From: william@physics.utoronto.ca (William Trischuk)
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 15:31:10 -0400 (EDT)



UEC Minutes -- April 17, 2004
---------------------------------

Present: Bloom, Clark (GSA), Gottschalk, Hagopian, Messier,
Sheldon, Tanaka, Tschirhart, Trischuk, White, Zimmerman,
apologies: Groer.



A Visitors Centre at Fermilab (Kurt Riesselmann)


In September 2003, the Fermilab Office of Public Affairs
presented a master plan on the future visitor experience at
Fermilab to the lab directorate. The plan recommends the
construction of a Visitor Center next to the Lederman Center. The
new building would be accessible to the public under all security
conditions at the lab. With funding from the URA, Public Affairs
is now finalizing a project definition report and a "sales
brochure" that outlines the details of the Visitor Center. The
brochure will be used to solicit funding as the lab budget won't
be able to provide money for construction. Funding will be sought
in various places: from the Federal and State governments,
educational foundations, private donors, etc. The Center will
probably be operated under a nonprofit organization that is
independent of the lab. Once the funding is secure Public Affairs
will revisit the details of the design and the exhibits.


In 2001, Public Affairs commissioned a survey of residents in the
area around the Lab. Only 50% of local residents know what the
Lab does. Q: What kinds of things have been done at other labs to
address this kind of problem? A: DESY has an open house every
couple of years with about 10,000 visitors. CERN has a visitor
center to house its MicroCosm exhibition.

The idea is to tie the Visitor Center to the Lederman Science
Education Center (LSEC). Like the LSEC, the new center would be
physically 'outside the security perimeter.' The Center would be
the starting point for buses that take visitors on guided tours
of CDF, D0, 15th-floor, Linac, MINOS, etc.

The Visitor Center will have an exhibit area with 25-foot
ceilings. There will be some kind of icon in the plaza that the
center shares with the Lederman Center. Currently the plan is to
use the Chicago Cyclotron Magnet as a gateway. Riesselmann showed
several themed zones of the center: reception area, 150-seat
theater for movies and demonstrations, walkways past the theater
that could be made into accelerator tunnel models that would lead
to a high-bay exhibit area (like the CDF/D0 assembly areas) with
astrophysics displays, accelerator and collider detector
displays, and maybe a virtual control room. A separate exhibit
area at the back of the building would provide information on the
prairie, and visitors could exit into the woods and grass
prairie, perhaps with some bison calving pens.

Q: How was the Lederman center funded? A: It was paid for on a
one-time-only basis by the DOE. It is unlikely that that would
work this time. A Visitor Center is not part of the DOE mission.

Q: What other DOE supported labs have things like this? A: LANL,
LBL, ORL and NREL have museums. The DOE has put capital in, but
then they have been reluctant to support the on-going operations
and expenses. Concerns were expressed about selling the Visitor
Center as an answer to the tension between security
considerations and public access. This might be bad because it
gives the DOE an excuse to permanently close the rest of the site
to the public.

Q: What can the UEC do to help? A: When the fund-raising plan is
finalized, Public Affairs will perhaps need help advertising the
campaign. For now Public Affairs wanted to inform the users
community about their plans and to ask us for input on exhibit
ideas and scientific equipment that could be displayed. All
design and exhibit plans will be reviewed and refined when
funding is available.


Status of the Laboratory (Mike Witherell)

Accelerator operations have recovered since the late March
shutdown. Had 143 hours of operations during the last
week. Luminosity has not been as good as we would have
liked. There are issues with an anti-proton abort kicker in the
Tevatron that threaten the detectors with messy aborts. This has
required unforeseen downtime to re-establish safe operation.

The Director was heading to Washington later in the day for the
HEPAP meeting and other discussions. Showed some data from the
AAAS that shows NIH, NSF, NASA, DOD Science and DOE (with DOE
Science split out separately) funding trends over the last 15
years. This data shows the clear difference in between the support
for physical sciences and other forms of research. This data could
be interpreted to say that although appropriations for broader
scientific efforts (NIH, but also NSF) have been growing steadily,
support for the Office of Science within the DOE has followed the
level of funding for DOE which has been much more austere. Also
showed how the DOE Science budgets have been allocated between
2000 and 2005. HEP is the only subgroup that has lagged the
consumer price index.

Q: In pushing the HEP budget are there $10M-ish items that can be
used as examples of what the field would do with that money? A:
That is the scale of the money we need. This the Lab is using the
deferred maintenance of the laboratory electrical infrastructure
(specifically power feeder lines and power poles north of the lab
-- remember the wood-pecker last year?) as the main item that has
not been funded by the DOE despite the increasing threat that
failures there will cause significant downtime.

