Technical Proposal 2 nd draft status Cryo. Instr. & Slow Ctrl. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Technical Proposal 2nd draft status

• Cryo. Instr. & Slow Ctrl.

Glenn Horton-Smith 2018-03-14

• Missing pieces
• Comments from Chief Editors
• Need for Reviewers
• Deadline is Friday

Status – almost no missing pieces

Spreadsheet: https://goo.gl/aApR83 Only a few missing pieces: SP: Cryo. Intrnl. Piping design, Level mon install, SC HW install DP: all of above, plus Purity Monitors, and all installation A plan:

• Intrnl Piping: Just describe planned LBNF-CISC group interaction.
• Installation: Move relevant text currently in design
• DP: use generic, common text for SP and DP

Specific comments from the Chief Editors

• “connect systems to DUNE physics in as direct a way as possible”
• “can we show that the design requirements given in Table 8.1 can be

achieved with existing designs? … your chapter already contains several examples of this, even with real data.”

–

“One possibility of boosting the physics profjle of this chapter would be to show one or more CFD based plots to help a reader better connect to the

• thermometry. Would this be reasonable?”
• “What should we say about challenges associated with the DP liquid

level in the 3X1X1 and any lessons learned for DUNE?”

• “the text ‘…irreversible contamination…terminate useful data taking’ is
• minous. Are the purity monitors a suffjcient line of defense against this

possibility?”

Table 8.1

Say which achieved or achievable in current design. (add new column?)

“show one or more CFD based plots to help a reader better connect to the thermometry”

• Does someone in the thermometry group already have a

favorite plot for connecting thermometry to CFD?

• If not, fjnd favorite in DUNE-

doc 1515, 2617, 3213, 5915,

• r 6017?
• There’s also some text in DUNE-doc-

7599 (“Cryogenic Modeling Plan Proposal”).

‘…irreversible contamination…terminate useful data taking’ is ominous (in section 8.2.2.1 Physics and Simulation)

• “Are the purity monitors a suffjcient line of defense against this

possibility?”

– If yes, we should say so clearly. – If no or uncertain, I think we should say that. (It would get people

thinking urgently about adding a suffjcient line of defense.)

Detailed style guidelines

• Email from chief editors on 3/7 forwarded to contributors

– Target audience for intro vs body – Metric units everywhere! (non-standard in parens where

neded) Use the LaTeX macros.

– English grammar rules – Rules for commercial product references

• If section writers could patch as many of those up in the

next day or two as they can, that would be great; I’ll also jump in Thursday night and fjx what I can. (It’s not diffjcult, just tedious.)

General comments from Chief Editors

• All the chapter editors received some general comments

before we received the specifjc CISC comments above.

• The specifjc comments cover what we need to do.
• Comparing the general comments to our specifjc guidance,

I got the impression that overall CISC draft 1 was already in pretty good shape.

Reviewers Needed

• “We [Sam and Tim] will ask several independent reviewers to read these

drafts for us and prepare comments for the authors. We plan on enlisting DUNE collaborators for this task...

• “We would like to get a wide selection of reviewers. Sam and I are less

familiar with some parts of the detector than others, and we are less knowledgeable about some parts of the global DUNE community than

• thers . We therefore request that each consortium submit three

recommended reviewers along with their second drafts. Sam and I will then choose a slate of reviewers from these three and others that we pick independently.”

Deadline is Friday, March 16

• That is

This Friday.

• Questions?