Summary of NNbar DUSEL meeting at NSF August 7, 2006 Present from NSF: Jack Lightbody Physics/Large facilities jwlightb@nsf.gov James Stone Physics/EPP/PNA jstone@nsf.gov Betsy Beise Physics/NP ejbeise@nsf.gov Brad Keister Physics/NP bkeister@nsf.gov Jon Kotcher Physics/PNA/EPP(DUSEL) jkotcher@nsf.gov Randy Rucht Physics/EPP rruchti@nsf.gov Present from NNbar: Mike Snow Indiana University Yuri Kamyshkov University of Tennessee Please see our presentations posted at the website: http://hepd5s.phys.utk.edu/%7Ekamyshkov/NNbar/YK_NSF_talk1.ppt http://hepd5s.phys.utk.edu/%7Ekamyshkov/NNbar/MS_NSF_talk2.ppt http://hepd5s.phys.utk.edu/%7Ekamyshkov/NNbar/YK_NSF_talk3.ppt 1. General reception was favorable, there was no arguments about the Physics! If we reach proposed sensitivity we at most will make a MAJIOR discovery or at least will establish a new limit on the stability of matter. 2. DUSEL might need NNBAR as a unique experiment that will exist only at DUSEL (different from SNO, Gran Sasso etc). If any other experiments proposed for DUSEL can be also done elsewhere (e.g. solar nu, or DM, of double beta deacy can be done also sy SNO), NNbar can be done only at DUSEL. Neutrino long base line to DUSEL from FNAL will be also special for DUSEL (although CERN -> Gran Sasso already exists) but DOE/FNAL are not making decision yet on that high intensity neutrino beam. 3. NNbar is recognized by NSF people as a project in early stage of development. Due to complexity and cost of experiment our first steps should demonstrate feasibility and the analysis of possible show stoppers. Cost of DUSEL/NNbar experiment is recognized as being in the same ballpark as large DM search and large double beta decay experiments. 4. Our R&D proposal (due to NSF September 27) should include a list of studies addressing possible showstoppers with corresponsing cost estimates. R&D Proposal will be 15 pages with possible distribution like ~ 7 pages of physics of nnbar measurement ~ 6 pages of discussion of R&D issues (one-by-one) ~ 2 pages Education and Outreach 5. NSF will have ~ 6-7 M$ in FY2007 to support DUSEL R&D. About 10-12 proposals will be selected for support. No people, positions, salaries, students, postdocs can be funded through this R&D. It will be OK to request funding for: engineeting services, consulting, for travel, for organization of workshop. Prototypes can be also funded, but we are recognized as not being in the stage for building prototypes until feasibility and show stoppers will be addressed. ! Please, let me know whether you are interested and can be available for participation in the R&D NSF project (within the present scope) and in what study you can be involved. 6. High quality engineering (that we need in R&D proposal) is usually available from National Labs. NSF does not provide funding to National Labs, however, the Universities might subcontract National Labs for engineering work (we should re-confirm this point with Jim and Jon). In a long run DUSEL lab will be the place providing engineering to the projects, but this is not going to happen to our R&D proposal at the present time. It is desirable that participating National Lab could raise internal seed money for the initial stage of the experiment (to support engineering). We should try to contact LBNL,ANL,LANL,FNAL,ORNL for possible participation. 7. Topics we proposed to be addressed in the R&D proposal for feasibility demonstration and show stoppers analysis (following recommendations of Homestake PAC): o Availability of 1-km long vertical shaft or new shaft [with DUSEL engineers] o Reactor licensing, liability, decommissioning, infrastructure [physicist + nucl. eng.] o Safety analysis of vacuum system, moderator, and reactor [physicist + (nucl)engineer] o Mechanical assembly of the vertical experiment in the shaft [physicsist + engineer] o Cold moderator specs. Neutronics optimization [physicist + PNPI] o Neutron focusing reflectors (scenario of mass production, mechanical design of support structure) [physicist + PNPI + engineer] o Magnetic shielding (configuration, assembly, and demagnetization) [physicist + engineer] o Non-magnetic vacuum tube (assembly and support) [engineer] o Specs and design of 3.5 MW TRIGA reactor [with GA, physicist + nucl. eng.] o Overall cost estimate [engineer] o Education and Outreach [physicsit] o Collaboration growth, organization, management [ideas and efforts are welcome] These topics can be discussed and probably better formulated and prioritized; may be we can be more flexible by sorting them by categories like - regulatory (e.g. reactor licensing) - availability (e.g. shaft availability) - technical (e.g. overall experiment assembly in the shaft) We probably can not go into equal details on all R&D items above. Depending on available funding our R&D work in the beginning might address only some (most essentail) topics and/or stage them over 3-yr period. Recommendations of Homestake PAC should be reflected in the prioratized list of our R&D topics. It seems that our central issues for R&D are - availability of the shaft or a new shaft - reactor questions - study of construction/assembly of 1-km vertical experiment 8. LIGO vacuum tube system design (dia ~ 1m) can be taken as vacuum system design prototype for us 9. We will follow up with NSF (Jim and Jon) on whether we can include PNPI in this R&D. Question is how their work can be payed. Can it be consulting fee? What will be deliverables? 10. Besides R&D proposal next big thing will be a workshop on (B-L) conservation/violation including NNbar physics that we proposed for the next year (see presentation 3). We suggested Fall 2007, NSF people said that there will be a big spring 2007 DUSEL-science workshop (time/place not determined) that we might like join to.