NSLS-II Project Overview & Future Plans

1. John HillEFAC May 10th 2007 Experimental Facilities Overview

2. Outline Activities since last EFAC meeting: Lehman review Budget Schedule Radiation Sources Hiring update R+D update Response to EFAC suggestions/recommendations

3. “Lehman” CD-1 Review, December 2006 R+D program is appropriate Funding for beamlines not sufficient to demonstrate unique capabilities of NSLS-II or meet user demand. Include beam diagnostic BM beamline as part of the project Include mirror metrology R+D in the project Develop beamline access policy in which facility has the responsibility for design, construction and operation of all beamlines. Establish collaborations for design, testing of BL components. Overall, the review was very positive in regard to the NSLS-II design and team. Recommendations for XFD:

4. Experimental Facilities Budget Increase of $30 M to bottom line

5. Schedule for Project Beamline Activities Determine High Level BL Specifications 01-Oct-07 to 01-May-08 Decide Insertion Device for BL 01-Oct-07 to 01-May-08 Conceptual Design of Project Beamlines 01-Oct-07 to 01-May-09 Submit Conceptual Design to Facility and to EFAC 01-May-09 Technical Design of Project Beamlines 04-May-09 to 01-Sep-10 Submission of 100% Technical Design to Facility and to EFAC01-Sep-10 Procurement of Major Beamline Components 16-Mar-11 to 12-Aug-11 Contracts Awarded for Major Components 12-Aug-11 Fabrication of Major Components 15-Aug-11 to 14-May-12 Installation of FOE Hutch 16-Jan-12 to 01-May-12 Install of Monochromatic Hutches 13-Feb-12 to 31-Aug-12 Testing of Major Beamline Components 14-Mar-12 to 29-Aug-12 Beneficial Occupancy of FOE Hutch 01-May-12 Install BL Hardware into Hutches 02-May-12 to 01-Nov-12 Delivery of Major Components to Site 14-May-12 Testing on all Major Components Complete 29-Aug-12 Beneficial Occupancy of Monochromatic Hutches 31-Aug-12 Beamline Hardware in place, Ready for Beam 01-Nov-12 Commissioning Beamline components without Beam 02-Nov-12 to 01-Apr-13 Beam Commissioning of FOE Components 18-Jun-13 to 12-Aug-13 Beam Delivered to Endstation 1 of BL1 12-Aug-13 Commissioning of Endstation 1 13-Aug-13 to 13-Feb-14

6. Schedule for Project Beamlines 2008 2009 2012 2010 2011 2013 2014 Conceptual Design Technical Design Major procurement fabrication Hutch installation Hardware installation Testing (no beam) Commissioning with beam

7. Three-pole Wigglers Added to give the users access to hard x-ray dipoles without big impact on the emittance. ~15 added to the lattice

8. Radiation Sources: Brightness

9. Radiation Sources: Flux

10. Radiation Sources: Infra-Red New “extra-large” gap dipoles (90mm) boost performance in far-IR.

11. Recent Activities • Explored use and impact of the addition of a few extended straight sections (up to 18m). • Decision to pursue 15-fold lattice for CD-2, but in parallel explore “upgrade path” to lattice to allow for 3 extended straight sections. Can be implemented without changing circumference. • Work on user requirements for stability – part of Stability Task Force and workshop (April 18-20). • For 1nm and 0.1meV: 10% stability goal for electron beam seems compatible with experiments, if supplemented by state-of-the-art beamline feedback (will require some detector R+D). Some techniques, e.g. IR, imaging and PX, need beam position stability <10% of beam size. BL Feedback probably req’d.

12. Recent Activities, continued • Identified 6 Project Beamlines • Present to EFAC now and Users in 2 weeks, • Reworking schedule in light of this decision • User meeting set: July 17th, 18th 2007 • Present design and solicit feedback and input • Discuss project BLs • Discuss transition from NSLS to NSLS-II • Lab space requirements identified for R+D activities.

13. Hiring Update Requisitions have been cut and job descriptions posted for 11 positions: • Inelastic Beamline group leader • Nanoprobe beamline group leader • 1nm R+D Group leader • 0.1 meV R+D Group leader • Interface manager • Deposition scientist • Deposition post-doc • X-ray optics theorist • X-ray optics theory post-doc • Assist. Phys. 0.1 meV • Post-doc 0.1 meV Active recruitment underway for all these, interviews are ongoing and in many cases offers are imminent.

14. Responses to EFAC suggestions 1) Recommend proactive plan to move beamlines from NSLS to NSLS-II to satisfy large existing user community. • Plan is being developed (Hulbert’s talk) 2) Investigate routes to increase brightness. Specifically 3 vs 3.6 GeV and multiple in-line undulators • Minimal increase in B below 15 keV for 3.6 GeV • Extended straights under active investigation as modification to CD2 lattice. (Ozaki’s talk)

15. Responses to EFAC suggestions 3) Keep project attention on realistic heat load issues, focus on project beamline requirements and justify motivation for canted damping wigglers • For undulator calculations, these suggestions have been taken on board. • Damping wigglers have been added to project beamlines, driving the need to address these issues now • Canted devices provide brighter sources for e.g. PX (Berman’s talk) 4) Beamlines should be dedicated to a single technique unless appropriate sharing possible • Agreed.

16. Responses to EFAC suggestions 5) Support large gap dipole chambers for far IR. Consider slotted mirrors for heat load issues. Consider effects of top-off on IR • Done (Carr’s talk) 6) Question if the asymmetric optics scheme can be used at 1 meV as well as 0.1 meV and to consider multiplexing analysers. • The same scheme can also run at 1 meV, with significant advantages over traditional schemes (see CDR) • Multiplexing analysers has not yet been looked into.

17. Responses to EFAC suggestions 6) Kinoform calculations • In process of hiring theorist for this. Calculations in optical limit support diffraction limited performance. (Evans-Lutterodt’s talk) 7) Optics R+D metrology needs to be beefed up. • The project agrees with this and is working to place funds in FY08 and beyond for this effort. Lab space needs have been identified for clean-room, etc.

18. Responses to EFAC suggestions 8) BAT allocations should be 21.25% over first four years • Such allocation schemes are still on the table. There have been a number of discussions on related issues with the DOE. This remains an on-going issue. (Hill’s talk).

19. Charge to EFAC Some questions we would particularly like feedback on include: • Do the project beamlines selected provide a minimal set of capabilities that both take advantage of the properties of the NSLS-II beam and provide work-horse capacity for a significant number of users? • Is the process to define the scientific mission for these beamlines a reasonable one? Does it ensure appropriate user involvement? Is the schedule reasonable? • Is the scope of the plan to move beamlines from NSLS to NSLSII at the start of the operations sufficient? (Range of techniques available, user capacity) • Is the process to develop this plan further a reasonable one? Does it have appropriate involvement of all the necessary stakeholders?