Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

(Note: The time and money required to modify the Model C Stellarator are rather modest. The conversion will take about four months and cost abut $200,000. This relative ease of modification is possible because tokamak devices and stellarator devices are quite similar.)

a. The Model C Stellarator has not been available for experimental research since December 22, 1969-the date when the experiment was shut down to begin modification to a tokamak. During this "down-time" physicists are planning detailed experiments and preparing the necessary diagnostic equipment. After the tokamak experiments are completed in the next 2-3 years, the machine could easily be converted back to the stellarator mode if that were desirable. The present conviction is that the key questions in toroidal research can best be answered utilizing the excellent containment properties of the tokamak and also that it is highly probable that the knowledge gained in tokamak research will be useful in future stellarator research.

b. The decision to modify the Model C Stellarator experiment was made after a great deal of study and evaluation by both the Princeton group and the CTR Standing Committee. This decision reflects a responsible response to a major achievement by the Soviets as well as a change in priorities within the U.S. CTR program. The Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, the CTR Standing Committee, and the CTR Program Office all would have preferred moving forward with stellarator and tokamak research in parallel, however, within projected levels of funding, higher priority has been assigned to tokamak research.

c. The alternative of dropping other projects within the CTR program was considered in depth. It was decided to eliminate the DCX-2 and ORNL Quadrupole experiments in order to provide funds for tokamak research. Beyond these two terminations it was deemed highly undesirable to eliminate any other experiments. The CTR program at its present stage is a broadly based research program wherein information from a variety of sources is utilized to understand and improve all plasma confinement systems. To further upset the present balance would not be in the program's best interests in the opinions of the majority of the CTR community, the CTR Standing Committee, and the CTR Program Office. 12. The letter of February 13, 1970, stated that the modified Model C Stellarator would be named the "Proto LT" for "Prototype Large Tokamak" and that, if successful, this concept would lead to the LT or “Large Tokamak”.

a. When would this so-called “Large Tokamak" be built? What will it cost? b. Would the "Proto LT"" be simply an interim step on the way to this larger machine?

(Note: The February 13, 1970 letter identifies the modified Model C Stellarator as "Model ST". The Proto LT replaces the previously projected "StellaratorTokamak", which was scheduled for initial design in FY 1971).

a. The fabrication of the LT or "Large Tokamak" could begin approximately six months after the successful operation of the Proto LT at design conditions. While initial operation of Proto LT is tentatively projected for early calendar 1973, operation at design conditions will probably require another 18 months. Therefore, fabrication of LT probably would not begin before calendar 1975 and would require between 2-3 years. Its cost is very roughly projected at $1020 million.

(Note that plans for Proto LT are in a preliminary stage at the present time and LT is by no means well defined as yet. Scoping studies are progressing on these systems, which will be subject to detailed technical and administrative review before they can be formally recommended. These plans and schedules are based upon current funding projections. Should there be a desire and the means to do so, this schedule could be markedly shortened.)

b. Yes, the Proto LT represents an interim step toward the LT.

13. What are the current plans for obtaining a bubble chamber for the National Accelerator Laboratory at Batavia, Illinois? Please state size, proposed source of funds, and other pertinent items of information.

Present plans for NAL call for fabrication of a liquid hydrogen bubble chamber having a visible volume of about 25,000 liters. The design of this chamber will be based to a large extent on the technology developed at BNL with the 7' Bubble Chamber test facility. A total of $4.5 million equipment funds is to be provided in FY 1971 and 1972 for the project. The experimental area where the chamber will be located is being built as part of the base construction project. It is particularly important to have such a chamber available at NAL when first beam is available for experiments in order to carry out beam survey and

There remains a strong need for the very large (~ 25′ diameter) chamber which has been discussed frequently in prior years. This chamber is crucial for an effective neutrino physics program and will also be important for strong interaction experiments. Present plans for NAL contemplate requesting authorization for this project as a line item for about $25 million in FY 1974.

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,

DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, Cambridge, Mass., October 15, 1969.

Dr. PAUL MCDANIEL,

Director, Division of Research,
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR PAUL: I would like to report to you the reaction of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) to the present FY 1971 budget figures. Up to now the response to increasingly tight budgets has been a more or less uniform sharing of the burden among the different institutions. This has been a wise policy but the cumulative effect of several years of reduced budgets and the unlikelihood of an early improvement of the situation now brings this policy into question. The cuts have caused serious damage to all centers of research and this is why selective cutting is necessary in order to allow the more vital centers to survive without the gravest damage.

