Major Facilities for Materials Research
- PDF / 908,210 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 590.4 x 777.6 pts Page_size
- 79 Downloads / 218 Views
Table I Major Materials Facilities Committee Dean E. Eastman, IBM (Co-Chairman) Frederick Seitz, Rockefeller University (Co-Chairman) Richard B. Bernstein, University of California, Los Angeles Robert J. Birgeneau, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Jerome B. Cohen, Northwestern University Mildred S. Dresselhaus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Harry G. Drickamer, University of Illinois Peter Eisenberger, Exxon Research and Engineering Company Donald Engelman, Yale University Walter Kohn, Institute of Theoretical Physics, Santa Barbara David W. Lynch, Iowa State University and Ames Laboratory Albert Narath, AT&T Bell Laboratories William D. Nix, Stanford University Edward Rubenstein, Stanford University Medical Center John J. Rush, National Bureau of Standards Albert I. Schindler, Naval Research Laboratory Arthur Sleight, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc. William P. Slichter, AT&T Bell Laboratories Joseph V. Smith, University of Chicago Richard Stein, University of Massachusetts H. Guyford Stever, Universities Research Association John M. White, University of Texas at Austin Table II Criteria for Establishing Priorities Importance for frontier research in materials, and consideration of needs in biology, chemistry, physics, earth science, and medical science. Importance for applied research in areas of national priority, i.e., economic competitiveness and security. Availability of other less costly alternatives. Contribution of each facility to a long-term national plan for major materials facilities. Table III
Criteria for Proposal Evaluation • • • •
Technical and scientific resources at the laboratory. Access and ease of use. Role of facility relative to mission of laboratory. Potential for training scientists and engineers. Table IV
Recommended Priorities for Major New Facilities 1. 6 GeV synchrotron radiation facility — optimal use of insertion devices. 2. Advanced steady-state neutron facility — 10x flux of existing machines. 3. 1-2 GeV synchrotron radiation facility — optimal use of insertion devices. 4. High-intensity pulsed neutron facility — >10" n/cm2-s peak flux, epithermal neutrons. * A copy of the Committee's report may be obtained from: Major Materials Facilities Committee, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Resources, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington DC 20418.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 80.82.77.83, on 25 Aug 2017 at 19:29:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at MRS BULLETIN, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1984, PAGE 27 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1557/S088376940004269X
The third priority is the construction of the new ] -2 GeV synchrotron radiation facility also designed for optimal use of insertion devices. Whereas in the first recommended facility the energy is selected as to emit maximum flux in the hard x-ray range, around 1 A, where the wavelength of the x-rays are comparable to that of the lattice spacing of matter so as to probe structural questions, t
Data Loading...
