Article View: sci.physics
Article #1265Re: SLC (was Re: terminal particle energy ...)
From: DURRETT
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 19:49
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 19:49
32 lines
2630 bytes
2630 bytes
Actually, a large part of the design of the looped portion of the SLC was concern for the combination of aesthetics and environment. If the collider had been built in a plane, the north loop would have been above ground. This was considered a problem for a lot of reasons. First, cooling would have been a problem(it always has been along the linac, which, because of complaints from the locals is painted gov't green rather than the more logical white. SLAC has always been cheap in their approach to such things. They long intended to cool the linac housing by spraying water on the building which holds the klystrons, only to have a five-year drought get in the way). Second, the exposed hillside which would have been torn up for this purpose, faces the city of Menlo Park, whose residents are only too happy to take the money of poor graduate students and transplanted post-docs, but don't want to have to actually see any evidence of what goes on up the hill. Thirdly, there is, oddly enough, some wildlife on the site, and some of it(some foxes and deer) lives in this portion of the site. Had Menlo Park objected insisted on an EIS, SLAC probably would have lost. But Jim is right, Burt and others apparently discounted too much reports that non-linear effects would cause major problems with the beams once they were steered away from the linac. Hopefully, physicists will learn a lesson from all this, but I'm not holding my breath. People like Burt Richter will always be around to say, "No, it's OK. We'll do it really cheaply." And as long as a few people continue to have success with this technique the people who don't have to do the science, but do provide the funds, will think under-funding works. Roo-Dog Rip """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Roo-Dog Rip is: <>SLAC, Stanford, the DOE and the Derrell Durrett <>University of Colorado neither claim D_DURRETT@COLOPHYS.BITNET <>responsibility nor accept liability D_DURRETT%KAOS@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU <>for my opinions. Gee- what a surprise.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<92108.114952DURRETT@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!unixhub!slacvm!durrettReferences:
<8244@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <yrzjp!-.rcain@netcom.com> <16APR199209312039@sscvx1.ssc.gov> <8286@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!unixhub!slacvm!durrett From: DURRETT@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: SLC (was Re: terminal particle energy ...) Message-ID: <92108.114952DURRETT@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> Date: 17 Apr 92 19:49:52 GMT References: <8244@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <yrzjp!-.rcain@netcom.com> <16APR199209312039@sscvx1.ssc.gov> <8286@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> Distribution: world,local Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Lines: 32