Under these unfortunate circumstances we come to the conclusion that, because of the low beam energy and because many-but not all-of PPA's capabilities can be matched elsewhere, it is logical to reduce the PPA program. We regret to be forced to such a step because we consider the work at PPA to be of scientific and educational importance. We therefore believe that such selective reduction of support should not be equivalent to a shutdown. We quote from our Report (page 39): "At this time (1969) all of the high energy accelerators in the United States are performing important work (within funding limitations) and are of great educational value with programs of considerable scientific interest and signifiance. None should be shut down in the immediate future."

The decrease of support for PPA is suggested in order to support the most urgent programs at other institutions, and we recommend that this decrease be limited so that the program will not be eliminated but will continue at a reduced rate. It is still an important part of the high energy effort in the U.S. and should remain so for a long time.

[blocks in formation]

DEAR GLENN: At our last meeting, the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel again discussed the question of electron-positron storage rings to be added to the SLAC facilities. We continue to be firmly of the opinion that these storage rings are of utmost importance. The continued absence within the U.S. of such an instrument would be a major blow to American high energy physics.

Let me briefly outline the reasons for this conclusion. The technique of colliding electron beams was developed in this country. The first colliding beam facility was made in Stanford with an energy of a few hundred Mevs. In the meantime, the idea was taken up with great enthusiasm all over the world. Hamburg (DESY) is building a storage ring for 3.5 Gev; Frascati (Italy) has one for 11⁄2 Bev that is already working well; Novosibirsk will have one for 3 Gev in the near future.

The technique of colliding beams is certainly one of the most promising methods of getting at the problems of elementary particles. A colliding beam of particles and antiparticles-as it is planned in these machines is the purest form of energy available. Its transformation into particles is the most direct process and the cleanest way of investigating the properties of those particles. It is highly probable that decisive insight into the nature of elementary particles will come from such experiments. So far, already the few experiments which

have been made with electron storage rings abroad have been of unusual interest. Mesons could be produced in an environment undisturbed by strong interaction, which has made it possible to determine their properties in an unambiguous way. Such facilities also were used to test the validity (or the breakdown) of electrodynamics to a high degree of accuracy.

Further development of these techniques, also in the direction of proton-antiproton storage rings, will, in all likelihood, be the way to get at the fine structure of nucleons. If quarks or similar fundamental constituents do exist, this may be the only method in which we could make more accurate experiments to find out and to measure their properties. For example: If the recent Australian experiments are correct, and quarks are produced by cosmic rays of 100,000 Bev in the laboratory system, which corresponds to a center-of-mass energy of 400 Bev, a storage ring added to NAL would just be capable of producing those particles artificially.

These are the thoughts which have brought us to the conclusion that the U.S. must go ahead with constructing storage rings. We simply cannot let this way of doing fundamental physics grow stale in our country. The most obvious place to proceed is SLAC, which is the ideal place to experiment with electron-positron storage rings.

It seems that an electron-positron storage ring could be set up at SLAC with an incremental cost of roughly two to three million dollars in 1971, and a smaller amount needed in 1972. These figures are so low because SLAC is ready to sacrifice other important activities for this purpose. In view of this situation we feel that such an instrument should be fitted within the national high energy physics program even at the expense of other items.

I would very much like to discuss this problem with you and Commissioner Thompson at your earliest convenience. With best regards,

Sincerely yours,

VICTOR F. WEISSKOPF,

Chairman, High Energy Physics, Advisory Panel.

AFTERNOON SESSION

Representative PRICE (presiding). The committee will be in order. This afternoon the committee will continue its hearings on the AEC authorization bill for fiscal year 1971.

The witness this afternoon will be Dr. John Totter, the Director of the AEC's Division of Biology and Medicine.

Dr. Totter.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN R. TOTTER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

Dr. TOTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure to appear before the committee and report on the status of the radium toxicity studies at the Argonne National Laboratory.

The coordination of the human radium toxicity studies at Argonne National Laboratory is proceeding according to schedule except that construction of the new facilities is now planned for fiscal year 1972. As of this date, the transfer of personnel, records, tissue samples and equipment from Dr. Robley Evans' project at MIT to Argonne is progressing smoothly. It is expected that the MIT project will become a satellite laboratory to ANL by early fall of 1970. The MIT facility, along with the two field stations in the Eastern United States will then be under the financial and scientific supervision of the Division of Radiological Physics of Argonne National Laboratory. Details of the progress of the transfer and utilization of personnel

