Inelastic Magnetic Neutron Scattering at ISIS

1

Evaluation Procedure User Community Jack E.
Crow Washington 11 December 2000
2
Proton Beam Power x Target Effectiveness x Moderat
or Optimization x Number and Type of
Instruments x Quality of Instruments x Reliability
x Facility Support x Users Scientific Output
3
(No Transcript)
4

• Basis for Evaluation
• DoE and other national reports
• Neutron Sources for Americas Future Kohn
  Report (1993)
• Neutron Sources and Applications (1994)
• Neutron Sources Facility Upgrades and the
  Technical Specifications for Spallation Neutron
  Sources (1998)
• Review Report-High Flux Isotope Reactor Upgrade
  and User Program (1998)
• Cooperative Stewardship Managing the Nations
  Multidisciplinary Users Facilities for Research
  with Synchrotron Radiation, Neutrons and High
  Magnetic Fields, NRC (1999)
• Report of BESAC Subpanel on Neutron Scattering
  (2000)
• Experiments in International Benchmarking of US
  Research Fields, NAP (2000)
• ISIS 2000 Annual Report
• IPNS/LANSCE Review Kickoff Meeting
• October 12-13, 2000
• Requested Information
• Source, Instruments, Reliability, Facilities
  Support, Staff, Users, Scientific Impact, Costs,
  Performance Milestones, Plans for the Future.
• Review Subpanel Site Visits Presentation
• LANSCE/Lujan Center, Nov. 14-15, 2000
• IPNS, Nov. 16-17, 2000
• Previous Review of Facilities
• Solicited input from experts

5

• Information Request from Centers
•  
• The Source
• Brief description of the existing facility
• Performance of the source 5 year trends of
  availability, reliability, user schedules,
  operational data
•  
• Instruments
• Brief description of each instrument, research
  community served by each instrument, layout of
  facility, ranking of each instrument and beamline
• Reliability of each instrument
• Availability of beam time to different groups
  for each spectrometer, e.g., external users,
  instrument scientists, directors discretion and
  other internal usage (including calibration and
  commissioning)
• User demand days requested and delivered on
  each instrument by scientific field, i.e.,
  Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Engineering, Other.
• Past 5 years new investments, upgrades and
  maintenance in instruments
•  
• Support facilities
• o  Availability and planned facilities, e.g.,
  sample preparation, computer analysis, etc.
• Staff
• Size of staff and assignments, give a breakdown
  of the staff according to areas, i.e.,
  accelerator, scientists, technicians, computing
•    Assessment of quality of the staff.

6

• Impact
•   The 20 most important papers over the past 5
  years based on work done at your facility
•   List of all publications in last 5 years
  Publications in refereed journals separated by
  work performed (i) at the facility by users or
  staff and (ii) at other facilities by staff
  publications in conference proceedings, and
  identify the field and the instrument used.
•   Plenary lectures and major awards.
•   Data on publications per year with citations
  and papers per user. (This is only for papers
  published using the facility.)
•  
• Cost
• Operational, maintenance, upgrades and
  investment costs for the facility
• Cost per paper
• Cost per delivered beam day
•  
• DoE milestones and performance assessment
• Outside review reports
•  
• The Future
• Role for the facility for next few years, i.e,
  up to when SNS comes on line upgrades that have
  been approved and plans for new instrumentation
• Plans to increase the neutron user base in the
  US
• Vision and goals for the facility after SNS

7
The User Community
8
Total Awards made by NSF (all Directorates) and
DoE/SC/OBES to university-based neutron
scattering programs
Total expenditures for university-based neutron
scattering programs in 1996 dollars
9