1 / 17

Hall D Electronics Review (July 23-24)

Hall D Electronics Review (July 23-24). Elton Smith Hall D Collaboration Meeting August 4-6. Reviewers. Andy Lankford (University of California – Irvine) from BABAR Glenn Young (Oak Ridge National Lab) from PHENIX John Domingo (Jefferson Lab).

elsie
Télécharger la présentation

Hall D Electronics Review (July 23-24)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Hall D Electronics Review(July 23-24) Elton Smith Hall D Collaboration Meeting August 4-6

  2. Reviewers • Andy Lankford (University of California – Irvine) from BABAR • Glenn Young (Oak Ridge National Lab) from PHENIX • John Domingo (Jefferson Lab) http://www.jlab.org/Hall-D/meetings/electronics_review_agenda/

  3. Charge to the Committee • Is the GlueX electronic design sound? • Are there any areas of concern that deserve special study? • Does the collaboration have realistic milestones on the way to a Lehmann review and beyond? • Are there any major items missing in the list of R&D tasks? • Is the priority given to each appropriate at this stage? • Are there technologies or developments which have been overlooked that may allow cost savings and/or improved technical performance?

  4. Schedule for July 23

  5. Questions from Committee • Prepare table of front-end inputs to electronics • Discuss organizational issues of manpower specifically related to electronics

  6. Response on Front-end Signals

  7. Is the GlueX electronic design sound? • All the characteristics of the design are sound and appropriate. However, suggestion that we • Develop a compact justification for the choice of pipelined electronics and DAQ system • Locate electronics in radiation-free area to improve reliability…. The Committee does not feel that there is a compelling reason not to use a crate and bus based system for electronic modules.

  8. Are there special areas of concern that deserve special study? • Additional manpower, especially ‘considerable’ technical expertise, is needed. • Front-end electronics are not adequately defined.

  9. Does GlueX have a sensible plan for management? • The Committee suggests creating a single organization covering front-end electronics of all detector subsystems, trigger, DAQ and online software.

  10. Are estimates of manpower realistic? • Manpower resources shown will be inadequate. • A “bottoms-up” estimate of the necessary manpower should be derived from the manpower requirements for development for the electronics chain for each electronics subsystem, including packaging, grounding, shielding, and power issues.

  11. Does GlueX have realistic milestones for a Lehmann Review? • The Committee estimates that a project of the overall scale of GlueX will require about 6 years to complete after CD-3 is achieved. • High-speed, densely populated pipelined systems are known to have… coupling issues (between inputs), and a strategy should be developed to address them for all electronics and detectors. • Analog front-end electronics deriving from the detector should be settled. • Prototype work on the needed FE will require about one year once these specifications are settled. • This suggests a review of progress in this area by JLab around the beginning of FY2005.

  12. Milestones (cont.) • Level 1 Trigger: general concept is sound. • If high-speed serial operation proves challenging, we should explore possible parallel concepts. • The global design concept also needs to be developed for the CDR. • A concept for the timing of the trigger and trigger distribution… needs to be developed. • GlueX should start prototyping the parallel event builder.

  13. Milestones (cont.) • A concept for the software framework for (Level 3 Trigger) algorithms needs to be established for the CDR as well as a method to test this using simulated events. • Power management, grounding and shielding concepts need to be established for the CDR. These must address overall issues as well as those specific for each detector type.

  14. Are there any major items missing in the R&D list? Is the priority given to each appropriate? • It is critical that the choices made in the readout architecture reflect requirements imposed by the physics and detector choices. • Examples of areas of concern • Barrel calorimeter photosensors • Vertex tracker • Balance priority between design and prototyping

  15. Are there any technologies which have been overlooked? • The collaboration should perform a systematic search for existing developments…that will facilitate GlueX analog front-end electronics. Examples: • Anode wire readout in drift chambers developed by the University of Pennsylvania (ASD-8 family of amplifier/shaper/discriminators) • Fermilab VLPC design • Amplifier/shapers developed for ATLAS, CMS, and PHENIX cathode strip chambers.

  16. Summary / Areas of Concern • Manpower • Specification of front-end electronics • Choices made in readout architecture must reflect requirements imposed by the physics. • I propose complete definition within the year • Many small items adding up to overwhelm our relatively small manpower • Many different subsystems (find common denominators are use them)

  17. BABAR Conceptual Design Review • Combined a requirements review with their conceptual review • Level for conceptual design was one level below a “module” • WBS and preliminary cost estimate • Interface document to other systems • Grounding and shielding plan

More Related