UEC Minutes -- December 13, 2003
Present: Bloom, Garcia, Gottschalk, Groer, Hagopian, Messier, Tanaka,
Trischuk, Tschirhart, White, Zimmerman (apologies: Rolli, Sheldon).
Non US issues: Groer reports that it was recently decided that
Chinese and Russians will now only get single entry
visas. Chinese citizens were already in this
situation. Citizens of both of these countries will undergo
new security checks when they apply to re-enter. While this is
advertised to be a 6 week process, the FNAL experience is more
like 12 to 20 weeks. This could be because what we do is
associated with sensitive technologies -- which heightens
DC trip: Zimmerman has arranged a phone conference with SLAC
later in the meeting. Planning a joint preparation meeting at
SLAC in late January. March 24-26 is the target for the DC
trip. A May date is also possible depending on the legislative
schedule. Typically this lasts 2.5 to 3 days. Include visits
Outreach: White has been talking with a teacher from the
Chicago Private Academy who wants to get Fermilab involved
with Chicago Public Schools. Thinking of having scientists
visit the classroom, take advantage of FNAL materials and/or
have a point of contact for email exchanges. Still trying to
organize a meeting with the FNAL education office. UEC members are
visiting the Museum of Science and Industry with a 'booth' and
talking to museum visitors during high attendance periods.
Users Meeting: Subcommittee will meet in early January.
Advised not to start booking people before the new year. But
the auditorium is booked for June 3/4, 2004 and Chez Leon is
ready to cater the meeting.
Dave Finley (Technical Division): Proton Team Report
Can find the draft report at:
Can also find copies of the slides he showed at the meeting at:
Charge was to identify user demands, establish goals for
delivery of protons, modifications to the Linac, Booster and
Main Injector that would be necessary to meet these goals,
identify opportunities to collaborate with users and other
outside institutions and suggest an organization to achieve
all of the above. Committee formed in Feb 03, input from more
than 30 people over the last year.
Ground rules: 1) Antiprotons will be needed
throughout the next decade; 2) New Proton Driver replacing the
Linac and Booster is not the only answer; 3) Individual
ongoing activities will remain part of the plan if they are
seen to make sense in an overall plan; 4) Physics
prioritisation left to the Director.
Highlights of proton committee in the 11/18/03 Fermilab Today.
Conclusions include: Need to find additional vendors for Linac
power tubes; MiniBoone and NuMI can run at the same time; It
should be possible to support Run II, NuMI and Fixed target at
the same time; The accelerator division needs to plan for
this and needs to find a way to collaborate better with other
organizations (other labs and universities) to achieve this.
Showed a proton economics plot from the PAC meeting. Loss
limits in booster have been preventing MiniBoone from getting
more than 30% of their goal. Work in the recent shutdown was
done to raise these limits. It is hoped that MiniBoone will
now be able to get to the level promised in their
approval. Booster has a 7.5Hz cycle limit that will be the
next barrier which will come into play when NuMI comes online
in FY05. Antiproton slipstacking will also increase the demand
for protons but this is a minor perturbation.
Dave showed four pages of suggested actions that have been
sent to the accelerator division to do things to control and
reduce Booster losses and to improve the Main Injector's
performance. Many of the suggested improvements cost
significant sums and can probably only start after the long
range planning exercise has concluded and established some
Booster activation vs. access to allow maintenance likely to
continue to be the main limit on the number of protons. But it
seems likely that NuMI, Boone, Run II and fixed target can run
together. Increasing demands of neutrino programme will
require modifications to the complex but it is not clear which
ones are the most cost effective. Eventually a new Proton
Driver will be needed.
The committee suggested that the generation of protons be
better integrated into the overall lab plan and with an
individual in place to establish priorities. A high level
point of contact should be established to coordinate
collaboration between the lab and non-FNAL institutions to
achieve these goals.
Dave McGinnis (Accelerator Division): Run II Status and Studies
Copies of his slides can be found at:
Performance of the machine complex was improving steadily up
to the September shutdown peaking at 6.5 pb^-1 per week, PBar
efficiencies above 60% were very promising. Running 90 hours
per week starting stores at 40x10^30. These stores came from
130 mA PBar stacks. This is not up to design. Will require
stacks of 170 or 180 mA that can be achieve with faster cycle
rates in the accumulator.
Coming out of this shutdown there are no major pieces of
equipment that remain to be installed. The issue is
commissioning, which they will attack aggressively once
reliable physics operation has been re-established. Also
working on improving Tevatron reliability. Larger stacks
appear when the store in the machine runs as long as
possible. The goal is 20 hours. The distribution of
accumulated store hours between failures is exponential with a
slope of 42 hours. This translates into a probability that the
store will continue for the next hour of 97.6%. Aiming for 20
hours ==> 1 out of 3 stores will end in failure. To get up to
99% reliability need to double the mean time between component
failure needs to double. Mean life is currently about 5 years
so achieving that kind of reliability will require improving
component failure to 10 years. The gains here are
Luminosity increases will come from increased PBar stacks
hence increases in the stacking rate. To do this the
accumulator cycle time should drop from 2.4 to 1.7 s.
