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

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

You could also add more info on the f/w, including progress (give some 
concrete examples), Allison's appointment, extension in recent BCP of 
NYU and SMU efforts, ...

On 3/26/23 5:12 PM, John Parsons wrote:
> A few more comments:
>
> p. 5 - maybe here (ie. early in talk) state that design is now for each 
> LASP FPGA to handle 3 FEB2 boards (compared to earlier assumption of 4); 
> clearly the number of FEB2 boards per LASP+SRTM is a major part of the 
> system description
>
> p. 7 - "CPPM for the LASP, which we test with write firmware for"?? This 
> is not proper English
>
> p. 9 - as I mentioned before, PDR was just for h/w
>    - wording makes it seem 3 FEB2/LASP, but is actually per LASP FPGA, 
> of which there are 2 per LASP
>
> p. 12 - you give a "list" of h/w but do not actually say they have been 
> successfully integrated (ie. what is the "message" of this slide?)
>
> p. 13 - say PCB being submitted in April (if true)
>
> p. 16 - you list ES&H contacts at 2 out of 4 institutions; either list 
> all or list none
>
> p. 17 - "Also had much faster (~4 month) delivery for recent sRTM v2 
> board" is not a "world event"??  So it is out of place here.  This slide 
> should deal ONLY with "world events".
> Also, since v2 has in fact not been delivered, what do you actually mean 
> to say?  (PCB order has not even been submitted yet)
>
> p. 18 - this is too terse; provide some more info (you have plenty of 
> space on slide, and plenty of time to talk about it)
>
> p. 19 - again, PDR did not cover f/w
>    - expand the text a bit
>
> General:
>   - maybe add a slide about new quotes, purchasing FPGA through CERN 
> with lower prices, ...
>   - the Breakout is quite long, so you could expand a bit the info on 
> some topics to make it more complete, leave less time for questions, ...
>
>
> On 3/26/23 2:19 PM, John Parsons wrote:
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> >      We have some issue getting a consistent story on the SRTM delays:
> >
> > on p. 17, you say these 2 things:
> >
> > "COVID caused ~9 months of delay in progress on hardware and firmware 
> > development (reduced efficiency of remote work), as well as ~12 month 
> > delay in feedback from LASP specs / testing"
> >
> > "Supply chain disruptions caused ~8 month delay in availability of 
> > Zynq FPGAs needed for assembly of v1.5 sRTMs"
> >
> >      If I add those together, I would end up with a total "World 
> > Events" delay of about 29 months.  With 20 working days per month, 
> > this would be 29*20 = 580 working days.  Yet, in my L2 talk I give a 
> > range of 324-356 days, since that is what I find adding up the delays 
> > from the 4 "COVID BCPs".  So, I think the COVID BCP preparations did 
> > NOT count the LASP delays as COVID-related.  In which case, we need to 
> > be consistent now and not count them that way.
> >
> >      Regards,
> >          John
> >
> > On 3/26/23 10:42 AM, Ma, Hong wrote:
> > > Hi Andy,
> > >
> > >                  A few comments on the slides:
> > >
> > > Slide 5: “Deliverable” refers to the US deliverable, but the 
> > > description is for the whole BE system.  Add a bullet on what US will 
> > > deliver?
> > >
> > > Slide 7:  The table as provided in the template is meant to show the 
> > > US responsibilities of the US deliverables.  I think you want to show 
> > > US will deliver 100% of sRTM.   Then the first column should be sRTM, 
> > > not LASP.       I suppose Annecy and CPPM are still considered 
> > > international partner since LASP and sTRM are closely coupled, even 
> > > though there is no percentage for them.
> > >
> > > Slide 9: “Will submit PCB for sRTM v2 in March 2023”.   Will it be 
> > > submitted by the time of the review?   If sRTM v2 is the Prototype, 
> > > it may be helpful to point out too.
> > >                  “Will adapt to lower…” is it already in the rebaseline?
> > >
> > > Slide 18: In another email thread on “Milestone date evolution”, John 
> > > Hobbs pointed out the “ delays waiting for the LASP ”.   Should that 
> > > be mentioned here?   i.e., risk of dependency on external partner was 
> > > partially realized.
> > >
> > >                  Best,
> > >
> > >                  Hong.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l 
> > > <usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of Andy 
> > > Haas <andy.haas AT nyu.edu>
> > > Date: Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 11:27 AM
> > > 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] weekly mtg (at slightly 
> > > shifted time)
> > > I've added a draft of my talk here: (and on the agenda page)
> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MCdLnGynBkoLT498P19bdY7UjZnBHQyhEXkebIMqnug/edit?usp=sharing__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!CGc_zjydB7rAd952GBW3h3jUK3Arro71oWu1F-j-Gl71Zlew8HSMMzWFSGOkhmyZdpslvJhviXWc318Frjp9el_sBOdm85eRhEF9d0Yc$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MCdLnGynBkoLT498P19bdY7UjZnBHQyhEXkebIMqnug/edit?usp=sharing__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!CGc_zjydB7rAd952GBW3h3jUK3Arro71oWu1F-j-Gl71Zlew8HSMMzWFSGOkhmyZdpslvJhviXWc318Frjp9el_sBOdm85eRhEF9d0Yc$>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l mailing list
> > > Usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-lartl2l3-l

--
______________________________________________________________________

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.com/v3/__http://www.nevis.columbia.edu/*parsons/__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FXoqZck2_Kr64o_kedaVUbTHUq52rB_fDlxE3ZNFK2gg-hy7jVcT3ksTFlIi0YzdOLFKSSVDRucyuqToxPG3iFUMUaWxhYrhaAMnqr-Z0NJo0Q$
      

______________________________________________________________________