General EEEMCal Meeting Summary 3/31/23

Participants: Carlos, Hamlet, Ioana, Renee, Tanja, Richard, Rosi, Larry, Julie, Justin, Lei, Cristiano

RECAP NSF MEETING

• Project management aspect of proposal is very important

• Need to prepare templates to collect information for project planning and costing
• Action item: schedule meetings with subsystems to review the planning data

• Timeline with respect to EIC

• Ask Jim Yeck to address the timeline in the letter

• Budget - need to carefully review and make sure all lines are justified

• robustnes and documentation will be evaluated in detail in the indirect cost review
• Action item: review budgets

• Labor and contributed labor

• If labor is assumed for people supported from grants other than MSRI then this is Contributed Labor
• Need to document the contributed labor
• Might be good to show some contributed efforts as this demonstrates commitment by the EEEMCAL Consortium
• Action item: prepare a template to estimate the workforce (Renee)

• Basis of estimate

• have a preliminary one
• need to check with risk matrix

UPDATE FROM DAQ MEETING

• From Justin's 3/31/2023 email: Minutes of 3/30/23 meeting with the ePIC/EIC DAQ Coordinators

• Justin went through the slides quickly, and we started going through the discussion points on the last slide.
• Fernando explained that there are two common solutions for calorimeters currently expected to be used in ePIC: the HGCROC asic board solution and a "Discrete" option using Flash ADC's which is being developed by Gerard Visser.
• Bullet 1 on last slide : Unlike the Justin's guess of HGCROC asic boards, it was suggested instead we should put in the proposal the Discrete option since that is the higher performance option and was the default expectation of the DAQ wg for EEEMcal.
• This should provide provide for around ~8 samples per waveform which is better as this level of performance may be needed. If the HGCROC's, which are still being characterized as part of eRD109, are found to be sufficient, they should be less expensive so we could always switch to those when the project reaches that point.
• A similar strategy was recommended throughout the rest of the meeting for virtually all components to be put in the proposal—generally options we can use have been narrowed down by the DAQ leadership, which Fernando will generally share—many such specific items were discussed later in the meeting.
• Our proposal group can also contact Gerard Visser for some more detailed cost estimates for the Discrete solution components. Fernando said that expected components of this solution are also known, and any remaining uncertainty in exact component choices can be easily handled with the strategy in the previous bullets.
• Paul King and Justin agreed that since Moller has some similarities in using FADC's including the connection medium (probably copper wire) which one of the DAQ experts also commented we will need to decide on (along with details of how to mount the siPM's etc...), we can also use some parts of Moeller's estimates to provide some guidance as well.
• The Cryter USA folks commented if they saw any problems based on anything they encountered in the detector testing they've been doing and the readout schemes being used, they agreed that the above points sounded OK.
• Bullet 2 last slide- and other comments, including an earlier comment by Jeff about confirming some of the numbers in his tables: our detector group should double check what levels of performance are needed and what expectations for SiPM's gain uniformity can be expected, but based on previous experience the SiPM's should be able to be grouped with similar gains/voltage requirements, possibly by paying extra—which seemed probably good to look into for us-- such that no extra channels of readout should be needed.
• Other things missing besides those on the slides were discussed, such as power supplies, Justin will email Fernando for some models he is considering (along with other items below) . Rosi added we probably need to add cabling to the budget, (although we will check with Lei to see if he perhaps had included any additional amounts in his budget for this).
• Bullet 3 (last slide) : we went through the items in Bullet 3: RDO's are only a concept right now, but FPGA choices are known, Fernando will send..they and the DAM will be PCI mounted in servers, so no racks are needed, but we could order some servers for these, but Jeff recommends we don't include e.g. logging servers beyond what is needed for testing and development. The FADC's need a rack, Fernando will send some options.
• Our proposal group will stay in contact with the DAQ conveners/Fernando and send one or more of our costing for this part of the proposal for their review.

• Overall: parts of the DAQ for EIC are not designed yet but will get information from Fernando

MOUNTING SIPMs

• Need to decide how this will be done and where

• In principle could be done at: universities of radiator subsystem, at test beam location, at BNL

NEXT MEETING: FRIDAY 7 APRIL AT 8AM ET

PLUS SUBSYSTEM MEETINGS