FRIB Equipment Meeting - Feb. 2010
FRIB Equipment Meeting [and FRIB Astrophysics Collaboration meeting] in February, 2010:
There was an FRIB meeting on experimental equipment needs, and also a meeting of the FRIB Astrophysics Collaboration, on February 20-22, 2010 on the campus of Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
More information on this workshop can be found at the meeting site at the FRIB Users Organization and also at the workshop page at the FRIB web site.
The goals of this meeting included ensuring that alternatives for experimental equipment have been considered, that adequate space is provided in the experimental halls, and that all users communicate their specific equipment needs to FRIB and to each other. The workshop provided a venue for detailed consideration of concepts for specific instruments and consideration of the physics they will enable. Attendance included all those interested in the development of instrumentation for FRIB, regardless of whether they are specifically involved in one of the equipment collaborations or not. Prior to this workshop, approximately 20 user collaborations formed and developed equipment ideas to be discussed in Working Groups and presented to plenary sessions at the workshop. In the plenary sessions, they specifically discussed any Letters of Intent (LOI) for equipment to be submitted to the FRIB Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC).
Notices were sent by the FRIB Users Organization to conveners of the Working Groups for this workshop, along with a list of questions to address. The questions are posted below.
Our FRIB Astrophysics Collaboration met this meeting, and we discussed our highest priority for equipment -- the recoil separator SECAR -- as well as our plans for a gas jet target JENSA. These were both presented to the pleneary session and the to FRIB Scientific Advisory Committee by Hendrik Schatz. His summary presentation is linked here.
FRIB Astrophysics Collaboration -- Input for February 2010 meetingThis was our response to the ''List of Equipment Questions for Collaborations / Conveners'' given out for the February 2010 meeting.
List of Equipment Questions for Collaborations / ConvenersCollaboration Questionnaire -- Instrumentation for FRIB
[from the FRIB Users Organization]
To get firmer ideas about instrument packages that will be proposed at the FRIB Workshop, Feb, 20-22, 2010, we request that each collaboration to fill in the following questionnaire. These should be e-mailed to Kim Lister (Lister@anl.gov) and copied to Brad Sherrill at (Sherrill@frib.msu.edu) and Rick Casten (Rick@riviera.physics.yale.edu) no later than Feb 12, 2010. The recommended length is 2 pages, plus two additional figures. One figure should present the instrument and the other should indicate its location, size, etc on the floor at FRIB by using the attached floor plan template.
1) What is the primary physics motivation and experimental capability of the proposed instrument and why is this important for FRIB science?
2) What are the unique capabilities of this device that are not available in existing equipment? Is this instrument stand alone or is it to be used (solely or partially) in conjunction with other instruments. Could it be used at NSCL or other laboratories before FRIB?
3) Describe the instrument in some detail – how does it meet the scientific requirements and what are the (estimated) performance specifications? Be brief but as detailed as you can. Is the design fixed or are multiple options still being discussed and encouraged?
4) What is the current stage of development of your project ?
5) What is the approximate cost of the project: discuss possible sources of funding.
6) Please provide a brief list of collaborators and institutions. Spokesperson(s) provide contact info.
7) Please can you outline how your collaboration has been developing your project and how you are growing your collaboration (How many meetings? Participants?, Circular mailings? Have you a web-site?)
8) Did you consider alternative designs? What alternatives were considered? How did you arrive at a final design?
9) What existing equipment exists in the US Community that has similar goals and characteristics, even if inferior in performance.