of Dr. Evans' project are as follows: The New Jersey field station, employing three people was placed under Argonne control as of December 1, 1969. The Connecticut field station, also the responsibility of Argonne, is being maintained on a stand-by basis with one parttime employee. Dr. Robert Rowland, Director of the Radiological Physics Division of Argonne, has made offers to nine professional and technical employees of the MIT project. Of these, one individual joined the Argonne staff as of January 1, 1970; a second will join as of March 1, 1970, and a third on June 1, 1970. One offer is still open and five individuals have declined the offer and will remain in Boston. Three of these five will be employed at the MIT satellite laboratory. The two remaining individuals will sever connections with the project. The satellite facility at MIT under the direction of Argonne will officially start operating September 1, 1970, employing four scientific people. In addition those physicians now connected with the MIT project will remain attached to the MIT satellite facility as consultants. Dr. Robley Evans and his assistant, Miss Mary Margaret Shanahan, will be located in Phoenix, Ariz., but it has not been determined whether their activities will be funded through Argonne to MIT or directly through MIT after the MIT project becomes a satellite laboratory. Dr. Evans and Miss Shanahan will maintain operational contact with both the MIT installation and with Argonne.

Progress has also been made in the transfer of materials, equipment, and records. All records at MIT are being duplicated and one set is being sent to Argonne. At this time, patient records falling alphabetically under A-D as well as more than 50 percent of all X-ray films have already been received at Argonne. Transfer of computer records has been completed, which includes the card file and computer tapes.

One piece of equipment, a large walk-in refrigerator, has been received at Argonne. Only one other major piece of equipment is expected to be transferred to Argonne. This is a recently purchased 4,000 channel analyzer, bought with the agreement of MIT that it would be transferred to Argonne. There has been a steady transfer of bone samples to Argonne, but since the exact amount to be transferred is not known the fraction already moved cannot be accurately estimated.

Plans for ANL provide for the addition of a combination officelaboratory wing to the existing physics building to house the program. This will provide a centralization of studies in the United States on the toxicity of radium and mesothorium in human beings. Eventually Argonne may also have the responsibility for studies of humans contaminated with other bone-seeking radioisotopes. Based upon a preliminary conceptual design, the facility will consist of two full floors, a service floor and fan loft, and will provide approximately 26,500 gross square feet. It is now estimated to cost $2 million, and it is hoped that it wil be included in the fiscal year 1972 budget. The Division of Radiological Physics is now utilizing temporary and diverse space such as an abandoned Nike site, temporary buildings and warehouse-type facilities, which is considered inadequate. In addition the new facility will be used in part to house the concurrent expansion of the environmental programs of the Division of Radiological Physics.

Clinical studies on patients are being continued through cooperation with Argonne Cancer Research Hospital and with Dr. Herta Spencer at Hines Veteran's Hospital in Chicago.

I would like to add something about the questions that arose last year concerning the Illinois area subjects.

You will recall that Dr. Asher Finkel had difficulty in reconciling his medical responsibilities toward these subjects with the administrative requirement of the centralized operation. These problems have now been resolved in a manner which will assure that the operation will have the benefit of all data gained so far and in the future from this group.

At the same time, Dr. Finkel will continue to make his valuable contributions to the study without compromising the doctor-patient relationship about which he was worried. Doctors Duffield and Rowland from Argonne Laboratory and Mr. Cannon from the University of Chicago are present, and if you desire more detail about the arrangements, they will be glad to answer questions.

Representative PRICE. Dr. Totter, the Division request for authorization and funding for the addition to the physics building at the Argonne National Laboratory to take care of this particular program was $1,830,000. That is for the requested authorization and requested funding?

Mr. ABBADESSA. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Representative PRICE. The Commission then-submitted these requests in the exact amount to the Bureau of the Budget? Mr. ABBADESSA. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Representative PRICE. What action did you get from the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. ABBADESSA. The funding was not allowed.

Representative PRICE. There were no funds for authorization and, of course, if there is no authorization there is no appropriated fund for that amount.

Mr. ABBADESSA. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. The action I think can best be characterized in the context of budget stringency, however, rather than programmatic need. In other words, there was no negative policy decision on the part of the Bureau

Representative PRICE. It was an arbitrary budget matter?
Dr. TOTTER. That seems to be the case.

Representative PRICE. Not any reflection on the need or value of the program?

Mr. ABBADESSA. That is correct, sir. Without subscribing too much to the word "arbitrary," that is correct, sir.

Representative PRICE. I don't know what else you would call it. We are having the same problem in the Armed Services Committee right now. Projects are regarded by the Department of Defense as being essential but not by the Bureau of the Budget, at least not at the present time.

Now what priority does the Commission, particularly the Division of Biology and Medicine, place upon this program?

Dr. TOTTER. We have listed this project as our first priority. I would like to add however that from this morning's statement by Dr. Rosen, the committee learned that there may be less of a problem in delay with respect to the LAMPF facility for medical care.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »