U.S. ATLAS HL-LHC Upgrade Level 2 and Deputies-NSF only Management Mailing List

[Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>]

Hello all,

Here's the example from Tile.  I think it's pretty good.  (Sl 6 should 
probably say "Impact of not meeting specs")

If you have ideas/comments to further improve, please do send.  We want 
to make the strongest possible case.

Best,

Gustaaf

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Tile Flowdown slides Fwd: Re: 
[Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] FDR Flow-down help
Date:   Tue, 6 Aug 2019 09:20:22 -0500
From:   Mark Oreglia <oreglia AT uchicago.edu>
To:     Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>



This is what we came up with so far.



 > On Aug 5, 2019, at 4:37 PM, Gustaaf Brooijmans 
<gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu> wrote:
 >
 >
 > Hello all,
 >
 > Apologies for sending so many emails.  Could you, to help address 
the flow-down question, prepare a few slides per deliverable on
 >
 > -how do the specs related to physics gains, and why are those spec 
numbers good?  (Usually a balance between physics gain and 
feasibility/cost.)
 > -if the spec performance is different than planned, how does that 
impact physics?  (For LAr there is the Higgs mass peak plot for 
example.  For trigger, I would imagine we're talking trigger 
acceptance.  In muons there's the eta-phi coverage map Sarah showed, 
...  I'm guessing each TDR has a few useful plots.)
 >
 > This request is already in the todo sheet sent earlier, but I wanted 
to add some more information.
 >
 > Thanks,
 >
 > Gustaaf
 > _______________________________________________
 > Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l mailing list
 > Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
 > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l

Attachment: 6.5.1-PhysicsFlowDown.pptx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation