Sheet 1
CANS meeting
  Discussion
    Group 1 "low intensity science, testing"
      A
        Soft matter, imaging.
        Strong contrast
        Slow dynamics
        ESS lighthouse proposals
      B
        Publishable science w 2 week experiment
        Good S/N
        Technical support
        Scientific support/collaboration
        Infrastructure
      C
        Demand essentially DK
        ESS lighthouses 1 package
        EU welcome - success criterion, collaborators
      D
        Investment: Private foundation
        Running cost: DTU base funding
        Longer term: Consortium
        1 beamline instr/instr
      E
        No real competetion
        Collaboration w other CANS, ESS
      F
        Recommendation:
        2 cases cyclotron/ToF
        1-2 science cases
      Q: ToF?
    Group 2 "Training and Education, Instrumentation"
      A
        Hand-son operation including for undergrads
        Test facility
          Moderator dev
          Imaging
          Feasibility studies
        Year-round flexibility
        Bypass bureaucracy
      B
        ToF essential for NS
        Sufficient flux @ sample, to make meaning ful exp < 1 day
        Minimise activation levels
        Possibility to re-configure instruments
        Campus life/guesthouse
        Data aq should be identical to ESS and instrument types should mimick
        Dedicated permanent staff to train students
        Sample environment (temp, pressure...)
      C
        ESS target: moderator test facility
        Pre-experiment sample testing
        Instrument component testing (optics, detectors)
        Easy access for Data analysis / algorithmics
      D
        Investment: Private
        Running
          ...
          Public
          Research grants
          EU...
      E
        ESS not competition
        X-ray is
        Anything lab based is (from a student perspective)
      F
        Investment Support from major DK uni
        Approach DK industry
        Synergies isotopes and ns
        Dev plan: which instrs first etc
        Feasibility study [CDR] - pre seed...
      Q:
        BL: Education rather than training?
        GM: ESS staff sent over? - Same infrastructure, environment, same difference
        DB: Grad stud vs. postdoc difference
        MS: These centers give good users
    Group 3 "Industry and isotope production"
      A
        Industrial apps:
          Materials analysis, SANS NAA radiography
          Doping of Si material mods
          LINX
            Comments from HFPO
          Tech development (acc, DF) proton buncher - CW -> pulsed
        Isotope production
          Medical (not Mo/Tc, Ge68, Acc225,...)
          Other areas: industry, off-shore?
        Neutron Activation analysis
          Non-industrial: research on large samples?
          Alternatives: PIXE, x-ray fluoresence
        Additional points:
          Scattering needs ToF
          Factor of 10 compared to exsiting CANS
          1e12/cm2/s neutrons reqd for NAA +!
          Optimisations for moderators and coupling to instrs
          Other factors
          Electronics: space and telecom
      B
      C
      D
      E
      F
    HFPO: Running costs DTU vs. other options??!?? 2 groups differed
      JPLY: Ideas?
        HFPO: National
          KClausen:
            Interst forum, institution buy-in
          JPLY:
          Kristoffer: FI is minus, uphill
            industrial running cost not probable for science part
            If successful facility ask oterh unis
          Pape: Astid-II, only national funding for a few years, EU funding, most paid by Aarhus even > 0.5 non-aarhus
          HFPO: Agreed kurt, has to be adressed
            Host uni
            Collaboration between uni leaderships
            Rektors agree this is of national interest
          BL: What does national mean?
          HFPO: Shared cost
          Mikael Jensen: Talks say wonderful ideas, stiff ceiling
            must not be more expensive than...
            What could be done with the same money at ESS
            We can play around... Bureacracy
            "ESS level without activation"
            divergence between these
            You can not have everything, impossible exercise
          Günther: Have to disagree
            LENS is a playground
            At ESS heavy remote equipment
          Dave: We're not trying to compete with ESS
            Point is lots of interesting science can be done with less than ESS
          Günther: Industry likes quick access
            Proposal calls @ big facilities
              6 months deadtime
            Bureacuracy @ CANS, but much less
            Quicker access
            Interested industry even funds access in JP
          Kristoffer: Japan is a lot different than DK
            Kurt had a 1.2% number for industry in Europe
          Günther:
            Lots of industry comes in through unis, 20%
          Kristoffer: This will not provide funding
    Esbe: Take money to ESS not viable
    Kurt: 22 instrs @ ESS should be public, likely CRG's later
      Markus: Contribution as in-kind vs. construction
        Have not excluded CRG for later above 22+
          NNBar openness to external funding
          build instr on their own
          No predefined case
          But cannot be excluded
      Kristoffer: What is possible at ESS should be considered
        Intersting discussion wrt. Cyclotron vs. pulsed
      HFPO: We don't have the numbers
      Mikael: Simulations are needed S/N, soft sample CW etc.
        Dramatical price tag increase CW->pulsed
          Takes more power
          Linac expensive
          Are there crossovers somewhere
          Pulse may be neeeded
          Medical facility makes this inviable
          Subtopic 6
        Markus: Imaging + CW may be possible
          Science case
        Günther:
          Science case assumes that Science is main
        Markus: OK then use case/business case
          We assumed a scientific driver
        Günther:
          $ spent better here or there driven hard by saying "science"
          Getting priorities straight is important
        Kell: Calculation scenarios need to be covered separately
        Bent: This is why ws was split in 3
        Kristoffer: Peak flux does not matter S/N does
          Need to think about this
          Gains in reducing bg
        Pape: Pulsed more expensive than DC
          Accumulator ring with cyclotron
          compressor ring...
        Bent: Different price tags on linacs
        Pape: acc ring could be cheaper
        Mikael: noone build 30MeV for 30 years
          Pape: Astrid...? :-)
        JPLY: compressor is an upgrade path?
        Pape: yes certainly
          One could do "easy" costing
            Poor mans accumulator
              1000 turns
        Kristoffer SANS does not need short short pulse - easier?
        Pape/Kurt: No, bigger ring needed :-)
    Bent:
      Did we invite the right people?
      Participation good
      Please let us know if we missed someone?
      Other comments?
      Close WS
      Thank you for active participation
      Reports needed this year
        Qualitative OK
        Recommendations for future process
      Pape: Very few threats or revenues to hand other members
        Bent: sure you are goood at that ;-)