Technical Proposal 2 nd 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 ● ominous. 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, or 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 others . 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?
Recommend
More recommend