Q: The Director had offered a comment on security following up on
the discussion of siting a new visitors' center and whether this
was potentially bad strategy with regards to security
overall. What is new on the site-security front? A: We worried
about this even before Sept. 2001. We still have a number of
exemptions for functions in the auditorium, visiting the buffalo,
etc. We negotiate a plan with the Office of Science to maintain the
security of our people and facilities while maintaining reasonable
access to the general public. We think we probably can do this
more effectively without putting the security perimeter at the
boundary of the site. We are preparing a proposal on how to do
this and will use it as the basis of a new discussion with the
Office of Science.

Locating the visitor center near the Lederman Center is the kind
of thing one would want to do anyway. Prior to 2001, getting
people to the 15th floor was a hurdle that many visitors never got
over. Having something near the gate will help with this. The
siting is not just a capitulation to the security issues.



Recycler Commissioning and Electron Cooling (Sergei Nagaitsev)

Sergei's slides presented at the meeting can be found at:

http://beamdocs.fnal.gov/DocDB/0011/001136/001/recycler_status.ppt

Described the overall source of antiprotons at the Lab. The
traditional target, Debuncher and Accumulator have been around
since the 1980s. Added the Recycler for additional antiproton
storage as part of the Main Injector project. The Recycler is made
of permanent magnets that store antiprotons at 8.9 GeV/c. This
turns out to be 30 MeV lower than the 8 GeV/c^2 kinetic energy
of protons in the Booster and original anti-proton complex. Since
the Recycler is made of permanent magnets it can't be adjusted.
The rest of the injector complex will be tuned to better match the
Recycler momentum during the summer shutdown.

Working to bring the Recycler into HEP operation with electron
cooling by the end of the 2005 fiscal year. This in turn means
beginning to install electron cooling on June 1 to be able to do
first tests with beam in the spring of 2005. A series of
milestones to put the Recycler in a position to begin electron
cooling studies later this year have been followed since the Fall
2003 shutdown. The next of these is to commission Recycler
transfers this month. They are working on antiproton extraction
from the Recycler and injection into the Tevatron. The hope is to
achieve 90% transfer efficiency when this is in routine operation.

The Recycler could be included in routine operation today, as
storage for anti-protons (without further cooling) allowing the
Accumulator to continue stacking at lower currents -- where it is
more efficient. But the additional transfer efficiencies and
times would still be a penalty for the overall integrated
luminosity of the complex. The Pbar tax has been a success for
commissioning but adding electron cooling will be necessary to
allow fast/efficient/frequent transfers from the Accumulator to
the Recycler moving past the break-even point. Sergei showed a
typical design operating pattern with the electron cooling system
that would result in 600 E10 pBars being accumulated in the
Recycler over a 16 hour period -- almost 3x what the Accumulator
can do now.

Initially (before the Fall 2004 shutdown) will try to run in a
mixed-mode where shots of pBars are taken from both the Recycler
and the Accumulator. Transfer efficiencies and shot times are now
very close to the break-even point where the pBar tax could be
repaid with a mixed-mode shot, ie. the Collider would see no
penalty in integrated luminosity. With incremental improvements
mixed-mode operation could provide 30% more luminosity, than if
there had been no pBar tax.

The electron cooling beam equipment is being commissioned and
conditioned in the WideBand lab. The MI-31 building is complete
and ready to receive electron cooling system in about one month.
They will break into the Main Injector tunnel and couple the two
machines in the Fall 2004 shutdown. The plan is to commission the
cooling system early in the 2005 calendar year.

Q: What is the relative transfer efficiency for an anti-proton
that goes directly from the Accumulator into the Tevatron vs. one
that makes the trip from the Accumulator, through the Recycler and
ends up in the Tevatron? A: The direct transfer now has routinely
an efficiency of 80%. An additional 10% is lost for the pBars
that make the trip through the Recycler. Operationally this 10%
will be more than compensated by the additional stacking
phase-space in the Accumulator provided by moving pBars into the
Recycler. Q: Do we have a milestone for the 'proof' of electron
cooling? A: No firm plan, but clearly sometime in the summer of
2005 will be the earliest we could expect to see dividends from
this programme.



UEC/SLUO DC trip post-mortem (Eric Zimmerman)

Members of the UEC, GSA and SLUO visited 34 senatorial and 69
congressional offices during their Washington trip in the last
week of March. This is about a quarter of all the offices. There
seems to be a lot of support for the physical sciences, in
principle, but we were warned that there is no money (for much of
anything) in the current fiscal climate in Washington. We need to
find ways to increase the President's budget requests for physical
science and HEP in future years.

