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

[John Parsons <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>]

Thanks, fixed.

On 7/22/19 9:12 AM, Ma, Hong wrote:
>                  In the FE traceability table,
>
> cell L8, there is a typo:  “The quantity incldues”
>
>                  In for FEB2 traceability table,
>
> cell L4-5: “ Comments on row 4.” à “Comments on row 3”.
>
> Cell L8-11: “See Comments on row 9.” à “See Comments on row 7.”
>
>                  Hong.
>
> *From: *Tim Andeen <timothy.robert.andeen AT cern.ch>
> *Date: *Monday, July 22, 2019 at 7:42 AM
> *To: *"Ma, Hong" <hma AT bnl.gov>
> *Cc: *"usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov" 
> <usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, John Parsons 
> <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l] updates of NSF talk and other docs
>
> FYI updated talk, BOE and traceability table are in docdb and on the 
> agenda for tomorrow. Best, Tim
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:21 AM Tim Andeen 
> <timothy.robert.andeen AT cern.ch <mailto:timothy.robert.andeen AT cern.ch>> 
> wrote:
>
>     Hi John and Hong,
>
>     A couple of quick questions on my slides in docsb now.
>
>     slide 25: Hong, I now add that thelpGBTEngineering run is equivalent
>     to the ADC Final Prototype. Which is accurate, and what is in our
>     schedule now. Of course, we also now know that the lpGBT will _not_
>     submit an Engineering run until Q1 2021, and an equivalent of a
>     pre-prototype in “Summer” 2020 (I bet not before Sept). But we
>     haven’t had time to put this in the schedule. So I’ll leave it as
>     is, but I guess this will come up in the review.
>
>     slide 26 and conclusion are related to the lpGBT. What is in the
>     schedule is consistent. But that does not reflect what we know now.
>     However, as far as functionality and testing is concerned for
>     data/control links we’re told that what we have in these "pre
>     prototypes" is fine. So it shouldn’t really delay our links.
>
>     slide 34 - International Partners. John, I just took the table from
>     your slides. Should ADC be 100% for production? Or we need to change
>     to 66.2% and add France(?) as a partner?
>
>     slide 42 -I deleted the Scientific Labor slide, but kept “Scientific
>     Effort = 28% of Total” here. Should I remove?
>
>     re the 75 wafers: that was a type from the old slides where we
>     included the P/S production. That is all changed to 25 wafers. And
>     as I said, Hong was right, I hadn’t updated the number of wafers
>     needed for 69k chips. That’s done. I think it’s clear on the slides,
>     but just to elaborate:
>
>     ·need 18 wafers (69k chips, if 4x4mm)
>
>     ·buy 1 more lot, so we’ll have 25 wafers from the lot, plus 6 from
>     the NRE, 31 total.
>
>     ·quote for dicing 20 wafers. does not drive cost ($6k total).
>
>     ·package 69k chips.
>
>     FYI, if the chip size grows we should still be fine.
>
>     Last, I’m adding the individual risk slides now. Will update in
>     docdb. (includes fixing the typo on slide 52).
>
>     best, Tim
>
>     On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 7:49 PM Ma, Hong <hma AT bnl.gov
>     <mailto:hma AT bnl.gov>> wrote:
>
>         Hi Tim,
>
>                          In your talk, page 52 still says 16 wafers.
>
>                          In any case, the text in that box on slide 52
>         seems to be redundant to the first bullet of the slide, except
>         the number of needed wafers.
>
>                          Hong.
>
>         *From: *Tim Andeen <timothy.robert.andeen AT cern.ch
>         <mailto:timothy.robert.andeen AT cern.ch>>
>         *Date: *Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 1:30 PM
>         *To: *"Ma, Hong" <hma AT bnl.gov <mailto:hma AT bnl.gov>>
>         *Cc: *"usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>         <mailto:usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov>"
>         <usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>         <mailto:usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov>>, John Parsons
>         <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu <mailto:parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>>
>         *Subject: *Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l] updates of NSF talk
>         and other docs
>
>         Hi all, Just saw these comments. I just put most (all) of the
>         suggestions, and I'll send some detailed answers before tomorrow
>         morning EDT. Hong, I think you caught the big one re: the 16 vs
>         18 wafers .You're exactly right, it should be 18. I didn't
>         realize that was what you were asking about in the BOE, also. I
>         updated both in docdb.
>
>         best, Tim
>
>         On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 2:23 AM Ma, Hong <hma AT bnl.gov
>         <mailto:hma AT bnl.gov>> wrote:
>
>             Hi Tim,
>
>                              My comments on the your slides.
>
>             Slide 18: mention corresponding risk for choosing COTS ADC
>
>             Slide 25:
>
>                              “Engineering run of lpGBT”.
>
>             This does not fit our usual
>             preprototype/prototype/preproduction/production sequence.
>             Can you map it to our standard steps?
>
