Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l - Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l] updates of NSF talk and other docs

usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: U.S. ATLAS HL-LHC Upgrade LAr Level 2 and Level 3 Managers Mailing List

List archive

Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l] updates of NSF talk and other docs

Chronological Thread  
    < Chronological >       < Thread >
  • From: "Ma, Hong" <hma AT bnl.gov>
  • To: "Parsons, John" <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>
  • Cc: "usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
  • Subject: Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l] updates of NSF talk and other docs
  • Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 22:40:33 +0000

Hi John,

 

In your L2 talk,  I don’t see the responses to the recommendations.  Were there any from PDR ?

 

Hong.

 

From: John Parsons <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 20, 2019 at 6:38 PM
To: "Ma, Hong" <hma AT bnl.gov>
Cc: "usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l] updates of NSF talk and other docs

 

 

Hi Hong,

 

                Thanks for the comments.  I made the changes

(the last one was copy/paste from my L2 talk, so I

left it in L2 but took it out of L3).

 

                                John

 

On 7/20/19 6:27 PM, Ma, Hong wrote:

Hi John,

                  A few minor comments on your FEB2 L3 talk.

Slide 5:

                  The first highlight box can start with “final

prototyping”, instead of just “prototyping”

Slide 7:

                  “Need to measure deposited energies with resolution <

0.25%”.

                  This sounds like you need to measure all energies with

that resolution.

“Need to measure deposited energies with as high resolution as < 0.25%”.

Slide 22:

“ mostly for postdoc supported on Columbia NSF base grant”

I see some uncosted student efforts in RLS. Are they really small

compared to postdocs?

Slide 25:

“(eg. for ASICs, for which the designs are now well advanced and sizes

known better)”

But ASICs are not part of FEB2 cost.

Hong.

*From: *Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l

*Date: *Saturday, July 20, 2019 at 3:34 PM

*Subject: *Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l] updates of NSF talk and other docs

Hi all,

I looked quickly through other L3 talks

and give some comments below.

John

Tim

p. 19 - "At start of MREFC, Final Prototype ADC..."

(MREFC is missing.  Also, I have been calling them

"Final Prototypes" to stress "construction ready"

aspect, so let's all to that consistently

p. 25 - "Data and control...   conclude."

- make a stronger stmt that these tests

"will demonstrate the design and implementation of

the data and control optical links for the FEB2"

to stress (again) the construction ready nature

p. 26 - typo "allows"

p. 28 - instead of "no changes" I would say the big

change is that the Analog Testboard has verified the

functionality of the interfaces

p. 30 - typo "closed"

p. 31 - you say "first test planned" but it is already

working

p. 34 - update table from my L2 talk

p. 37 - remove reduction until next slide, where it

is explained as a shift from FE to BE

p. 38 - add that shift from FE was done by reducing

67% to 54% in optics, as agreed in MOU

p. 39 - update pie chart

p. 41 - add that ASICs purchased through CERN Frame Contract

with TSMC

p. 43 - delete

p. 44 - update chart

p. 45-46 - need some text.  Consider using ATLAS review dates

pp. 47+48 - delete (those charts aren't made any more

p. 50 - make clear this is about optics

p. 51 - you are right, we now using 66.2% (need to

fix previous table of 100% on p. 34

and also anywhere where we might have said 67%)

p. 51 - say something about die size and how you get

number of wafers?

p. 58 - why 75 wafers here? (typo?)

p. 59 - typo "allows"

      - suggest to add "original construction" in addition

to Phase 1

p. 62 - delete, since you put earlier

p. 62 - not updated

- at end, you are supposed to have your 1 risk/page

risk pages (ie. in the format from the risk scrubbing)

Andy

p. 2 - delete red box

p. 4 - expand this to 3-4 slides; there is no need to

cram all this on one slide

- also, update system block diag from my L2 talk

p. 5 - either fill in or delete (I don't think we need

names of people, but you need to say somewhere that

SBU/UAz did similar tasks in Ph 1

p. 6 - don't mix "carrier" and "main"; choose one

      - stress that functionality for US is the same,

just the details of the h/w implementation has changed

(we need to rely on Ph. 1 experience to argue we

are "construction ready", so promote the analogy

from Ph 1 to HL-LHC)

p. 8 - you have space to make fig a bit bigger (and more

readable)

p. 9 - change title to "PreMREFC/MREFC Boundary"

     - we should discuss with PO how they want to handle

the 5 mo. float issue.  They have said in past they would

like to try funding the sRTM v1 fab already in preMREFC,

but I don't know if they still hope for that, and in

any case what they want us to say.  I will ask

     - also we need to be careful about MREFC and maturity

of design when it starts (ie. "construction ready".

You should end preMREFC bit saying Ph 1/eval board work/

design of v1 sRTM will deliver a design that meets the

FDR requirements.  Then MREFC will test v1, design and

test v2, do prototype, then pre(prod).  See the slide

in my L2 talk about this

p. 10+12 - need to fill in.  See slides in my L3 and Tim's

as examples

p. 14 - take new org chart from my L2 talk

    - too simplified view of partners?  (eg. f/w certainly

has many groups)

     - I would suggest to separate this from org chart

p. 15 - if not sure about this, remove for now

p. 17 - get new pie chart (but put it on p. 23 instead)

- you need to add discussion of BCP-017 that

changed sRTM cost share from 67% to 100%, in agreement

with LAr MOU

pp. 18+20 - get new graphics

p. 19 - say something about how SBU qualifies vendors

and will choose (see my L3 as an example)

p. 21+22+23 - need to update

- for drilldown slides, state which Attachment from BOE

in each case. Also put a box(es) around the number(s)

you are extracting from each, to guide the reviewers

- rather than just keep saying the numbers are wrong,

I suggest you provide explanation early on.  ie. cost

share was changed from 67% to 100%, but error made

using 2/3 instead, so numbers are very slightly off

but will be brought into exact agreement before FDR

- also, for each of the costs you need you have

justified, you need to show the tasks with those

costs in the Drilldown Report (ie. show how you

get from the BOE and quotes to the Drilldown Report)

p. 27 - to be written (look at our talks for examples)

p. 30+31 - need to do (including individual Risk slides)

On 7/20/19 2:42 PM, John Parsons wrote:

     Hi all,

            After Friday's walkthrough of my L2 talk, I

     updated the slides and posted a new version on this Tuesday's

     agenda page at https://indico.bnl.gov/event/6491/.  A

     reminder that we will go through the various L3 talks

     during the meeting.  If anyone can take a look and

     send comments, that would be helpful.

            Andy/Tim, have you updated your

     talks after Hong's comments and uploaded a new version

     to that indico page?

            We also need to get the updated BOEs into docdb.

     Andy/Tim, let me know when you have done that.  Everyone has

     implmented Hong's comments?  Let's archive the latest BOE

     also on the same indico page as the L3 talks; I see Andy

     has already done that.  I just put mine there also.

            Regards,

                John

--

______________________________________________________________________

John Parsons

Nevis Labs, Email: parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu

    Columbia UniversityPhone: (914) 591-2820

P.O. Box 137Fax: (914) 591-8120

Irvington, NY 10533WWW:

______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________

Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l mailing list

 

--

______________________________________________________________________

 

John Parsons

Nevis Labs,                          Email: parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu

  Columbia University      Phone: (914) 591-2820

P.O. Box 137                       Fax: (914) 591-8120

 

______________________________________________________________________

 


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page