[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: list of assignments for bcal decision



On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, George Lolos wrote:

Dear George,

let me quickly address the issue with Sensl.
I think we all agree that having the possibility to get answers from first
hand is incredible valuable and we should use ti. My suggestion to have a
meeting with them on Monday afternoon comes from the intention it gives us
time Monday morning to discuss/collect the most burning questions we have
for them. Of course that goes without saying at least for me, we will
should try to adjust the schedule of our meeting as much as possible to
their travel plans, if Tuesday is better for them than I'm sure we can
accommodate this.

bye elke

p.s. It is true we had no time yet to read you draft, but I
definetely printed it to take with me for the weekend. At the moment we one
deadline here after the other one and some of them are very hard, CD-2 is
definitely showing it's face


> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:03:10 -0600
> From: George Lolos <George.Lolos@uregina.ca>
> To: elton@jlab.org, gjlolos@mac.com
> Cc: halld-cal@jlab.org
> Subject: Re: list of assignments for bcal decision
>
> Hi Elton:
>
> I did not have time yet to look at your posting, I will do later today.
> I assume you didn't have time to read the draft I sent you yesterday.
> We can address those on Monday.
>
> The threshold of 20 MeV, needs to be investigated particularly so in
> terms of the approximate 2 radiation lengths of cables from the
> chambers.  In  my report, I explicitly mention the 20 MeV threshold in
> terms of the energy deposition in the SciFi's (~2.4 MeV) and the
> resulting numbers of P.E.'s in the SiPM's.
>
> I agree that SensL will not take part in our discussions and I don't
> think they would do this even if we asked them to.  I also think that
> the opportunity for us as a group to invite them to attend a specific
> session, the emphasis is on the invitation and specific session, is
> invaluable for the rest of the working group to hear first hand where
> they are in terms of the R&D and further progress, costs and everything
> we feel it's important for us to know. We therefore have to decide among
> us on Monday when is the optimal time for such session and communicate
> this to SensL.  I would think that the second session on Monday morning
> may be a good time, we would have the first session to get the questions
> together and look at the road map.  Elke's suggestion for the afternoon
> on Monday is also a good alternative, if their travel plans allow it.
>
> George
>
> >>> Elton Smith <elton@jlab.org> 04/13/07 8:10 AM >>>
>
> HI George,
>
> I have posted an update to the note on specifications and evaluation of
> readout options (GlueX-doc-795). Before you get too excited: this is
> just
> a draft and I am trying to prepare a framework for evaluating various
> options. The numbers I have included need to checked and we need to
> discuss whether my logic is appropriate. These issues also need to be
> considered along with the information you are putting together.
>
> One particular issue that I became aware of is that many of the
> requirements are driven by conditions at the nominal threshold of 20
> MeV.
> We can discuss the implications of this requirement on Monday at our
> phone
> conference.
>
> We also need to think about an goals and agenda for the workshop Apr
> 23-24. It appears that we will have visitors from SensL, but I do not
> think they should participate in all our discussions, although their
> input
> would be very valuable. Elke has suggested to meet with them on Monday
> afternoon after we have had some time for internal discussions in the
> morning. We also need to schedule video conference sessions where others
> can participate remotely (e.g. Christina and Richard + others).
>
> Cheers, Elton.
>
>
> >                                          Christine
> > > HI George,
> > >
> > > See below:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, George Lolos wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Elton:
> > >>
> > >> A couple of comments with regards to your e-mail below:
> > >>
> > >> 1. The review (teleconference I presume) next Monday is a good idea
> and
> > >> we will participate from Regina.
> > >
> > > We are planning for 1:00 pm on Monday.
> > >
> > > To connect by telephone:
> > >
> > > 1.) dial:
> > >  800-377-8846 : US
> > >  888-276-7715 : Canada
> > >  302-709-8424 : International
> > >
> > > 2.) enter participant code: 39527048#  (remember the "#")
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 2. I thought that the meeting on the 23rd is not to make any
> decision
> > >> regarding the BCAL read-out, but instead we will discuss in great
> > >> technical details the various options (SiPM's, Planacons and mesh
> > >> PMT's).  Yet you refer to a decision that gets my blood flowing.
> > >> Anything changed or it was a Freudian slip? :-)
> > >>
> > > What we present at the Lehman review this June and how this is
> presented
> > > must definitely be decided. We are already turning in budget
> estimates
> > > based on assumptions of the readout, and we need to be able to back
> them
> > > up with quantitative arguments.
> > >
> > > In addition need to satisfy one of our internal milestones for FY07
> which
> > > is a "decision on the readout for the barrel calorimeter." This was
> > > presented at the last Lehman review and is also shown as slide #6 in
> the
> > > manpower and budget presentation that Elke showed the collaboration
> less
> > > than two weeks ago (see
> /group/halld/INFO-FOR-COLLAB/Budget_manpower.ppt)
> > >
> > > Also, the deadline for the following Recommendation #27 IPR (2005)
> Sec 2.5
> > > is June 2007:
> > >
> > > "Develop a plan for readout of GlueX barrel calorimeter based upon
