Star-fst-l mailing list

[Gerard Visser <gvisser AT indiana.edu>]

Hi Zhenyu, Mike,
	I send here below the info on the *IST* inner cable. Also the third attachment 
here (not part of the forwarded message below but following a few days later) 
was a refreshed quote for that.
	For *FST*, I think we will revise slightly (fewer pairs)... Also if necessary I 
think the power wires could be reduced from 22 AWG to 24 AWG as the current will 
be 2/3 that of IST and the length also less than IST. But someone should make 
some estimation of voltage drop. Of course 22 AWG is better if the diameter is OK.
	If I remember right, BNL purchased from Meunier for one of our past projects, 
and they have good pricing, so when you contact Alpha for the new cable design & 
quote you may want to suggest procurement through Meunier, unless BNL can buy 
direct from Alpha of course.
        Sincerely,

                Gerard


On 7/2/2019 9:57 AM, Zhenyu Ye wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Can you please make a cost estimate for the actual FST inner signal cables, 
based on the work you have done for the FST test cables? We will need 48 of 
actual cables. The cost should include the cable itself (Gerard had a quote for 
it. Gerard, can you please share it with Mike), connectors, and external 
assembly work for the cable+T-board.
>
> Thanks,
> Zhenyu
> _______________________________________________
> Star-fst-l mailing list
> Star-fst-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fst-l
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: integration of sTGC and Si
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:15:12 -0400
From: Gerard Visser <gvisser AT indiana.edu>
To: Ye, Zhenyu <yezhenyu AT uic.edu>
CC: Aschenauer, Elke <elke AT bnl.gov>, Scott W. Wissink <wissink AT indiana.edu>

hi Zhenyu,
	I was wrong, sorry. That was not the latest quote, there was some design change 
after that one. I don't know the details but it drove up the cost. The actual 
last quote is attached here. We ordered 1500 ft on MIT PO # 4501543228. I do not 
have a copy of the PO. The final spec sheet signoff for partnumber 518222 is 
also attached here. If/when we get a new quote, we have to reference that.
	I hope this gives you enough info for now, apart from a requote which again I 
am happy to as for once I'm told the length.
        Sincerely,