Goal for FY04 is 370 pb^-1, 285 pb^-1 is the base. Last year
delivered 240 pb^-1. There will be a 25% PBar tax where
stacking time and antiprotons will be dedicated to recycler
studies. This is the remaining piece of the Run II upgrade
path. Planning to start at 5 pb^-1 per week ramping linearly
to 10 pb^-1 week by the summer '04 shutdown. There will
naturally be some commissioning period but expect to re-join
the steady running curve by the end of January 04. They are
currently re-establishing 'normal running, having achieved
20x10^30 within a week of startup. Once back in steady state
then start commissioning equipment installed during the 10
week shutdown. Although lumi has been low up to now it is
promising that the PBar transfer efficiencies have been
70%. Stacks have been in the 70-80 mA range.
Recycler vacuum work has been a success. Emittance growth rate
is a factor of two better than necessary for Run II upgrades.
As we were speaking 60 x 10^10 pbars with a lifetime of 700
hours were in the recycler.
Tevatron quench was an isolated incident triggered by
an error in CDF pot motor control which caused a cascade of
other failures. Damage to collimators was impressive. Incident report
to be released next week. Abort logic is being examined and may
be extended to prevent some of the things that went wrong in this
incident. Need to consider majority logic among beam loss monitors.
Machine study strategy: Only start if 140 hours of collisions
in the previous two weeks; will occur twice a week, for short
periods (8-12 hours); at least two stores between each study
period; documentation of results before allowing further
studies the same area. Maintenance still occurs at the
discretion of the Run Coordination. The collider has now moved
from a commissioning phase to an operations phase.
Jim Alexander -- PAC chair
Q: What is the current role of the PAC? A: It advises the
directorate on physics programme issues. Consider incoming
proposals and requests referred to them by the directorate.
Sometimes this takes the form of discussion, comment, written
evaluation and sometimes for approval of a new project. Meets
three times a year fall/spring at FNAL -- shorter meetings,
and for a week in June at Aspen -- considering more long range
issues. They use input from other directorate sponsored or DOE
sponsored review committees. Considering several proposals in
December meeting -- mostly on neutrinos.
Q: How does the PAC see itself as actually doing the work
outlined above in light of other constraints (financial/DOE
oversight)? Is there any room to actually do these programmes
in a competitive and timely way? A: Difficult to know because
budgets are year-to-year and uncertain. However most of the
current proposals are small in absolute $. Are being careful
because even small projects can set precedents. Believes
there is good science to be done on a small enough budget that
there is room to embark on some of these projects.
Q: What is the growing role of astrophysics in the PAC? A: There
has been one person added to the committee this year which is
natural as the lab already has a number of astrophysics projects.
Q: How can the users interact more effectively with the PAC?
A: Email, phone -- not just proposals. Committee members are
interested in getting feedback from the user community. He
would welcome this input without having to solicit it.
UEC interaction with the search for a new director. Hagopian reports
that our suggestion for the search committee have been received by
the URA. The board of overseers is working expeditiously to find a
search committee chair and will work with that person to flesh out the
committee. The committee should be formed by early in the new year.
The UEC should consider inviting the chair of the board of overseers,
the chair of the search committee, or the URA president to an upcoming
meeting to understand how the process will go from here.
Herman White: A Primer for the DC trip
The UEC travels to Washington, D.C. once a year to interact with the
policy makers and governmental officials. These have been joint trips
together with SLAC users organization members (SLUO) for the past three
years. The visits put a human face on the science and its excitement
for the people who make the funding decisions. It seems to help to tie
our work to our educational mission. We try to make the policy makers
aware of the value of the training and results we produce from our
Plan to contact: NSF, DOE, OMB, OSTP, White House Economics Council;
House of Representatives (Science Committee, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Budget Committee, and the Appropriations subcommittee on
Water and Energy, ); Senate (Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee, Budget committee and the Appropriations subcommittee on
Energy/Water ) and the offices of district representatives of committee
members. When talking to people, we should make a point to invite them
to come and visit FNAL. Pictures help but there is nothing like seeing
the accelerator complex and detectors in person and this gives
additional opportunities to put human faces on what we do.
Need to brush up on the facts: Know how our work impacts the
member's state/district; Never be negative about the political
process; Do not assume R&D is an entitlement; Be familiar with
the budget and how it pertains to our work;. Understand how the
legislative process works.
