From settles@mppmu.mpg.de Sun Jan 30 08:03:45 2011 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:03:45 +0100 (CET) From: Ronald Dean Settles To: "[UTF-8] Leif Jönsson" Cc: Colas Paul , Takeshi Matsuda , Japanese group of LC TPC , Ties Behnke , Madhu Dixit , "Jan@CERN" , lctpc@desy.de Subject: [lctpc] Re: pad plane Dear Leif and everyone, That's a good suggestion to have a specific meeting to discuss this. The logical place would be to do this at the next WP meeting # 122 on 3 February (the WP5 agenda point). For the WP meeting #121 today which is in 1 hour, there is not sufficient advanced notice to make sure everybody is informed. If you need to know this more quickly, Leif, I would think that 1mm x 6mm, which is the starting point you mention below, is a good working assumption for continued work at Lund on your MCM etc layout. This size is definitely compatible with Dan's layout of the endcap and with all of the discussions we have been having for the last 6-9 months at the WP meetings. I am at SLAC at the moment and won't be able to join today, but you can make this suggestion at today's meeting, that we have a more detailed discussion in two weeks (the WP5 agenda point of WP#122). Apologies to whoever gets this mail twice, since I have incuded lctpc@desy.de so that eveybody is informed about this. For the lctpc@desy.de collegues who see this for the first time, you have to read through the previous emails below to get the full picture of what has happened up to now... Greetings, Ron ........................ Ron Settles Max-Planck-Institut fuer Physik Foehringer Ring 6 D-80805 Muenchen +4916090710273 On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, [UTF-8] Leif Jönsson wrote: > Dear Paul and others, > > I think the first thing to decide upon is who is going to do the design. > The present MultiChip module for the > SALTRO 16 is compatible with 1x6 mm2 pads so this is the starting point. > The reason I am pushing for > this to happen is that some decisions on the detailed design of our > system depends on the layout of the > pad plane. Before we know how this layout looks like it does not really > make much sense for us to start working. > Maybe we should organize a specific meeting to decide about who is going > to work out a proposal for > a pad board. What do you think? > > Best regards, > Leif > > > Colas Paul wrote: > > Dear Leif, Takeshi, and others, > > > > Thanks for the news. I look forward to participating in the discussion on the pad plane with the present SALTRO16 chip, a Lund AIDA responsibility. > > At the same time, I think we have to think about the next step, that is an improvement of SA16 for better compactness, in which Saclay is likely to be involved within AIDA, both through the gaseous detector group and the electronics group. > > > > Yesterday I met Lucie Linssen at CERN and we agreed that we should have a meeting in the next few weeks to try to see what could be the TPC electronics and what can be done within AIDA towards this goal. > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : Takeshi Matsuda [mailto:takeshi.matsuda@kek.jp] > > Envoyé : mercredi 19 janvier 2011 06:31 > > Ã^À : Jonsson, Leif > > Cc : Japanese group of LC TPC; Ties Behnke; Colas Paul; Madhu Dixit; Jan@CERN; Ronald Settles > > Objet : RE: pad plane > > > > Dearã^À^ÀLeif, > > > > Thank you for your mail. > > > > Yes, we have to think of it. > > > > In factã^À^Áand as you might remember, I have planned to propose a common design of the pad PCB with the S-ALTRO16 a la Lund, at least for GEM modules, and if possible also for MicroMEGAS. > > > > Before I left DESY, I discussed this with Ties, I understood that he was positive for it. I also asked to Paul preliminary if we might be able to consider a common PCB including MicroMEgas. Here, I think that, (1) they need to switch to a finer pad size (about 1mm x 5-6mm for the S-ALTRO16, where the size of 5-6mm may be determined by the total no. of readout channels available by S-ALTRO16 and the connection (connectors) between the pd PCN and the S-ALTRO board), and, (2) if the common PCB can be made compatible with the process of the resistive anode. > > > > Beside the above two point, the design of the McroMEGAS pad PCB may be, in fact, more similar to that of the DESY GEM module. Then, we, the Asian group, are better to seriously discuss if there might be a real advantage of smaller dead space in R-phi by the current Asian module design, and if the current design is really good for actual modules in future. > > > > In any case we need to/will discuss this issue among us and in the LC TPC collaboration. > > > > Best regards, > > Takeshi > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Leif Jönsson [mailto:leif.jonsson@hep.lu.se] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:25 AM > > To: MATSUDA Takeshi; sugiyama akira; Keisuke Fujii; Leif Jönsson > > Subject: pad plane > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > We have had a discussion in Lund about the SALTRO16 readout system. > > In order to take a final decision on the connection of the Multi Chip Module > > to the pad plane we would need a design of the pad plane. Could you prepare > > such a design including the HV supply lines? > > > > Best regards > > > > > >