usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov

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

List archive

Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [Usatlas-hllhc-management-l] [External] FW: questions

From: Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>
To: Elliot Lipeles <lipeles AT hep.upenn.edu>
Cc: Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>, "usatlas-hllhc-management-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <usatlas-hllhc-management-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, Mark Kruse <mkruse AT phy.duke.edu>, "usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [Usatlas-hllhc-management-l] [External] FW: questions
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:41:09 +0200

Hi,

For Paul's 3rd question you write "Answer: The HTT plan relies
significantly more scientific labor largely to include students and
postdocs in the project for training purposes. Approximately 2/3rds of
the HTT firmware effort is scientific labor. The GEP plan is not to use
students and postdocs to write firmware and for them to only be engaged
in testing and simulation."
==> This only re-states Paul's observation. It doesn't explain why
it's
done this way.

The key point is "for training purposes". That is the primary reason it's done this way.

The obvious follow-up is: why do we train people on HTT and not global algorithms?

For question 5 on the R&D status: is this not described in the slides?

Yes, but I thought he was asking for a more detailed status. Mel just has in the slides:
"Demonstrators nearing submission: schematics complete, layout and routing underway."
and focusses more on the work that lead up to that and less on exactly where things are.

Ok, maybe add some slides in back-up then?

Best,

Gustaaf

Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [Usatlas-hllhc-management-l] [External] FW: questions , (continued)