Conference Call with SLUO members:
Gregory Dubois-Felsmann (chair of SLUO DC-trip committee), Yuri
Kolomensky join us on the phone.
General plan is to start at URA headquarters and then fan out from
there, visiting the various offices outlined by White. The second day
involves further appointments and information gathering. Recently a
third day has involved a visit to DOE (maybe also visit NSF this year)
to share with them our impressions of our visits to the various
offices. SLUO will send several people with previous experience in
Washington on the DC trip as well as some first timers.
Plan a preparatory meeting at SLAC on January 31. Will have video
conferencing available for those who can't participate in person. April
Burke and Judy Jackson will attend.
Visit with Mike Witherell:
Made time to visit with us during a break in the PAC meeting.
Q: What is being done to prevent major quenches like the one 8
days ago? A: Investigation almost concluded and report to be
issued next week. Further work to understand the Roman pot
motor failure, but in addition they are working to get a
quicker cleaner abort as a response. Establishing a written
procedure on abort procedures. Test it with smaller stores
first. Also reviewing the trigger logic for an abort. This
was thought to be OK in the past but there are many more
protons in the accelerator now than in Run I, and the damage
to collimators is sobering. The conning tower failure, that
necessitated a 10-day stop, is a known weak spot in the
cryogenic system. They have been replacing them systematically
when sections of the ring were warmed up for other reasons.
Have used the 10 days to do PBar studies. These will be
credited towards the PBar tax.
Q: What are the plans to recover the lost luminosity? A: The
schedule had 2-3 weeks of down-time built into it and a
turn-on curve. To that extent this has been anticipated. If we
don't get another one in the next month or two we will be back
Q: Future plans, projects, reviews coming out of the long
range planning process? A: Montgomery gave an overview in a
wine and cheese talk on December 12. The FLRPC will have a
retreat in early January with the goal of merging the
recommendations of the sub-committees. Their aim is to provide
a report by February '04. This report will be discussed with
the PAC. Should plan to discuss it at the Users meeting in
June. Have already been getting feedback from the users
community in the open sessions. There is a parallel process
at SLAC that has already reported out.
Q: CKM was still in the long-range schedule for the lab. What is the
plan? A: The FLRPC was focusing on a longer timescale. The lab will
have to work out the future for the CKM experiment independently.
Q: Will the proton driver not be considered for another 10 years, as
implied in the DOE Office of Science 20 year facilities plan? A: The
proton driver could get going in the shorter term. Will need to sharpen
the physics arguments if we are going to be able to sell any bump in
funding that this might require.
Q: Would a cold linear proton driver be impacted if the LC
wise-persons decided that a warm technology was more suitable?
A: There are other advantages of pursuing super-conducting RF.
ANL is considering Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA) based on a
similar technology. So the linear collider is not the only
application of cold RF technology. The lab will develop the
proton driver design independent of a linear collider
technology decision. The LC technology decision might well
determine what part of the LC we work on. If the LC technology
decision was cold and it might make more sense for FNAL to
pursue building the linac. If the LC decision was warm then
FNAL might big on a different part of the machine.For every
laboratory, including DESY, FNAL, KEK and SLAC, which parts of
the LC they work on will depend on what the technology is.
Q: If RIA goes ahead would FNAL collaborate on superconducting
RF with them? A: This boils down to a question of when
collaboration beneficial. There would need to be a clear
benefit to HEP if FNAL were to get into such a
collaboration. Similarly, medical therapy machines might
benefit from a collaboration on the front end of a proton
linac of 100 MeV or so. But again the collaboration would have
to be rooted in benefit to an HEP application.
Q: What is FNAL doing to work towards a linear collider? What
are the chances of it coming here? A: FNAL scientists have
been working on the North American warm/cold -- cost/site
document -- 500 pages to be released soon. This work is going
on under the auspices of the USLCSC. Need to increase the
visibility of the machine and detector study work going on at
FNAL. Planning a position in the directorate that will be a
single point of contact for linear collider work. Accelerator
R&D in this direction is pending a technology decision. Makes
most sense after the international warm/cold decision. The
budget for accelerator R&D has been hurt by flat-flat budget
overall. The LHC luminosity upgrade work gets support from
project funds (from outside the laboratory). Money for the
proton driver could be found from the lab budget depending on
the outcome of the FLRPC. There is some hope of getting
additional support from non-FNAL DOE support.
Q: Did an organizational change accompany the re-naming of Beams to
Accelerator division? A: No.However there have been several important
changes within the accelerator division over the last few months. An
Integration group has been formed to address the challenges of
optimizing the performance of the complex. This is well matched to the
needs for Run II but perhaps less well matched for accelerator R&D. We
will also have to form groups for the major R&D efforts.
Next meeting: January 17, 2004