>             Slide 28: remove the lower right box “*Document 216-v13*”
>
>             Slide 30: “base on” à ”based on”
>
>             Slide 47: “10 main FEE risks”
>
>                              But the total of risks in backup slides 65
>             and 66 is 11.
>
>             Slide 49: indicate these 4 are the main risks, not all risks.
>
>             Slide 51:  “estimate 16 wafers needed.”
>
>                              This is the same question I had for BOE. 
>             According to Table 7 in BOE, each wafer give 3879 chips.
>             Then 69000 chips requires 69000/3879=17.8 = 18 wafers.
>
>                              (Slide 55 mentions 16 wafers too)
>
>             Slide 51: last bullet: “75 wafers” à”25 wafers”
>
>                              Slide 58 mentions 75 wafers too.
>
>             Slide 26 & 59:
>
>                 “Optical links Prototypes also finished by start of
>             MREFC. lpGBT and VL+ ready, with final production version
>             coming after MREFC. “
>
>                              In your BOE, you have:
>
>             2. early 2020 – early 2021 – Data/control link prototypes
>
>             3. early 2021-late 2022 – Production Data/control links
>
>                              Are they consistent?
>
>             Slide 66:
>
>                              Why does the first risk have no probability
>             (and no rank) ?
>
>                              Hong.
>
>             *From: *Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l
>             <usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov
>             <mailto:usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov>> on
>             behalf of John Parsons <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu
>             <mailto:parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>>
>             *Date: *Saturday, July 20, 2019 at 3:34 PM
>             *To: *"usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>             <mailto:usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov>"
>             <usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>             <mailto:usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov>>
>             *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
>             <mailto:parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>
>
>                Columbia UniversityPhone: (914) 591-2820
>
>             P.O. Box 137Fax: (914) 591-8120
>
>             Irvington, NY 10533WWW:
>             
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nevis.columbia.edu_-7Eparsons_&d=DwIDaQ&c=aTOVZmpUfPKZuaG9NO7J7Mh6imZbfhL47t9CpZ-pCOw&r=DSVO6Re8kg14S-cQbkBC2zfSx6Yt2GtkcD3fTWOeyfXXTwIA3TKWV-phDKykUKDr&m=Gc8m38egb9oL2Sn386z-0_MuxgrRivvmHVWDp9R10vc&s=95qLnyb8qKCE3SvEMKoG3kUx5QpzS86FyOjglqddbcs&e=
>
>
>             
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>             _______________________________________________
>
>             Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l mailing list
>
>             Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>             <mailto:Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>
>             https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l
>
>
>         -- 
>
>         ---------------
>         Tim Andeen
>         Assistant Professor, Department of Physics
>         College of Natural Sciences
>         The University of Texas at Austin
>         Austin, TX 78712-1192
>         web: tandeen.web.cern.ch <http://tandeen.web.cern.ch>
>         office (TX): PMA 10.208
>         office (CERN): 304/1-024
>         ph (TX):  +1 512 475-9575
>         ph (CERN): +41 (0)22 76 758 14
>         email: tandeen AT utexas.edu <mailto:tandeen AT utexas.edu>
>         ---------------
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     ---------------
>     Tim Andeen
>     Assistant Professor, Department of Physics
>     College of Natural Sciences
>     The University of Texas at Austin
>     Austin, TX 78712-1192
>     web: tandeen.web.cern.ch <http://tandeen.web.cern.ch>
>     office (TX): PMA 10.208
>     office (CERN): 304/1-024
>     ph (TX):  +1 512 475-9575
>     ph (CERN): +41 (0)22 76 758 14
>     email: tandeen AT utexas.edu <mailto:tandeen AT utexas.edu>
>     ---------------
>
>
> --
>
> ---------------
> Tim Andeen
> Assistant Professor, Department of Physics
> College of Natural Sciences
> The University of Texas at Austin
> Austin, TX 78712-1192
> web: tandeen.web.cern.ch <http://tandeen.web.cern.ch>
> office (TX): PMA 10.208
> office (CERN): 304/1-024
> ph (TX):  +1 512 475-9575
> ph (CERN): +41 (0)22 76 758 14
> email: tandeen AT utexas.edu <mailto:tandeen AT utexas.edu>
> ---------------

--
______________________________________________________________________

John Parsons
Nevis Labs,             Email: parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu
 Columbia University    Phone: (914) 591-2820
P.O. Box 137            Fax: (914) 591-8120
Irvington, NY 10533     WWW: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nevis.columbia.edu_-7Eparsons_&d=DwIDaQ&c=aTOVZmpUfPKZuaG9NO7J7Mh6imZbfhL47t9CpZ-pCOw&r=DSVO6Re8kg14S-cQbkBC2zfSx6Yt2GtkcD3fTWOeyfXXTwIA3TKWV-phDKykUKDr&m=4psGHpVJB5B0Nc4jYTsxbiSKDP6k6J7cjDsBXE8o2l0&s=wzblzrW5ITL18epjKnOn0BSUWl9AI7Uxf9kvfz2AFTI&e=
    

______________________________________________________________________