> > > conventional photomultiplier tubes.  The plan should include fiber
> > > routing, end iron configuration, shielding, and cost estimate."
> > >
> > > So, yes, decisions need to be made. Are they final? No, but the
> longer we
> > > wait the harder they are to change, and we must make our best effort
> to
> > > make the best and most informed decisions possible.
> > >
> > >> 3. I have received notification from SensL that a couple of their
> people
> > >> will be able to visit JLab next week and perhaps be able to take
> part in
> > >> some of the discussions on the April 23-24.  I would strongly
> encourage
> > >> this possibility to hear from the source directly the update and be
> able
> > >> to ask all the specific questions we need.  This partly addresses
> your
> > >> suggestion of persons outside the project.  What other names do you
> have
> > >> in mind and what is their role or expertise?  Meetings that have
> too
> > >> many persons involved get cumbersome and not as productive as
> smaller
> > >> groups of persons directly in the know.  On the other hand, we
> don't
> > >> want to exclude anyone with specific knowledge on field resistant
> > >> sensors and electronics expertise.  Please, don't invite Domingo
> and
> > >> others just for an audience and ideas on the fly.
> > >>
> > > We have not heard anything about anyone from SensL visiting JLab,
> and we
> > > want to make sure that their time he is productive. So they should
> let us
> > > their schedule ASAP. Depending on who is coming and their expertise
> > > (technical? sales?), it may or not be appropriate for them to
> participate
> > > in our discussions.
> > >
> > > One of the single most important numbers we need from them (an
> informal
> > > budgetary estimate is fine, but needs to written down) is the cost
> per
> > > channel of SiPMs in production (including all auxiliary
> > > mounting/electronics/etc that would be necessary for a particular
> > > configuration).
> > >
> > >> 4. Before Zisis and George commit themselves to yet another
> document,
> > >> please have a look at 739, 708 and 664 (all by Zisis) and see if
> the
> > >> info is not already there.  I am also working on a detailed report
> > >> showing BCAL response to photons, spectra and read-out segmentation
> and
> > >> how it matches the SiPM parameters.  Manpower at the UofR is so
> tight
> > >> now, any duplication of effort on material already readily
> available
> > >> will only make things worse on other fronts.
> > >>
> > > I hear you. I will try to collect together the necessary info.
> > >
> > >> The topics you listed look fine to me.
> > >>
> > >> So sprach Georg
> > >>
> > >> George
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >>> Elton Smith <elton@jlab.org> 04/11/07 6:04 AM >>>
> > >>
> > >> Hi Bcal enthusiasts,
> > >>
> > >> I would like to reserve an hour on Monday afternoon (I suggest 1:00
> pm)
> > >> to
> > >> review issues that need addressing before the Bcal decision meeting
> the
> > >> following week. Below is a list of issues that need updates. I have
> put
> > >> some names down on the likely candidates for reporting on these.
> > >>
> > >> It might also be useful to go over the format/schedule for the Bcal
> > >> review
> > >> (times, format, etc). Do we want to ask a couple of persons which
> are
> > >> not
> > >> direcly in the project to give us some feedback?
> > >>
> > >> I would also ask George/Zisis to prepare a 1-2 page table of Bcal
> design
> > >> parameters in a format similar to what was done for the drift
> chambers
> > >> before the DC review (See for example GlueX-doc-740). We will need
> this
> > >> for all subsystems in preparation for CD-2, so this is a good time
> to
> > >> create it for the Bcal. (This information is in various documents
> and it
> > >> will be useful to summarize it into a couple of pages).
> > >>
> > >> Topics (please send me items that are missing)
> > >>
> > >> 0.  How to summarize how physics needs drive the design specs
> > >>         - energy resolution
> > >>         - energy threshold
> > >>
> > >> 1.  SiPM
> > >> 	- linearity/dynamic range
> > >> 	  - need for amplification
> > >> 	- need for cooling?
> > >>           - measurements of dark rate (Carl)
> > >>           - spectrum of dark noise (Carl)
> > >> 	- lifetime (DESY experience) (George)
> > >>         - outline of single electronics channel
> (LV/disc/signal/etc)
> > >>           (George/Zisis)
> > >> 	- budgetary estimate from SensL
> > >>
> > >> 2.  Planacon
> > >> 	- amplifier/shaper (Carl/Vladimir?)
> > >> 	- light guide design / optics of light collection of WC into
> > >>           fibers (George?)
> > >> 	- placement
> > >>           - B-field map of fringe field (David)
> > >> 	- lifetime
> > >>         - measurements of dark rate (Carl)
> > >>
> > >> 3.  Wire Mesh
> > >>         - use in combination with SiPMs?
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

 ( `,_' )+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=
  )    `\                                                  -
 /    '. |                                                  +
 |       `,              Elke-Caroline Aschenauer            =
  \,_  `-/                                                    -
  ,&&&&&V         Jefferson Lab                                +
 ,&&&&&&&&:       HALL-D 12C / F381       121-A Atlantic Avenue =
,&&&&&&&&&&;      Mailstop: 12H5          Hampton, VA 23664      -
|  |&&&&&&&;\     12000 Jefferson Ave                             +
|  |       :_) _  Newport News, VA 23606  Tel.:  001-757-224-1216  =
|  |       ;--' | Mail:  elke@jlab.org    Mobil: 001-757-256-5224   -
'--'   `-.--.   |                                                    +
   \_    |  |---' Tel.:  001-757-269-5352                             =
     `-._\__/     Fax.:  001-757-269-6248                              -
            +=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+