”) detector costing $75m can do, or to propose a $75m design and document its scope? (i.e. “THE design” or “A design”?)
A: the latter.
comment: even though response to charge not intended for DOE, content will likely be easily accessible to many
—
Ed O’Brien: sPHENIX Project update
comment: also progress with EMCal (drawings, moving towards prototyping), but at earlier stage
Q: will contingency drop as we get quotes for materials?
A: yes, since contingency drops with technical risk. this may free up money for restoring scope, but not on timescale of addressing charge
Q: cost assumes BNL overhead rate on construction and labor?
A: yes, but overhead on such major construction actually small
Q: do we save money by sending labor to universities, where rates may be cheaper? danger that using BNL labor will be seen as subsidy to BNL?
A: defer discussion for later
Q: what tracker is in “baseline” presented in the Fall?
A: TPC with 100% contingency
comment: $6.2m which needs to be saved includes contingency, so really only $4m of savings need to be found. however, has to come from M&S (red boxed items on Ed’s slides 10 and 11)
Q: explain how cost savings could come from electronics?
A: dominant cost is buying the materials, can propose to buy half within budget and then easy to amend purchase order if other source of funding is found. orders not being placed until 2018.
Q: round $ number for each sub-system too coarse, can EC get more granular breakdowns for each sub-system?
A: Dave and Ed will find the relevant breakdown from Fall review (action)
The agenda and slides for the November cost and schedule review are here: https://indico.bnl.gov/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1483
The basis of estimate documents can be found here: https://docdb.sphenix.bnl.gov/cgi-bin/private/ListBy?topicid=6
Q: did Fall presentation have different total $ numbers?
A: might be difference in labor accounting, will check
Q: proposed RHIC Run 18 is a long 15 weeks, even though STAR isobar proposal only asked for 5. will sPHENIX be asked find savings for this, too?
A: sense from above is that we should not worry about it. if we’re asked to cut another $5m, project likely infeasible anyway
comment: in response to charge, should be very clear about what physics we will lose under which circumstances
—
John Haggerty: Test beam update and first analysis
some questions about what exactly the photos show for those unfamiliar
—
Dennis Perepelitsa: Jet Structure topical group report
comment: consider what you could do with only half (in azimuth) of the EMCal. is it just statistics lost for photon-jet?
Q: what can you really do? accurate TPC sim may not exist. are goals of group connected to timescale?
A: we are brainstorming, ultimately will have to take our cue from SP+EC on detector design
comment: common question for all topical groups, how much of the baseline design can we realistically simulate (and how realistically)?
comment: it may even be that after full simulation, we find even the MIE configuration can’t do all the physics
—
Mike McCumber: Heavy Flavor Jet topical group report
Q: why does restricting coverage of ITS not save much?
A: savings already present in just reusing ITS design, so while modifying it can decrease M&S this requires engineering
—
Tony Frawly: Upsilon topical group report
comment: tracking crucial, but should also study e+- ID with changed EMCal segmentation
comment: VTX pixels have many dead areas and are thick, causing electrons from conversions. for upsilons, may actually improve performance to not even put them in.
Q: improved TPC simulation seems critical since, e.g. without it we can’t even evaluate the baseline design
A: yes, this is true irrespective of Monday’s meeting, trying to involve people at SUNY-SB and Vanderbilt
A: might be difference in labor accounting, will check
Q: proposed RHIC Run 18 is a long 15 weeks, even though STAR isobar proposal only asked for 5. will sPHENIX be asked find savings for this, too?
A: sense from above is that we should not worry about it. if we’re asked to cut another $5m, project likely infeasible anyway
comment: in response to charge, should be very clear about what physics we will lose under which circumstances
—
John Haggerty: Test beam update and first analysis
some questions about what exactly the photos show for those unfamiliar
—
Dennis Perepelitsa: Jet Structure topical group report
comment: consider what you could do with only half (in azimuth) of the EMCal. is it just statistics lost for photon-jet?
Q: what can you really do? accurate TPC sim may not exist. are goals of group connected to timescale?
A: we are brainstorming, ultimately will have to take our cue from SP+EC on detector design
comment: common question for all topical groups, how much of the baseline design can we realistically simulate (and how realistically)?
comment: it may even be that after full simulation, we find even the MIE configuration can’t do all the physics
—
Mike McCumber: Heavy Flavor Jet topical group report
Q: why does restricting coverage of ITS not save much?
A: savings already present in just reusing ITS design, so while modifying it can decrease M&S this requires engineering
—
Tony Frawly: Upsilon topical group report
comment: tracking crucial, but should also study e+- ID with changed EMCal segmentation
comment: VTX pixels have many dead areas and are thick, causing electrons from conversions. for upsilons, may actually improve performance to not even put them in.
Q: improved TPC simulation seems critical since, e.g. without it we can’t even evaluate the baseline design
A: yes, this is true irrespective of Monday’s meeting, trying to involve people at SUNY-SB and Vanderbilt
David Morrison Brookhaven National Laboratory phone: 631-344-5840
Physics Department, Bldg 510 C email: dave AT bnl.gov
Upton, NY 11973-5000
Physics Department, Bldg 510 C email: dave AT bnl.gov
Upton, NY 11973-5000
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
- [Sphenix-l] minutes from general meeting on 4/22/2016, David Morrison, 04/25/2016
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.