Star-fst-l mailing list

[Zhenyu Ye <yezhenyu2003 AT gmail.com>]

> On Jul 2, 2019, at 1:19 PM, Capotosto, Michael (CONTR) <capotosto AT bnl.gov> 
> wrote:
> 
> Gerard,
> 
> Cable size should not be an issue, as the custom cable will almost 
> certainly be smaller in diameter than three separate shielded cables. 
> 
> As far as requirements go, it is my understanding that the cables should be 
> the same size as the test stand cables, coming in at 8' long +/- 1". 
> Assuming we follow the quote from the IST cables: The cable will have 16 
> pairs of 28AWG solid 2 conductor cabled together, at a minimum of 16 twists 
> per foot. The cable will also have 4 individual conductors, size 22AWG 
> stranded (7/30). The cable will be shielded with an aluminum/mylar tape, 
> with a 25% minimum overlap, and a 22AWG stranded (7/30) drain wire. Is this 
> correct? Are there any preferences for pair colors and outer jacket color?
> 
> Do you know if FEP was a requirement for this cable? When assembling the 
> T-Boards we had issues with the jacket beginning to melt, shrinking back, 
> or splitting - would we be able to switch to an insulation with a higher 
> melting point such as Teflon/PTFE?
> 
> Zhenyu, 
> Does the 48 cable count include spares? If not, how many spares do you 
> need? 

Hi Mike

We only need 36 good cables for the actual detector. So the rest 12 are 
spares.

Zhenyu

> 
> Thanks,
> Mike Capotosto
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerard Visser <gvisser AT indiana.edu> 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 12:03 PM
> To: Capotosto, Michael (CONTR) <capotosto AT bnl.gov>
> Cc: star-fst-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> Subject: Re: [Star-fst-l] Cost Estimate for Production FST Inner Signal 
> Cables // Fwd: Re: integration of sTGC and Si
> 
> 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
>>> ...
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Star-fst-l mailing list
> Star-fst-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fst-l