General EEEMCal Meeting Summary 8/26/22

From Cuawiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

PARTICIPANTS: Elke, Rolf, Gabriel, Hamlet, Hrachya, Petr, Renee, Richard, Vladimir, Tanja, Josh, Yeran, Justin, Carlos, Sasha, Larry I., Rosi, CRYTUR


  • Update from meeting of NSF-DOE-EIC Project management meeting on 18 August
  • Suggestion: submit a proposal for a mid-scale I MSRI up to $20M. Selection process takes up to 1 year. The other type of MSRI does not fit with the EIC Critical Decision process
  • Must make clear that design comes through the project - not asking R&D and design. Make clear what comes in through in-kind. Make clear all is very advanced
  • Advice: do not wait for solicitation but get started right away
  • Very important: science case cannot be independent. This detector absolutely critical and cannot be done without it. Science case must be written for non-expert scientists (engineers?). Focus on one or two very strong science case (something that needs both calorimeters) and was also part of the NAS study, e.g., spin structure function (g2). Need to work out the importance of detector to science case
  • Require: one PI and up to four co-PIs. Can have links to labs, but labs cannot receive funding through this. International partners cannot get funding. Good if the PI is an NSF PI, if possible.
  • Also require to include broader impact beyond the science; non-PhD granting institutions are good; look at an example from a successful one, e.g., Moller
  • In pre-proposal don't need much emphasis on international, but in proposal. Require: clear description of track record of delivering, expertise, etc.
  • Detailed costing is required - should be on level of project. Might need to be refined to get updated quotes etc. There will be check of cost by construction engineers. Contingency must fit into the envelope
  • need excellent science case
  • EIC is funded by DOE - why does DOE not fund --> fine as long as science case is standalone
  • DOE made clear what assumptions are: always assumed that NSF and international agencies comes in
  • must make clear that there are science cases that are driven by calorimeter - probably the most important thing
  • there are other options too, but these have design phases, which also don't fit
  • when proposal funded hopefully have CD-2 - so have design then
  • army of engineers work with guidance booklet - determine in which scale on technical readiness project is and based on that determine contingency
  • costing is done like costing for project
  • NSF happy to meet again for strategic discussion
  • overall a very positive discussion
  • Opportunities for international partners
  • not through this funding opportunity
  • there are other opportunities though, e.g., through US institutions
  • Action item: check with Ani


  • Short version of the proposal: Executive, Science case, Instrumentation, Broader Impact ++ supporting documentation
  • Get started working on it
  • Work out science - really show that there is a unique science case
  • To get started: strategy and also think about structure
  • plan to meet with NSF once strategy and structure figured out
  • Action items:
  • work out best science case possible - how to make best convincing case, best figures, etc.
  • define management structure - merged with DOE part (can be done on level 4 for example)
  • ask for Moller proposal
  • check if MSRI has internal constraints at universities; also check last solicitation for any special rules


  • Lot of progress with preparation for prototype tests at JLab
  • Setup for SiPM tests
  • Small 40cm SciGlass prototype assembled and installed in beam line
  • Crytur visit at JLab in week of August 29th