Experimental Facilities Update and LOI Process

1. Experimental Facilities Update and LOI Process John Hill Experimental Facilities Division Director NSLS-II EFAC May 5th 2008

2. Outline • Hiring Status • R+D Status • Recent Changes • Floor expansion • Sunken access corridors • CD-3 Planning • Response to EFAC • LOI process • Charge to EFAC

3. Hiring Update BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES Status of key hires within Experimental Division

4. Ring Building Width Increase Drivers for decision: Desire for canted beamlines and multiple endstations on single straight requires more transverse space Endstations becoming ever more complex (and therefore larger) Significant demand for BM lines Insufficient space for experimenters to work on experimental floor Benchmarking comparisons to other facilities User feedback at workshops .

5. Hutch layout at the Materials Science Sector Project PD beamline in white Hutches are compromised to fit on floor Second PD station used for experimentsneeding large equipment (eg HP).

6. Floor Dimensions, an International Comparison

7. Comparison with ESRF Floor Dimensions 14.6m radial dist. 11.6m radial dist. ~35m useable length ~29m useable length ~42m useable floor length 17.2m radial distance walkway Ring diameter and front end distances very similar for ESRF and NSLS-II Previous NSLS-II distances. New NSLS-II distances

8. Canted beamlines can be made to fit – extremely difficult without floor expansion or serious compromise. IXS Beamline now feasible with two end stations (as originally proposed) Can now get 1:1 focusing optics for undulator beamlines Space for user control areas on the experimental floor. Bending magnet beamlines will not be so compromised. Benefits of Increasing Experimental Floor Space

9. Long Beamlines: Sunken Access Corridor Std Access Corridor By-pass Corridor Extended Experimental Floor Stair, ADA Lift and Material Lift Ramp

10. Sunken Access Corridor Elevation Through Corridor At Beamline

11. Recent results in 0.1 meV R+D Principle is to use dispersion caused by asymmetric cuts in extreme backscattering as dispersive elements Asymmetric angle First results showing dispersive effects (reproducing Shvyd’ko’s work) First NSLS-II dispersive crystals (cut and polished at NSLS) Next: measure energy resolution (nominally 0.7 meV) Zhong, Huang, Cai, Coburn, Siddons, Shu…

12. 0.1 meV progress: Testing CDW optics Transmissivity rocking curve of 2nd W Analyzer-monochromator combination setup at NSLS Next to last step Next steps: • Fabricate, assemble and test temperature controlled enclosures. • Design “Comb Crystal” to significantly shorten D crystals (proposed by Yuri Shvyd’ko). Investigating cutting methods. • Investigating dedicated R&D beamline at NSLS. 2nd CDW analyzer is now cut and being tested.

13. Recent Results in 1nm R+D NSLS-II Si lenses measured at 8-ID, APS Single Lens Lens on rotating stage CCD s=56 nm (82 nm at CD-2) X-rays Compound Lens s=25 nm 12.5 nm Cr Knife edge 300 mm aperture Evans-Lutterodt, Stein, Isakovic, Warren (BNL: NSLS, NSLS-II, CFN, Instrum.) Sandy, Narayan, Sprung (APS), Fetter (Lucent) • Next steps: • Improve temperature control • Improve vibrational stability • Push higher resolution Data from 2/20/08

14. Modeling dynamical diffraction from MLL’s with rough interfaces DWBA Simulations: MLL with 5nm outmost zone (half structure) Compare with rigorous calculation (For a given roughness profile) Stochastic roughness ( u follows a normal distribution) • Similar to the effect of “Debye-Waller factor”, random roughness results in a decrease of the focusing efficiency. • In-plane correlations show negligible effect on the focus. • Vertical (layer to layer) correlations give rise to a broad diffuse peak at focus, which may or may not affect the focus profile, depending on the correlation length.

15. CD-3 Planning • Key upcoming dates • June 16, 17 Lehman Mini Review • ~Sept 3rd -5th Comprehensive Design Review • Sept 30th-Oct 3rd Lehman Review • Oct 20th – 24th External Independent Review • Goal is to have requirements, specifications and interfaces defined for the 6 project beamlines for Sept 30th review, with BAT input • Plan: Use vendors, work with BATs. Hire BL scientists. • It is going to be tight.

16. Oct 2007 EFAC Recommendations • Consider how non-BES funded beamlines are to be developed. • Request overall vision for facility to provide context for discussions on individual LOIs • Encourage hiring of Life Sciences position, support dialog with other funding agencies and make LS a priority for day-1 operations. • Recommends that beamline staff get 10% of beamtime for their own research • Beamline-specific recommendations and comments: • CSX: Study switching cases and RIXS opportunities • IXS: Suggest 50 meV instrument paired with 0.1 meV • HSX: Recommend splitting CDI and XPCS • HXN: Develop strategy for filling in spectral gap of IVU • XAS: Realistic plans for handling power in place • PWD: Continue dialog between NSLS-II and community • Recommended a 1 yr overlap between NSLS and NSLS-II operations. • Supported BNL’s detector development proposal.

17. LOI Process • Letters of Interest are expressions of interest from groups wishing to form BATs to advise the facility on the development of certain capabilities • We solicited LOIs against the 6 project beamlines (and got 7, because 1 was de-scoped) • Going forward we need to decide on the next set of beamlines to be built consistent with the strategic plan and then call for LOIs to form BATs for those beamlines • The “extra” 4 LOIs should be viewed in this light

18. Conflict of Interest Guidelines • EFAC members may be on LOIs, but must be absent from the room after the presentation, when those LOIs are discussed in Executive Session. • EFAC members may be members of BATs, but must recuse themselves when project priorities and resources are discussed that involve beamlines they are on the BAT for.

19. Charge to EFAC Provide comment and feedback on the LOIs in four areas: • Scientific impact • Does the proposed science meet Grand Challenges with high impact in scientific field? • Does the proposed science take full advantage of NSLS-II and strategically position the facility for the future? • Technical factors • Are the requirements sufficient, comprehensive and reasonable? • Does it advance state-of-the-art and contribute to growth of the field? • Team quality • Is the team qualified in scientific and technical expertise? • Do they have a coherent vision of the beamline? • User community • Is the user community large (or potentially large) and able to substantially benefit from the proposed beamline (as opposed to existing sources)? • Is the user community strategically important for NSLS-II and likely to produce high-impact science for years to come?

20. Charge to EFAC • Compare and contrast the 7 LOIs with the following weighting of the review criteria: • Scientific impact 30% • Technical factors 20% • Team quality 20% • User community 30% • Comment on each of the remaining 4 LOIs • What are their strengths and weaknesses? • Are there elements that could profitably be incorporated into one of the 6 project beamlines?

21. Charge to EFAC • Advice and feedback on the appropriate weighting for the constraints in planning the fully built out facility • Advice and feedback on the strategic planning process currently underway. • Additions or concerns with the Conflict of Interest guidelines