Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Migrated to Confluence 4.0

Rough notes on the IDAG discussion at LCWS

They mainly touched on the tracker and benchmarking, with some side remarks on magnet and calorimetry


they think the DBD is in a decent state and many of their comments are editorial.
We also explained,that given limited resources  not everything is engineered en detail and the DBD is snapshot in time


Lots of questions on the stability with power pulsing, the assumptions on material budget and so on. Also questions how we could further reduce the material budger
As I understood later this was driven by the LHC experience where material kept creeping up.
Also they pointed put about the lack of mentioning alignment in this chapter.
Also they were asking, whether we can use cosmics for alignment, which we can


On the magnet there were a few questions on feasibility and status.

Calorimeter chapter had two main comments

  1.  why we dropped the crystal calorimeter and
  2.  some editorial comments, that this chapter is too long

Also at as side, the performance plots are lacking (as reco isn't done yet)

A few questions where on costing, especially, if we'd replace the the iron in the HCAL with Tungsten

From the benchmarking, they were a lot of questions on the timeline and when results would be available.
we got reminded, that we should summarize the LoI benchmarks in the DBD as well

Another recommendation was increased communication with ILD on benchmark results, IDAG was particularly happy with the availability of our nightly builds