1 / 9

DC Field User Program Statistics

DC Field User Program Statistics. DC Users. 2007 – 404 Total users 2008 – 313 Total users 2007 – 185 Distinct Projects 2008 – 123 Distinct Projects 2009 – already ~ 180 (unofficial). 2008 New PIs. 96 Distinct PIs 16 new (17%). Bartkowiak, Marek Bonn, Doug Bozovic, Ivan

hilda-hewitt
Download Presentation

DC Field User Program Statistics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DC Field User Program Statistics

  2. DC Users • 2007 – 404 Total users • 2008 – 313 Total users • 2007 – 185 Distinct Projects • 2008 – 123 Distinct Projects • 2009 – already ~ 180 (unofficial)

  3. 2008 New PIs • 96 Distinct PIs • 16 new (17%) Bartkowiak, Marek Bonn, Doug Bozovic, Ivan Coldea, Amalia Gervais, Guillaume Hu, Qing Kawamoto, Tadashi Luke, Graeme Mammadov, Eldar Rodrigues Jr, Durval Sirtori, Carlo Soffa, William Sutherland, Michael Wessles, Bruce Zheludev, Andrey Zudov, Michael User Committee Meeting 2008

  4. 23 New Users in 2009 (17 in 2008)  Affronte, Marco CNR, stitutoNazionaledifisicadella material Ashoori, Ray Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dickerson, James Vanderbilt University Dressel, Martin University of Stuttgart Ferdeghini, Carlo University of Genova CNR/INFM-LAMIA Ganapathy, Sambandamurthy University at Buffalo-State University of New York Gedik, NuhMIT Geibel, Christoph Max Planck Institute Karpinski, Janusz ETH-Zurich Knappenberger, Kenneth Florida State University Koyama, Keiichi Tohoku University Levy, Jeremy University of Pittsburgh Newman, Nathan Arizona State University Opeil, Cyril Boston College Seehra, Mohindar West Virginia University Suchalkin, Sergey SUNY at Stony Brook Terashima, Taichi National Institute for Materials Science Tesanovic, Zlatko Johns Hopkins University Tsujii, Hiroyuki Kanazawa University Tutuc, Emanuel The University of Texas at Austin Valla, Tonica Brookhaven National Laboratory Vasanelli, Angela University Paris Diderot    

  5. Success rate for magnet time • 2007 – Requests – 374 • Accepted – 293 – 78% • Rejected - 81 – 23% • 2008 – Requests – 339 • Accepted – 245 - 72% • Rejected – 94 – 28% • 2009 last quarter – Hybrid: 14 requests for 4 weeks of timeResistive: 58 requests for 28 weeks of time

  6. Energy Budget Sitters ⅓ × 20MW × 31 Hr ~ 200 MWHr Sweepers ¾ × 20MW × 31 HR ~ 450 MWHr Sitters ⅓ × 30MW × 31 Hr ~ 300 MWHr Sweepers ¾ × 30MW × 31 HR ~ 675 MWHr

  7. 2008 – no budget 2009- budget 2008 – no budget 2009- budget

  8. $5M in 2008 $2M in 2000

  9. Energy Budgets give us a “knob” to control electric bill. • Decrease in cost of natural gas – electrical bill looks hopeful • Increase in budget? New magnets? New instrumentation? • Future looks bright hopeful…

More Related