Gregory Dubois-Felsmann of SLUO joined us on the phone to continue
the discussion. Eric elaborated on the joint meeting with OMB and
OSTP and the SLUO/UEC representatives. There were 3
representatives from SLUO and 3 from the UEC. They met with Pat
Looney of OSTP, Joel Parriott and Mike Holland for OMB. This was
the first opportunity for the high energy physicists who were at
the meeting to compare their notes. Several messages emerged. They
were told that OMB/OSTP has been focusing on research that drives
technology and HEP is not seen as a leading candidate in that
regard. Further OMB/OSTP is not being asked for additional
support for the DOE Office of Science. The OMB/OSTP
representatives suggested we needed to improve the quality of our
sales pitch in Washington. Though we have been successful in
lobbying Congress we need to step up efforts on the executive
side. For example, we could approach state Governors to raise our
concerns with the White House. We were told that among our best
'products' are the people who are trained in our field. We should
consider bringing former high energy physicists who have gone into
industry to explain how their training in our field was crucial to
where they have ended up. In fact it was a far-ranging and
fruitful discussion with several salient points but no
over-arching theme.

The OMB/OSTP would be interested in hearing about the physics of
our field ("spin free information") -- on field-wide topics
("neutrinos", "energy frontier", "particle astrophysics"). For
future UEC/SLUO trips we should try to enlist the help of
constituents in districts other than those covered by members of
the visiting party. Ideally all lab users should maintain some
relationship with their elected representatives putting them in a
position to provide a letter of introduction when their user
representatives are in Washington. To help with this we should
develop a list of key constituencies (homes of influential
committee members) and provide it to users who might self-identify
with connections to those offices. We also realised that we could
improve our use and communications with our lobbyists in
Washington.



Fermilab LHC Physics Center (Avi Yagil)

Has been thinking about how to make the transition from Tevatron
physics to the LHC in the coming decade. Some of this has been
discussed in the context of the Lab's long range plan. Want to
find a way to make Fermilab attractive to LHC physicists. Did a
survey of the LHC community and the overlap with the FNAL users
community. Obviously there is an overlap with CDF/D0. Had a 1/2
day meeting in February with 10 users and 4 FNAL staff
members. Has been working with Sarah Eno to organise this
further. Wanted to understand why someone would send a student or
postdoc to FNAL to work on CMS rather than to CERN.

Physics on day-one is crucial. Have to start getting something in
place now. Want to take advantage of the people who actively
working on physics at FNAL and get them thinking about the overlap
with LHC physics. Access to Tevatron data is an important
advantage that FNAL users will have over members of the physics
community at CERN which is currently more hardware oriented.

Have asked questions like: Do we only cluster at the Lab because
of operations, shifts and detector maintenance? No. People come
to interact with their colleagues, pursue complex algorithms,
attend presentations and meetings and to train students and
postdocs. The fraction of collaborators who will be involved in
the day-to-day maintenance of the LHC experiments will be even
smaller, while the other reasons to establish critical mass will
remain at least as important. The goal of Avi's efforts are to
foster physics output through remote clustering -- for example at
FNAL. Set something up over the next 2-3 years, try to build it
with people who are coming to the Lab for other reasons during
that period. Show them what would be available to them at Fermilab
in the LHC era. Forty University groups on CMS (largely on CDF and
D0 now) are being surveyed and all but a few have been
receptive. It has become clear that this is potentially a win-win
situation. University groups are being pressured to move their
effort to LHC experiments. The collider programme at the Lab is in
jeopardy if we can't find ways to facilitate closer cooperation
between Tevatron experiments and LHC preparations if only to
ensure continued operation of CDF/D0.

The lab management has been receptive to this idea and is working
to dedicate some lab staff to make this a reality.



Fermilab Director Search (Chris White)

The second meeting of the search committee took place this past
week at Fermilab. The primary purpose was to gather input from
the lab community. Three additional meetings are foreseen, one in
May and two in July. The committee has not reached any
conclusions about the ranking of candidates and has no
preconceived notions about who should be director. More than 40
people have been nominated. Additional nominations will be
accepted through mid-May. The committee has decided not to rank
or otherwise eliminate candidate nominations prior to the May
meeting. There have been discussions on the relative merit of
having a Director who is currently part of the Lab staff versus
someone from the HEP community outside the lab, versus someone
from beyond the HEP community. There has even been discussion as
to whether the Director is required to be a US Citizen. All
nominations of individuals who are not currently on the search
committee remain under consideration. The winnowing of candidates
will begin at the May meeting (May 29-30).



Report from the Users Meeting Planning Committee (Chris White)

The poster is ready, need to bring the website online so that
users can register when the posters appear. The catering is being
lined up. A taste testing was provided by the candidate caterer --
it was a tough assignment but someone had to do it.

The schedule for the meeting is filling with names. Will make
another pass through the collaborations to pin down the last few
names. Still working on having someone from outside the FNAL/HEP
community to give a public talk on the Thursday evening after the
GSA reception. Are working to compile a list of PhDs that have
been granted and soliciting nominations for the URA Graduate
Thesis Award and URA Tollestrup Award for Postdoctoral
Research. Also still working to get representatives from
Washington and Springfield (IL) to come to the meeting.




Next meeting May 22, 2004