GDE Executive Committee: Public Meeting Minutes 22 June 2006

Present: B. Barish, G. Dugan, B. Foster, T. Raubenheimer, K. Yokoya, N. Walker, M. Nozaki, M. Hronek (sec)

Guest: Weiren Chou -- Linear Collider Accelerator School – Sokendai, Japan

The History

  • ICFA meeting in Vancouver, February ’05:
    • ILC school proposed, but decided to wait until new GDE director on board
  • PAC ’05:
    • New GDE director Barish attended ICFA BD Panel meeting for discussion on ILC school
    • Kurokawa proposed to have it in Japan
  • ICFA meeting in Uppsala, July ’05:
    • ILC school approved
  • Snowmass ’05:
    • Barry chaired the first Organizing Committee meeting.
    • Members: Barish, Kurokawa, Heuer, Delahaye, Yokoya, Ko, Chao, Grannis and Chou.
    • Decisions:
      • Name: International Accelerator School for Linear Colliders
      • Organizers: GDE, ILCSC, ICFA BD Panel
      • Dates and place: May 19-27, 2006 in Sokendai, Hayama, Japan
      • Theme: ILC, including multi-TeV linear colliders
      • Number of students: 20 Europe-20 North America -40 Asia
      • Target: PhD students, postdocs and young researchers, especially young experimentalists
      • Format: seminar style with homework, but no exam or university credit
      • No proceedings
      • Application requirement: CV and a recommendation letter
      • Full scholarship, no registration fee
      • To form a Local Committee (chaired by Kurokawa) and a Curriculum Committee (chaired by Chou)
  • ICFA meeting at CERN, February ’06:
    • School received broad support from all attending laboratory directors (about 20), including CERN
  • America:
    • Total US$70k: DOE $50k, Fermilab $10k, SLAC $10k
    • Supported 19 students, 7 lecturers
  • Asia:
    • KEK supported 36 students, 7 lecturers
    • KEK also covered all local expenses (meeting rooms, A/V, school supplies, computers, local transportation, field trip, banquet, video taping, etc.)
  • Europe:
    • CERN: 5 students (one from Poland), 2 lecturers
    • DESY: 4 students, 2 lecturers
    • INFN: 2 students, 2 lecturers
    • IN2P3: 5 students (one from Russia)
    • U.K.: Oxford - 1 student, CCLRC - 1 student, EuroTeV - 1 student
  • Charge to the Curriculum Committee:
    • Design a program
    • Select lecturers
    • Select students
  • Committee members:
    • Chao, Minty, Pagani, Kim, Gao, Urakawa and Chou
  • School web site:

