[Moller_L2] FW: Few minor things

[James Fast]

Folks,
Final report from DR and some advise for FDR presentations.  Please share with your teams….

Jim

James Fast
MOLLER Project Manager
Jefferson Lab
757-230-6833 (cell)
757-269-5324 (office)


From: Chris Polly <polly at fnal.gov>
Date: Friday, November 18, 2022 at 4:06 PM
To: James Fast <jfast at jlab.org>, David Dean <deandj at jlab.org>, Allison Lung <lung at jlab.org>, Krishna Kumar <kkumar at umass.edu>
Cc: Jennifer Finch <finch at jlab.org>, David J Harding <harding at fnal.gov>, soprestemon <soprestemon at lbl.gov>, Glenn Young <glennyoung82251 at gmail.com>, Haiyan Gao <haiyan.gao at duke.edu>, hornt at cua.edu <hornt at cua.edu>, Ruben Fair <rfair at pppl.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Few minor things
Hi Jim, KK, David, and Allison,

I implemented the final minor fact check suggestions from Jim, changed the permission on the Google Doc to be view only, and printed out this pdf for your files.  Let me know if you spot any other minor corrections otherwise we will consider this the final report.

Jim also wanted to know if we had any specific suggestions on how the talks should morph into versions appropriate for the Final Design Review.  I compiled advice from the committee below.

Finally, I wanted to take a moment to specifically thank Jennifer for all the work she did to coordinate the technology, the review logistics, and the travel.  It was all very professional and welcoming.

Best of luck and congrats to you all on making so much progress on an awesome experiment!
Chris





Advice from committee on FDR talks:
Chris -
Imagine you are talking to one of your colleagues who is also a subject matter expert instead of a more general reviewer.  I would add 20-30% more detailed content on the design.  Don’t shy away from talking about the key challenges you faced in developing the design as they will stimulate conversation about the important parts and allow the reviewers to more rapidly develop an understanding of the key issues.

Example
- For the target it might be good to talk about some of the iterations on the design that led you to Model 21 being the final optimization.


Dave -
I think the biggest issue was making clear the documentation of the tolerances.


Tanja -
Agree. Presenting a clear plan for the path forward and taking into account the questions and clarifications we asked would be good.


Ruben -
A lot more design detail should be presented for the US toroid - use the DS toroid presentation as an example of the level of detail required - it will be a design review after all.

Clear alignment plan would be good.

Flowdown of physics requirements to engineering design decisions will be important.


Glenn -
A talk focussed on long-lead procurements only might help on the CD-3A specific items.
We found that presenting such a talk with that subject only was quite helpful in talking to ONP and OPA.

Which items are included, which others are not, and why.
Justification, vendor lead time quotes, variability of cost if applicable, and prototyping status need to be shown.
Usually one has to discuss cash flow but that's not an issue for them




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/moller_l2/attachments/20221119/6d4a16f6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2022_Moller_DirectorsCD3aReview.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 158940 bytes
Desc: 2022_Moller_DirectorsCD3aReview.pdf
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/moller_l2/attachments/20221119/6d4a16f6/attachment-0001.pdf>