National High Magnetic Field Laboratory

1. Florida State University 45T Hybrid DC Magnet Los Alamos National Laboratory 89T Pulse Magnet 15mm bore 900MHz, 105mm bore NMR/MRI Magnet National High Magnetic Field Laboratory University of Florida Advanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Spectroscopy Facility 11.4T MRI Magnet 400mm warm bore High B/T Facility 17T, 6weeks at 1mK

2. Magnetic Fields 7 User Facilities DC Fields Pulsed Fields High B/T EMR NMR AMRIS ICR NHMFL Unique Magnet LabCross Disciplinary Physics Materials Science Chemistry Medicine Engineering Biology Geology

3. NHMFL User History • Francis Bitter National Magnet Lab – 1960-1995 (first fields 1963) • NSF funded since 1970 • One of the first modern user facilities • NHMFL – 1990 (first fields 1993) • Users programs grew organically at each facility • Procedures varied to suit user and experiment needs

4. Milli-Kelvin 18/20 T SC50 mm20 mK 16/18 T SC50 mm10 mK 18/20 T SC50 mm300K-.3K Cell 4 20T 195 mm 20kA Test 20 MW DC Magnets Keck Cell 6 25 T (700 GHz) 50 mm 12 ppm 18.6 MW Cell 2 29 T 32 mm 50 ppm 18.3 MW Cell 14 SCH / 36 T 40 mm 1 ppm 14 MW Cell 8 35 T 32 mm 19 MW Cell 10 Cryogenic System Storage Cell 12 35 T 32 mm 19 MW Cell 16 LCTF Cell 5 Split Coil > 25 T 32 mm 28MW Cell 9 31 T 50 mm 18 MW Cell 13 Magnet & Power Supply Testing Cell 3 18 T SCw/ Fast Optics Cell 1 OpticsSupport Cell 7 31 T 50 mm Gradient & Modulation 18 MW Cell 11 Cryo Operators Cell 15  45 T Hybrid 32 mm 31 MW Superconducting magnets – 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, Resistive magnets – 10.5 hr shifts 4.5 days/wk 2 resistive magnets at one time OR 1 hybrid magnet at a time

5. We’re different from beamlines! Transport: AC, DC, high current Magnetization: torque, VSM, susceptibility Heat Capacity Rotation Optics: Vis-UV spectroscopy, Raman, ultra-fast, THz FTIR: reflection & transmission High pressure: piston clamp, diamond anvil Thermal dilation, magnetostriction Skin Depth: TDO Microwave conductivity NMR EMR Ultrasound • Experiments range from simple to extremely complex • Wide temperature range10mK to 600K • Goal: recreate home laboratory on Monday morning take data in magnets consuming up to 28MW same signal to noise as in home lab!

6. Unified User Proposal Portal Proposal: Science/Technology Description Demographics CV/Resume Funding Sources ‘Excluded Reviewer’ List Web-based Review - Two External Reviewers - Internal Staff Scientists Experiment 1: User Program Specific Experiment Description Magnet Time Request Decision on Magnet Time - Internal Technical Experts - Specific to User Program - Specific to Experiment Denial of Magnet Time - Link to Reviews - Link to User Program Head - Link to Appeals Process - Information/Advice on Resubmission - Request for Feedback (Process clear ?, Rationale clear ?) Assignment of Magnet Time - Link to Reviews - Link to User Program Head - Link to Site-Specific Training - Request for Feedback Implemented January 2010

7. Goals • External Review – “gold” standard, fairness • Internal Review – technical quality and feasibility of experiments • Transparency – decisions explained • Flexibility – ability to respond to changing scientific landscape quickly • Facility adaptable – not one size fits all… • Rapid access availability

8. Proposal 1-3 pages detailing scientific or technical justification for experiment “why is this exciting, important, critical… why should it be done?” 2 page NSF style CV of PI 1 page Prior Results (group or literature) Experiment Facility specific Details of experiment: Which magnet Which cryostat What technique What sample (hazards…) Anticipated experiment plan Anticipated run pattern What dates preferred, possible, impossible PRIOR results file (2 pages, not pre-print, if you had time before why do you need more time?)

9. Proposal Review Proposal and Experiment submitted together Experiment facility selected – directs proposal to that facility Email to Review Manager(s) generated Review Manager can request that proposal be reassigned if not appropriate Review Manager assigns internal and external reviewers to Proposal Review scientific or technical merit Does NOT review technical feasibility, magnet availability and status, etc. Proposal will live for 1-3 years depending on facility

10. Experiment Review Internal committee of reviewers DC Condensed Matter User Support Scientists Run like NSF Panel Consider external reviews, technical details, technical competency, prior results, need for fields requested, etc. Broader criteria: Early career PI, underrepresented groups, first time PI, group does / does not publish well, had magnet time recently Experiment ranked against other experiments line drawn at number of slots available If new proposal not fully reviewed internal review goes forward – keeps flexibility, helps new users DC fields run in batches – 3 per year

11. Scheduling Puzzle Consider– Field requested, bore size, power supplies, cryostat needed, instrumentation available, user support scientist schedule, maintenance, etc Calendar then input to database, usage later input to database for reporting

12. Feedback – automatically sent after user leaves what went well and what went poorly? what should we fix or improve? Overwhelmingly positive – very helpful User Survey

13. Open Issues Transition issues users did not understand new system reviewers did not understand review parameters Data Management Plan reason for mandate is understood – taxpayer funded data one size does not fit all… Telescope survey of sky is not equivalent to resistivity of CeCoIn5 Sample issues, meaning of data columns, settings on instruments Our users will not want to provide copies of notebooks What about users bringing own laptops… Offsite backup provided, users data protected from accidents & mistakes Postdoc Education NHMFL Summer School Seminars …