UEC Minutes -- January 17, 2004
Present: Bloom, Bose (GSA), Clark(GSA), Garcia, Griffiths (GSA), Gottschalk,
Groer, Hagopian, Messier, Sheldon, Tanaka (video), Tschirhart,
Trischuk, White, Zimmerman (apologies: Rolli).
Outreach (Marge Bardeen)
Have been exploring ways for the UEC to support the efforts of the
education office. She suggests we consider making use of materials and
experience in dealing with outreach to school-age kids. Some on the
web (http://www-ed.fnal.gov/physicists.html), some in the Lederman
Science center (in the Teacher's Resource Center TRC). Users should be
made aware what is available. Always looking for additional
material. If user's have developed something they could add it (or a
copy) to the TRC collection. Their most spectacular item demonstrates
cryogenics and is shown to about 6000 kids a year. DPF education
committee launched a complementary web-site
(http://www.aps.org/units/dpf/education/). One can easily find this
site from the side-bar of the DPF website. There is also an email
contact there for people to add material to that site.
It was suggested that the TRC might consider advertising their
resources in a booth setup at the users meeting. Or the UEC/Education
Office might be more ambitious. September 2001 has restricted site
access for open houses. The current solution is the 'Ask a Scientist'
programme that offers guided tours to one behind-the-scenes area once
a month. Recent tours have included CDF/D0, the Feynman centre and
other parts of the lab. The Education Office had planned a more
ambitious open house for families in honor of Fermi's 100th birthday
but it was canceled by 9/11. UEC members suggested a "College Night"
where members of the local community could meet researchers from
mid-western Universities and learn more about science programmes for
college bound students. Perhaps this could be arranged in conjunction
with the Saturday Morning Physics graduation.
Another role Marge's office plays is forwarding inquiries to people
from the lab staff (and members of the users community). People who
would like to be added to the list of experts willing to field such
questions should contact her. Often get requests from students further
afield (Connecticut, Ohio,...). May not be possible to get these
people to the lab but putting them in touch with a user that is
geographically closer to them is a good alternative.
The UEC should also help raise awareness in the rest of the community
as to how useful these kinds of outreach activities. They help
maintain the lab's public profile and thence support from the funding
agencies. Some people are discouraged by their supervisors or
employers from participating in outreach activities. Need to make sure
the efforts of these volunteers are recognised and the importance of
their work to the community is acknowledged at all levels.
Communication from Judy Jackson: A new linear collider Outreach web
page, which has information and talks about the linear collider, has
been set up at: http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1009040. If you
give a talk about the linear collider, please use the web form at
http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1009128 to make your slides
available to others.
State of the Laboratory (Mike Witherell)
He started with a couple of slides from the Accelerator division on how
the return to stable operations after shutdown. Peak luminosities well
ahead of the planned startup curve at this point. However, have had
two ~10 day periods where we had to warm up to exchange
superconducting spool-pieces. Anticipate about three of these a
year... Their influence on integrated luminosities has been mitigated
by the record luminosities when running. The integrated luminosities
are almost tracking the planned startup accumulation. Have also had
several stores above 2 pb^-1 integrated. Prior to the shutdown
best stores were in the 1.5-1.7 pb^-1 range.
He addressed a number of questions that had been sent to him by the
UEC ahead of the meeting. What are the prospects for putting critical
machine items on backup power (eg. the abort kickers that lost power
and causing one of the recent aborts/quenches)? Many critical elements
are on backup power. There is a task force on aborts and quenches
being led by Paul Czarapata. Among other things they are looking at
critical areas where backup power may have been overlooked.
Status of the recycler? The vacuum is now down to the level where it
is no longer an issue. Lifetime of anti-protons is several hundred
hours. The group is now addressing a number of smaller issues, such as
tuning stochastic cooling in the recycler and working to reduce the
longitudinal emittance to 50 ev-s. Hope to soon be ready to extract 36
bunches of anti-protons and inject them into the Tevatron. Can
probably achieve this now on a good day -- working to make these kinds
of activities routine.
Several reviews are planned. HEPAP will meet in Washington February
9-11, February 24-26 is a DOE review of the Fermilab accelerator
complex. January 20-22 will be an internal (director's) review of the
accelerators to prepare for the DOE review the following month. March
12-13 will see a URA visiting committee at Fermilab. March 16-18, the
DOE will conduct a Tevatron/lab operations review (topics include --
but may not be limited to -- accelerator, detectors, ES&H, finances,
etc.). March 23-25 is lab's annual programme review. April 27-29 will
be the BTeV CD-1 review.
