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

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

Yes, the ADC should be 100% for design and 66.2% for production,
with France and Canada as the partners.  I will change my L2 table also.

On 7/22/19 5:21 AM, Tim Andeen 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>
> ---------------

--
______________________________________________________________________

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=SVsaFQmCVluQ0k6NIpQO_PXdVBHv0Rk5stSQNETDjy4&s=8NmAUdSdblosteBAs1uNefHfTpnle0TNRK8Mzag6fO0&e=
    

______________________________________________________________________