RUN 2B L1CAL MEETING MINUTES 20 September, 2005 Present o Fermilab L.Bagby, J.Blazey, G.Ginther, S.Lammers, M.Mulhearn, Md.Naimuddin, V.O'Dell, N.Varelas, A.Stone, T.Wyatt o FSU T.Adams o Indiana H.Evans o MSU M.Abolins, D.Edmunds, P.Laurens o Nevis J.Parsons o Northeastern D.Wood o York W.Taylor (apologies to those I couldn't see) Discussion of Shutdown with Spokes (Jerry & Terry) ---------------------------------- o History - June/July 2005 PMG: asked to state when we (D0) prefered the shutdown . Answer: Oct.31 . Accel. Div. asked for July 2006 - but not well thought out case - mid-Aug: Director called saying he was thinking of delaying shutdown . suggested Mar. 1 . gives pbar task force more time to study pbar stacking . felt that an extra 6 months of study with operating machine - J & T prepare argument against this delay - also suggest compromise date of Jan.9 for Tevatron shutdown . continue pbar stacking work - Director still considering the possibilities . should hear in a week . could be between Jan.9 and Mar.1 o P5 - P5 will recommend that we run the accel through 2008 (at least) . Oddone is 99% sure that this will happen o J & T feel that running through 2008 justifies the upgrades regardless of when the shutdown occurs - they thank the group for all its hard work (and have passed this along to Oddone) - a real detailed plan will have to wait until we know more about when the shutdown will occur Questions --------- o Any more information on why they didn't see the pbar stacking problems earlier - McGinness says that this is the "last" problem to be solved before they can go to high luminosity . didn't understand this a few months ago - Problem has turned out to be more difficult than they thought - Still no plan from the A.D. on how to attack this - note: McGinnes will be at D0 for this week's ADM o Can we really believe that Mar.1 is the real date? - no really satisfactory answer - J&T will push very hard for this to be a strict deadline o Could they move up the shutdown date if they solve the problems - vague plans of A.D. really seem to need several months to get things in shape to do the measurements - each shutdown needs 11 weeks notice to ConEd o What is the feeling of the Collaboration given that there will be big manpower problems in 07-08? - based on P5 preparation and MOUs expect that there will be enough people to run D0 through to the end . also exploring ways for the lab to help - schedule for the LHC will also impact this (especially if delayed) - also: not (yet) seeing any indications that this delay is causing people to leave D0 - if we run through 08 will see at least 3-4 fb-1 *more* data than we will have at March . more if we run in 2009 o Is it clear that a "long" shutdown is necessary for the accelerator in 2006? - there is a long list of maintenance jobs - these will fill any conceivable shutdown . they have presented a 70 working day schedule with things to do - lab's intent is to not shut down again for ~a year after the shutdown o Could the drought cause an early shutdown? - there is a serious water shortage - but not expected to be a consideration for the shutdown - if nothing goes well - have 60 days of operation left - note: other catastrophes could cause the lab to shut down o What is CDF's view of the delay - basic position: they welcome a delay b/c they want to collect as much data as possible before the summer conferences . have had to thow away ~300 pb-1 of data - so they are well behind us . would like to get to 1 fb-1 of physics quality data before summer - Oddone does not consider this to be an argument that carries much weight o General feeling of the spokes - should get the L1Cal up and running in test mode as quickly as possible . this would reduce load on group to basically maintenance after it works . will allow group members to move into physics analysis o Worries with this - hardware projects drag on - need to manage the "loose ends" efficiently - slowing things down will (unavoidably) cause more integrated time to get things working . could the lab provide people to pick this up? - is it realistic to train a new group of people - probably not? o Oddone has asked us for concrete proposals for ways that the lab can mitigate these problems Possible Options 1) ask everything to be ready on Nov.1 - then ask same people to continue their work in March . "increase number of splitters" option falls into this category . will certainly increase the total amount of work 2) train new people (after the system is operational) 3) slow down rate of work significantly . after system is "operational" as it would have been if the shutdown was not delayed o Critical Point: Experts will be needed until the system is "working" in any case - have to prevent the definition of "working" from creeping away o Should we ask the lab for a full-time EE? - Ted Zmuda, Mark Bowden... - also an "operational physicist" to do online-type things o D0 should ensure that those of the group working on the project who go away for a few months to "do analysis" get set up with a good, short-term project o Splitter Option - may be able to just split off all signals and leave the new system on the sidewalk . could do this regardless of when the shutdown is . leaves backup Run IIa solution - will continue this discussion next week during the Collaboration Meeting - Thursday, Sep.29 at 2:30