A new accelerator division web-site has been launched. There is a page
(see http://www-bd.fnal.gov/records.html) devoted to record
luminosities (instantaneous, integrated), largest stacks of
anti-protons, number of hours without a failure, etc. Accumulating
11.2 pb^-1 in one 7 day period is one particularly recent
accomplishment highlighted there. Mini-BooNe has almost returned to
the best protons on target (POT) per week from last year. January
could be a record month. Looking at ways to further reduce losses and
hence achieve new POT records. Q: What is the current limit on
instantaneous luminosity for Tevatron? A: Could probably exceed 6 x
10^31 if that were the focus. But that would detract from the
integrated luminosity goals that are the priority. Currently installed
hardware, when fully commissioned, should to 8 x 10^31. Q: Is the PBar
tax working as expected? A: Yes, the director is happy with it.
Recycler is making much faster progress now that they have pre-agreed
access to PBars. Impact on integrated luminosity has been no more than
expected. Recycler is adapts itself to the supply of PBars -- taking
advantage of windfall's when Tevatron has been down and not requesting
many when stacking has been problematic.
The PAC meeting in December focused on the neutrino programme. Heard
about accelerator division plans to deliver more protons for miniBooNe
initially and then sufficient protons to keep MINOS and the collider
happy in a subsequent periods. The PAC encouraged the lab to continue
to pursue this, endorsing the physics of the neutrino programme.
The long range planning committee retreated to Naperville to consider
all the sub-group reports last week. A full report should be delivered
to the director soon allowing a public release and discussion with the
wider community in the spring.
Q: What can FNAL do to mitigate the poor funding of linear collider
R&D? A: There is still a DOE cap on funds that can be spent on linear
collider work. Direct spending remains capped at 2.3M$. The lab will
increase spending in this area if given authorisation. OMB and DOE are
amenable to increasing or lifting the cap, but the are waiting for the
technology choice and further evidence of international
cooperation. This is one issue pacing the international technology
choice. Probably too soon to lobby for this in Washington, but next
year -- after the technology choice. The lab is still doing what it
can to foster international cooperation by doing things 'without
Q: What is the lab's role in the DPF/DNP neutrino study panel? A: The
lab is not trying to steer this process but many members of the
Fermilab community are among the leaders of it, including Boris
Kayser. There is good communication between the DPF study and the
laboratory long-range planning process.
Q: URA might not get the contract rolled over to operate Fermilab,
does the Director have an opinion? A: This could happen, but Fermilab
should not take it personally. There is great pressure in Washington
to put all such contracts out to bid. ORNL has changed operators, as
has BNL. LANL's contract will be put out to bid for the first time in
50 years. But others are likely to be put out to bid -- if recent
trends continue. Decision on whether to compete the contract will be
made in 2005 as the current contract is up in 2006. Q: Are there any
indications how the new contractors are working out at ORNL and BNL?
A: Should hear from BNL or ORNL users as to the differences they have
seen. Safe to assume it takes some time to effect major changes of
Linear Collider Programme at FNAL (Steve Holmes)
Fermilab is a member of both NLC and TESLA collaborations putting it
in a unique position to compare technologies -- a very hot topic. On
the NLC they have been fabricating cavities and doing siting
studies. Have been comparing Northern Illinois sites to those in
California. TESLA effort is much smaller. Contributed an electron
source to TESLA studies in Germany and have a copy of this source on
site. Also collaborating with Northern Illinois Consortium for
Accelerator Development (NICAD) and developing a collaboration with
the Illinois Consortium for Accelerator Research (ICAR). The
international community, with Fermilab as a member is moving towards
merging the efforts of the two collaborations to one international
linear collider collaboration.
Steve showed several slides on the technical progress being made
on accelerating cavities and various prototypes that have been
mandated by the technology steering and choice committees. The
Technical Division is leading the effort in this area on behalf of
the Lab -- led by Dave Finley, Shekhar Mishra and Harry Carter.
Have also led studies of siting both warm and cold machines in IL and
CA. These have been studied on common sites at each location
facilitating apples-to-apples comparisons of the two technologies. All
of these are tunneled (cut and cover not sufficiently stable for a
warm machine). Representative sites in both Kane and DeKalb counties
have been analysed. Tunnel depths range from 100-350 feet depending on
the location. They are considering a two tunnel system with klystrons
accessible during machine operation in the other tunnel. Establishing
a task-force to discuss siting and community concerns.
