|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. (ALS, NSLS, and SSRL). To be able to use these new facilities more rapidly than could be internally supported, outside scientists organized into participating research teams (PRTs)10 were invited to develop some of the instrumentation. PRTs served two purposes: (1) they provided a mechanism for recruiting the talent needed to design and construct the instrumentation required to bring the facilities online quickly and (2) they provided a mechanism for raising funds to build and operate that instrumentation. In exchange for their contributions to the facilities, the PRTs were granted 75% of the available time on their beamlines. The PRT system has not been used for neutron facilities until recently; instrumentation has been provided by the facility. Limitations in facilities’ budgets have impeded the development and construction of instrumentation necessary to optimize the neutron sources. However, neutron facilities now appear to be moving toward a system similar to that in place in the synchrotron light sources: for example, the current upgrade at LANSCE will involve instrument construction through spectrometer development teams. The National High Magnetic Field Laboratory funding for instrumentation is predominantly provided by NSF and the state of Florida. DOE funded the preexisting pulsed field facilities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory of the NHMFL. ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORTChapter 2 provides a detailed discussion of the U.S. synchrotron, neutron, and high-magnetic-field user facilities, emphasizing trends in their scientific applications and user communities. The stresses faced by the facilities and their supporting agencies due to the changing needs of the user community and the management changes that may be required to meet these needs in the future are also discussed. Chapter 3 traces the evolution of user facility management models in the United States, describes the current status of facility operation and funding, and compares them with models in user facilities in other countries. The strengths and weaknesses of the current stewardship models, either simple stewardship or steward-partner, are also discussed.
|
|
|||||||||||||||
