[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: list of assignments for bcal decision
Hi Elke:
Your suggestion for the Monday afternoon session is certainly sound.
The optimal timing, if there's one, also depends on what we address on
Monday morning . As for the report I wrote, keep in mind the figures
will be improved but I thought the content brings together issues never
before brought into one document and shows the BCAL-Sensor system as one
for the first time. Good reading and please feel fee to suggest
additions and raise questions.
Have a good weekend,
George
P.S. For those of us who have been around JLab, GlueX and DOE reviews
long enough, "we feel your pain" as Clinton said :-) . Hang in there,
there must be a light at the end of the tunnel that is not the train
coming :-D
Elke-Caroline Aschenauer wrote:
>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 -
> +=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+
>
>
>