Efforts at the lab are not commensurate with Fermilab aspirations to
host the linear collider. Constrained by budget authorisations from
Washington. If those were lifted the Lab would like to find a way to
double the effort on the linear collider but that would be difficult
given the current budget situation. Spending about 2.5M$ on identified
LC R&D and about the same amount of money on cold RF for projects that
are not directly related to the linear collider. Steve commented on
the importance of Universities getting involved in accelerator R&D
which also raises its profile with the funding agencies.
The US Linear Collider Steering group has commissioned a Warm/Cold
option evaluation. A complete draft is now in the possession of the
steering group. Arranging to get comments from KEK and DESY before
making it public. Gerry Dugan (Cornell) chaired the group that
prepared this several hundred page report. Comparing machines with
comparable physics capabilities (500 GeV initially, upgradeable to at
least 1000 GeV, 500 fb^-1 of integrated luminosity in four years, two
interaction regions, etc.). A number of parameters in the cold design
were adapted to US technology and design criteria -- relative to the
TESLA design. Included a study of the reliability of the machine in
the presence of reasonable estimates of mean time between
failures. Goal was to maintain availability of 75% comparable to the
Tevatron and other colliders. The final report will not quote costs
in $ but give relative costs for a warm and cold machine. The
international warm/cold committee has been charged to get a decision
by the end of the calendar year but there is pressure to get a
decision sooner as this might result in additional funds becoming
available in the FY06 budget.
Suggestions for new members for the PAC (Hagopian)
The UEC has been asked by Jeff Appel, head of Fermilab's Program
Planning Office, to make suggestions for new members of the Fermilab
Physic Advisory Committee (PAC). Sharon reviewed the current
composition of the committee and the retiring members (see
The UEC tried to establish some guidelines for suggesting potential new
members. Should probably consider neutrino people, possibly theorists
with a background in flavour physics. It will also be important for
the PAC to assess the lab's commitment to CMS in the coming years. The
goal is to get impartial advice for the lab. She will solicit
additional input from the committee and eventually we will vote on
names to forward to Appel.
User's Meeting Plans (White)
The meeting dates have been moved back one day to:
June 2nd and 3rd, 2004.
This avoids a conflict with the URA board of overseer's who will
meeting June 4th. A proposed agenda was circulated to the full
committee following a sub-committee meeting 10 days ago. A budget is
being established. We are preparing to send the invitations to the
various non-US and non-physicist (ie. funding agency) speakers that
have been identified so far.
There was some additional discussion of the scientific part of the
programme. Chris will discuss our theme ("Making Connections") with
the spokespeople of the various experiments in an effort to sell our
vision of this part of the users meeting -- ie. it is not just another
physics conference but an opportunity for the various projects at the
lab to explain to other users how they see themselves fitting in to
the overall lab programme: now and in the future. We need to advertise
the thesis award and postdoc awards, solicit nominations, judge
the entries and come up with the names of award recipients. (Note
added after meeting: For the Tollestrup award see:
Preparations for the DC trip (Zimmerman)
The SLAC Users Organisation (SLUO) chair and April Burke joined
us on the phone.
Joint UEC/SLUO meeting on Jan 31st. Will use this meeting to go over
our plans for the trip to Washington.
Zimmerman summarised what goes into making the DC trip a success.
He gave a brief summary of the budget process. High energy physics
is about 700 million dollars in a multi-trillion budget. Not often
discussed at the highest level. However the President's budget is
seldom more than +/2% away from what finally comes out of
committee. The people responsible for producing the drafts are very
approachable and welcome input from users. After the President's
budget is established it is passed on to the congressional
appropriations committees. Individual senators and congressmen
intervene whenever they see political advantage. We time our visit
to overlap the discussions of the various appropriations committees.
Eric stressed the importance of following up on congressional visits
and the debriefing with the funding agencies -- who don't have
access to the process at this stage. He plans to prepare a trip
report that can be used to plan subsequent year's visits. We hope to
settle on the dates of the DC trip at (or before) the joint UEC/SLUO
meeting in two weeks but it will likely be late March.
GSA Planning for New Perspectives (David Clark)
GSA is going to hold their New Perspectives meeting on Friday as the
Monday of our users meeting week is Memorial Day. Posters will go up
on the Thursday afternoon of the User's meeting and we will have a
wine and cheese reception that evening to maximise the exposure of the
posters. The GSA plans to try to fit their talks into one day on
Friday. Although many collider students are expected to have mature
analyses that they could talk about so the GSA will leave the option
of an overflow session on Saturday morning.
Next meeting: February 21, 2004