http://www.linearcollider.org/school/

  • Curriculum layout:
    • 8-day program, 6 days for lectures, 2 days for visiting and working on real machines
    • Covering both basic and advanced topics for a complete education in linear colliders
    • Focus on accelerators but also introducing detector concepts and physics
  • Lecturers:
    • First-class experts in this field
    • Mixture of senior and junior physicists
    • Balance in 3 regions and among various institutions
  • Students:
    • KEK designed a wonderful online application software
    • All input (application form, CV and recommendation letter) was via Internet and automatically recorded into a database (a Filemaker file)
    • All applicant’s information was transferred to the committee members electronically
  • In six weeks (Jan 5 – Feb 15) we received 535 applications from 44 countries
  • After a rigorous and difficult selection process, the committee admitted 76 students from 18 countries
    • Most from HEP countries
    • 4 from small countries (Mongolia, Vietnam, Iran, Philippines)
  • 74 students attended the school (2 didn’t come due to personal reasons)
  • Overall response was overwhelming. But there were disappointments:
    • Zero application from SLAC (which sent 4 lecturers)
    • Low application from Japan (25)
  • Local Committee did an excellent job, special thanks to Yoko Hayashi (KEK) and Cynthia Sazama (Fermilab)
    • Students and lecturers travel (visa, DOE forms, air tickets)
    • Hotel rooms and meals
    • Copies of lecture notes
    • Field trip
    • Local transportation, supplies, reception, banquet, computers, etc.
  • The school is in an ideal location
    • Beautiful environment
    • Isolated place that has nowhere to escape but study
  • All lectures are of high quality. Posted on the web one month before the school so that students can pre-read them.
  • Two charges to the students:
    • To learn as much about LC as possible
    • To make as many new friends as possible
  • The students are the chosen ones, talented and motivated. They did 1) very well but could do better on 2) (mainly our fault – too much homework).
  • Students highly valued the school and called it “a unique opportunity” and “excellent.”
  • Comments, suggestions from students:
    • Too much homework (a major complaint)
    • Need more social time
    • Very good curriculum but need more tutorials
    • Should have a library of accelerator books
    • To assign group projects instead of homework for individuals
    • Have TAs
  • The students also evaluated each individual lectures and lecturers.
  • A complete survey summary report will be sent to the Organizing Committee.
  • All lectures, homework problems and solutions are posted on the web. They are useful not only to the students, but also to anyone who works in the ILC field.
  • All lectures have been taped. Videostreaming will be available on Internet and on DVDs.
  • Many people (students, lecturers, committee members, colleagues, ICFA members, etc.) asked about the next school.
  • We did pretty well in terms of bringing students on board.
  • We made mistakes, e.g. pushing students too hard. But we know how to correct it.
  • There is a huge interest out there. Every reason to expect the need of another school.
  • The call must come from GDE.
  • If GDE decides to continue the school, the organization details will be the job of the Organizing Committee.
  • The OC can meet during ICHEP’06 in Moscow.
  • The proposal will go to the ILCSC and ICFA meeting on July 30th also in Moscow.
  • ICFA approval is essential in order to get world-wide support for funding.
  • Possible place:
    • Naturally it will be in the U.S. or Europe.
    • Another candidate is China, which expressed interest to host it.
  • Possible time:
    • In light of the rapid progress of ILC, we may want to have this school annually rather than bi-annually. A good time is summer of 2007.

CLOSED SESSION:

S0/S1 Plan – Comments from EC Discussion

  • Documents have been received and we need to rigorous about what they say. It is our input into a major program. There needs to be an understanding of what we want. What is the timescale?
  • There is a timescale for S0 but not for S1. S0’s is open to question. What if we don’t reach that goal – will we need to change the design? Is 2009 too late – yes? Is 2007-2008 better?
  • TDR is due to begin next summer 2007. S0 should complete by 2008?
  • What are the implications of a goal of 2008?
  • The TDR design is on feasibility of viability. We need to understand the detail process & costing. Maybe a slower timescale?
  • Does the intermediate goal give enough confidence? A huge change will effect the siting.
  • Idea of demonstrating 100 cycle test, 2 ultimate goal – 30 cavities; record specifications. If that comes later, is there enough confidence?
  • Plan - Take the cavity process over and over, each time, measure the gradient, accumulate data, take 10% of the average. Focus on processing.
  • Its’ good to have close connections with area group leaders; need all 4 leaders in the loop. The this R&D plan is put together uses R&D facilities around the world involving the linac people
  • We should give opportunity of plant to be revised with comments from the area group leaders
  • Comment on the charge? Is it worth to have Lutz come to the EC meeting? YES
  • Common Fund:
  • We need too increase the money, MOU needs to be signed. FALC is waiting on projections. This is central funding, not new money. What costs do we want to centralize? Management to be centralized not localized. The budget could grow to 1M. Need feedback in 1 week.

Cost Confidentiality

Are all of us in the dark? Where will be with these numbers in Vancouver?

Confidentiality –

  • people are nervous
  • bound to be chaos of info with different credibility in this timescale

Europe is worried but senses calm. We need statements and clear guidelines. Rules will need to be published within the GDE.

I will write the rules with the cost engineers. Need action items and statements. The shorter the better, things need to be basic and simple.

We need guidance for the parallel sessions.

Think about parallel sessions. We need something not so vetted or controversial.

NEXT WEEK – Lutz Lilje

You are here

Home