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

[Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>]

Hi Tom,

 

Thanks. I will pass on the first comment since that clarifies the need-by-date and it is in the comments section. The second point you made is perhaps suggesting a change to a recommendation which also includes an “either   … or”, so what you have written is really a response to the recommendation. We should not try to change a committee recommendation, that is the committee’s prerogative so I won’t send the comment to them, but you can certainly put it in a future response to the recommendation.

 

Cheers, Mike

 

From: Thomas Schwarz <schwarzt AT umich.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 8:15 PM
To: Stephanie Majewski <smajewsk AT uoregon.edu>
Cc: Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>; usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] March 1-2 Director’s Review Homework Questions

 

Hi Mike,

 

Here are a couple responses that I think clarify a few misunderstandings.  I also attached the .doc with the comments in-line.

 

Thanks,

Tom

 

Muon Comments:

●      The CSM sub-project: without urgently addressing the problem with the commercial part availability (that is either unavailable or in limited supply or available elsewhere at higher cost), the project runs a sizable risk of missing the need-by-date. Since this specific ATLAS need-by date is connected with the chamber installation planning, the impact of failing the need-by dates can be significant. A good use of contingency could be to advance this purchase to mitigate this risk, as additional wait time will also add to the standing army costs in addition to schedule risk.

 

The above is probably coming from a misunderstanding on delivery dates.  Sorry, I don’t think I explained that very well during our breakout.  There are two dates of importance.  (1) “off-detector” which requires about 100 CSM to be mounted on the sMDT before they are installed - this is where the 170 wd of float sits, and (2) “on-detector” which are mounted directly on chambers inside the detector - this has a much longer float.  Preproduction for the CSM will produce enough boards to satisfy the “off-detector” requirements, so it’s not so tight.  

 

Muon Recommendations:

●      The project should consider the possibility to either update the CSM design with parts that are currently available on the market and are radiation hard or urgently secure the parts that the design critically depends on (a specific voltage regulator) to mitigate the risk of not meeting the ATLAS deadline. The project should reach a decision by the next annual review, and should be prepared for discussing the progress at the rebaselining review.

 

There actually are currently no LDO’s on the market that have been tested as radiation hard, and meet our specifications, other than the part we have chosen.  Many have been tested for radiation but have failed.  This would likely cause more delay/cost than either waiting out the components, or as you suggest, just purchasing at the higher price.  Note that purchasing at the current price would require an additional $100k cost – which could be worth it given the timescales involved.

 

Thank you for all the help in the review!  We very much appreciate it!  The feedback is exactly what we needed.

 

Tom (on behalf of muon team)

 

===================

Tom Schwarz

Associate Professor

Department of Physics

University of Michigan 

Office: 734-764-8941

Lab: 734-763-7805

schwarzt AT umich.edu

===================

 

 

 

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 1:23 PM Thomas Schwarz <schwarzt AT umich.edu> wrote:

Hi Mike

 

I will have some comments but won’t be able to get them to you until late tonight.  I’m traveling.

 

Tom

 

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 1:20 PM Stephanie Majewski <smajewsk AT uoregon.edu> wrote:

Hi Mike,

Trigger looks good; no changes are needed.

Thanks,

Stephanie & Jinlong

> On Mar 2, 2023, at 2:43 PM, Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> Can you fact check and get back to us by first thing tomorrow morning? (or earlier is fine too). Even if you have no changes please respond that way so we know you looked at it.
> Thanks, PO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marco Verzocchi <marco.verzocchi AT gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 5:29 PM
> To: Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>
> Cc: LeCompte, Tom <lecompte AT slac.stanford.edu>; Victor Krabbendam <VKrabbendam AT lsst.org>; Gutta, Rajendra Rao <rgutta AT bnl.gov>; Sarah Eno <eno AT umd.edu>; Ted Liu (thliu AT fnal.gov) <thliu AT fnal.gov>; Darin Acosta <dea6 AT rice.edu>; Alexei N. Safonov <safonov AT tamu.edu>; Denisov, Dmitri <denisovd AT bnl.gov>; us-atlas-hllhc-pmgmt-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> Subject: Re: March 1-2 Director’s Review Homework Questions
>
> Hi Mike
>  here is a word version of the report
> Marco
>
> Marco
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 4:18 PM Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> Thanks again to you and the committee – a great job that has provided valuable input for us to hone our message. If you can send me the report, we will look at it overnight for fact checking (not wordsmithing) and get that back to you tomorrow (or earlier).
>>
>> Thanks again, Mike
> <Review-Recommendations.docx>_______________________________________________
> Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l mailing list
> Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l__;!!C5qS4YX3!CB6s-HeC9IhEp5Y-1EbbBMWJa6extdLpBc8iqTylj3hQ1xwhDwYHIiZ9bgBCpZ9hYdqdTukI82pz6AmP$


_______________________________________________
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

--

-------------------------------------
Tom Schwarz
Associate Professor
Department of Physics
University of Michigan
Office: 734-764-8941
Lab: 734-763-7805
schwarzt AT umich.edu
-------------------------------------