                Gerard


On 10/25/2018 1:53 PM, Gerard Visser wrote:
> Hi Zhenyu,
>      I think I found the latest version of the quote that we ordered against. I 
> attach it here. I am still looking for some email thread about the actual order.
>      If you know how much you would like to buy, I can request a new quote. I 
> believe the min is 1000 ft and increments must be 500 ft (possibly must be 1000 
> ft).
>      Just FYI, this quote partnumber is not the actual partnumber, which is set 
> only after the first order. New quote I presume will be showing the actual 
> partnumber. (Which is I believe 518222.)
>
>      Gerard
>
>
> On 10/25/2018 11:23 AM, Gerard Visser wrote:
> > hi Zhenyu,
> >
> > We should be able to re-use the patchpanel boards I hope? (Do you have them, 
> > or have located them?)
> > These have (at least in IST they had) the voltage regulators on them, it is 
> > more than just a patchpanel. Who will design your frontend electronics boards? 
> > If it is necessary, same person can hopefully deal with patchpanels too I think?
> >
> > Probably some discussion is needed on scope of work for me for FST. It is 
> > likely I should not be volunteered to make the patchpanel board (and so better 
> > if he/she who will make it costs it now for you). I hope the frontend boards 
> > with APV are being costed by someone in detail now. Sorry that I may just not 
> > know about the state of this.
> >
> > I am of course able to help with design issues for the FEE, as I did help Ben 
> > Buck in the IST case. I will do my best to assist to have a good design, but 
> > am counting on your angineer(s) to do the most of this work.
> >
> > As to cable costs, I can find the old costs, I promised to do that but I 
> > haven't tracked it down yet, sorry. Probably if I put in a RFQ to same company 
> > I can get an updated cost from them with little effort - so for sure I don't 
> > mind to ask. A new quote will be much better for budget justification than the 
> > old one and a guess about inflation. But you have to give me a length, how 
> > much would you need in total? And connectors for the cable I hope you guys can 
> > cost? the partnumbers should be in Ben's documentation.
> >
> > Have all the long cables (between rack and patchpanel) been saved? (I.e. we 
> > don't have to cost replacing those?)
> >
> > I'll make an estimate for firmware and integration support manpower here. I've 
> > been dealing with FCS materials estimates first, but manpower for FST and FCS 
> > coming up now.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >      Gerard
> >
> >
> > On 10/25/2018 10:53 AM, Ye, Zhenyu wrote:
> > > Hi Gerard,
> > >
> > > Thank you. Can you please send me the cost (including cables, new patch panel 
> > > boards, and manpower for possible firmware change)?
> > >
> > > Zhenyu
> > >
> > > > On Oct 18, 2018, at 12:01 PM, Gerard Visser <gvisser AT indiana.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > hi Zhenyu,
> > > >     Sorry this is late...
> > > >     Cable mass by a weighing of 92 cm sample is   *97 g/m*  .
> > > >     I have to look for old costing info still but I wanted to get at lest 
> > > > this out this morning.
> > > >
> > > >         Gerard
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/17/2018 11:52 AM, Ye, Zhenyu wrote:
> > > > > Hi Gerard,
> > > > > Can you please tell me the mass of the cables, as well as the cost per cable?
> > > > > For the bulk cable, what would be the cost?
> > > > > I am trying to put together the budget and cost, and will send around and 
> > > > > discuss with you once I have all the information.
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Zhenyu
> > > > > > On Oct 8, 2018, at 10:19 PM, Gerard Visser <gvisser AT indiana.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Zhenyu,
> > > > > >     Ok if it is still TBD like that I think it is best to plan for 72 such 
> > > > > > cables, indeed.
> > > > > >     But this matter should be made more clear in fwd-upgrade meetings, 
> > > > > > e.g. we should have had it more clear in last weeks meeting. There is no 
> > > > > > problem from the readout side to go up to 864 chips, although the max rate 
> > > > > > will be a little lower I think we can still get what is needed by a 
> > > > > > combination of fewer timebins and more ARC-II/crates/PC's. However, 
> > > > > > everybody needs to be on the same page about all the options being 
> > > > > > considered, this must especially affect the MRI proposal and budget I 
> > > > > > would think. Please inform everyone more clearly what the range of options 
> > > > > > are.
> > > > > >     I will try to get a cable mass on wednesday. (The cable I have has a 
> > > > > > connector on it, but if I recall right it isn't really terminated, so I 
> > > > > > can remove it. But first I have to check that, and if it is really 
> > > > > > terminated I may not want to remove it, but rather try to estimate/account 
> > > > > > for the connector.) Tomorrow I will have to work from home, kids off school.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     - Gerard
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/8/2018 9:20 PM, Ye, Zhenyu wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Gerard,
> > > > > > > Thanks for the quick reply. The final number of APVs may be a factor of 
> > > > > > > 1-3 of 288, so between 288-864 APVs (from the simulation 288 APVs gives 
> > > > > > > an ok tracking resolution, but we may want to increase the number of 
> > > > > > > channels to see if we can improve the performance). I will just tell John 
> > > > > > > that there are 72 7.29mm diameter cables, is that ok?
> > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 2018, at 8:53 AM, Gerard Visser <gvisser AT indiana.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Zhenyu,
> > > > > > > >     Yes I think that is a good assumption. Beware though, that was a 
> > > > > > > > custom made cable. If we will be able to afford it, I think that same 
> > > > > > > > sort of cable can be used. I'm pretty sure we do not have enough 
> > > > > > > > leftover bulk cable, but it could maybe work to re-use IST cables.
> > > > > > > >     I have a short piece here at Indiana and I measure the diameter is 
> > > > > > > > 7.29 mm. There is one cable per 12 APV group, that was 72 cables in IST 
> > > > > > > > and will be 24 cables in FST. (BTW, this is a good time to ask to be 
> > > > > > > > sure, 288 APV is pretty well certain, is it?)
> > > > > > > >     I can get you a mass estimate on the purple cable too, but not 
> > > > > > > > today. Please let me know if that is needed.
> > > > > > > Yes please send it to me when you get time.
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Zhenyu
> > > > > > > >     Sincerely,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         Gerard
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/8/2018 8:23 PM, Ye, Zhenyu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi Gerard,
> > > > > > > > > For the FST cables inside the supporting cone, I think for now we can 
> > > > > > > > > assume they are of similar size as IST purple cables. What do you 
> > > > > > > > > think? I am away from the University this week and thus can’t measure 
> > > > > > > > > the cables by myself. Can you please tell me what size of the IST 
> > > > > > > > > purple cables is?
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Zhenyu
> > ...

Attachment: 32202.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: C518222V1_digitally_signed.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: 36830.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document