Date post: | 19-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 1 times |
1
The International Reactor 13 Working Group
2
Or Three Meetings and a
White Paper
April 2003 University of Alabama
October 2003 Munich TUM (Technische Universitat Munchen)
March 2004, Niigata, Japan
3
Workshop Participants
Alabama 26 Munich 58 Niigata 61
Total at any workshop or on author list
~200
4
International Working Group
Alabama Argonne Berkeley Cal Tech Chicago Columbia Fermilab IIT Kansas State LSU Michigan Minnesota Northwestern Stony Brook Tennesee Texas Virginia Tech Washington
Munich TUM MPI-Heidelberg MPI-Munich SISSA College de France CEA/Saclay INFN Bologna INFN Trieste
Brasileiro Campinas Rio
Kurchatov
Tohoku Niigata Tokyo Institute
Technology Tokyo
Metropolitan U IHEP Beijing Academia Sinica
5
125 authors from 40 institutions
9 countries
~30 people provided contributions
Another 10-15 provided comments
6
Outline of White Paper
1. Introduction2. Opportunity/Motivation3. Optimize Baseline4. Previous Experiments5. Detector Design6. Calibration7. Backgrounds/Overburden8. Systematics9. Sites
10. Other physics11. Tunnel/Shaft12. Safety13. OutreachA. AngraB. (Double) CHOOZC. Daya BayD. Diable CanyonE. IllinoisF. KASKAG. KR2DET
7
TheoryMotivationfor 13 ?
8
A year of Reactor Meetings Besides 3 IWG meetings APS study kickoff/final meetings Dec/June 2 APS Reactor Working Group meetings Feb/May “US Meeting for a Future Neutrino Observatory at
Reactors” at San Luis Obispo March US/UK meeting June 2 hour meeting at 2004 June 2 workshops in China Nov/Jan Collaboration meetings of midwest group, CHOOZ,
etc. The meeting I didn’t know about?
9
Future of the International Working Group
We didn’t need a 1.5 day meeting in Paris this June.
It isn’t really one group. It’s several collaborations
Assuming more than one collaboration forms, continued meetings are useful,
But not more than once per year.
10
Promote the Concept
June 2004CERN Courier
11
My viewConclusion at Niigata Workshop
We need Double CHZIt’s a good opportunity to get going quickly and we’d be
crazy not to take it.
We need more than Double CHZIt doesn’t cover the reasonably accessible range of
parameter space.
12
A Thought on Future International Cooperation in Reactor experiments
“National Experiments”
1. Braidwood
2. CHOOZ
3. Diablo Canyon
4. KASKA
“International”
1. Angra
2. Daya Bay
3. Krasnoyarsk
more difficult
May be naïve…
13
Conclusion
The International Working Group isn’t alive and it isn’t dead.
It’s there and could be put to use for a good purpose.