US Particle Accelerator School US Particle Accelerator School: A Vital Resource for the Office of Science & NSF Presentation to HEPAP AARD Sub-panel William

US Particle Accelerator School

US Particle Accelerator School: A Vital Resource

for the Office of Science & NSF

Presentation to HEPAP AARD Sub-panel

William Barletta

USPAS Director

16 February 2006


USPAS Vision & Mission

“USPAS is an essential partner of U. S. universities & national laboratories

in training the next generation of accelerator scientists and technologists for the

challenging accelerators of the future.”

The US Particle Accelerator School provides graduate-level educational programs in the science of beams and their associated accelerator technologies


The next 10 years will see operation of challenging machines: SNS, LHC, X-ray FELs, laser-driven accelerators & ILC

Well-trained accelerator physicists & engineers are essential to a rich & productive future in accelerator based science

USPAS trains more early career scientists & engineers than ever

It is an opportunity to mentor and counsel not just teach

USPAS is a growing contributor to the education of acceleratorscientists and technologists internationally

International outreach directly benefits DOE & NSF laboratories

Why USPAS is critical to SC & NSF


USPAS charter for educational stewardship from Office of Science & NSF

Founded & nurtured under HEP auspices Letter from the four Energy Research AD’s allows &

encourages national laboratory sponsorship & support (1992) Governing Board of sponsoring partners oversees USPAS

7 SC laboratories (FNAL, ANL, BNL, JLAB, LBNL, ORNL, SLAC) 2 NNSA laboratories (LANL, LLNL) 2 NSF funded universities (Cornell, MSU)

Sponsoring partners provide programmatic support Partner contribution - $25 k/yr Partner institutions support all teaching costs

HEP directly funds USPAS Office at FNAL

We greatly appreciate the strong and continuing support of HEPUSPAS needs greater visibility with non-HEP communities

Orbach suggests periodic reports to BESAC, NSAC, etc.


USPAS Organization & Governance

National Graduate School Governance & support by a consortium of 9 DOE national

laboratories plus 2 NSF University laboratories Board of Governors with elected Chair

Organized under an MOU & By-laws Program Advisory Committee

USPAS Director Appointed by BOG Funded by DOE/HEP

Staff Office at Fermilab (Managing Institution) Funded by DOE/HEP by FY2000 agreement

Fiduciary administration by Fermilab

I hope that the Sub-panel will recommend SC’s continuation of the support agreements


USPAS Operations

Started in 1981 with seminar style presentations

Since 1987 USPAS is organized like a university course program (academic courses for credit)

2 schools annually hosted at different US universities

Typical attendance per school ~ 130 students Scholarship support available for matriculated graduate students

33 university style schools with >2800 students

Also ten Joint Schools with CERN & KEK


USPAS approach stresses academic rigor

Goal: Provide education & training in accelerator physics and technology

Method: University courses with homework, exams and university credit from host universities

Means: Lectures & “hands-on”laboratory courses & activities

Typical school program: ~ 4 two-week courses on main subjects~8 one week courses, mostly technology and highly

specialized subjects


USPAS Session Format and Logistics

Typically:

Have school at a hotel Hotel usually provides complementary meeting rooms

(based on # of sleeping rooms) Breakfast & dinner provided Supported students share a room We rent computers (PCs, printers, network) We provide textbooks as requested by instructors Get expensive instrumentation (3 network analyzers etc.)

from Agilent Pay hosting university ~$240 per credit student Students may ask hosting university for transcript


USPAS University-Style Schools Cumulative Numbers & Averages, 1987-`06

Course Statistics

Total Number of Programs 33 Total Number of Courses ~ 220 Total Number of Students > 2800

Total Number of Attendances ~ 4100

Total Number of Working Days/ Program 10

Average Attendance per Program ~130

Average Number of Courses /Program 8

Average Number of Teachers & Support / Course 2.1

Average Percentage of Credit Students ~ 60 %

Credit Student Workload during Course 8 hr/day

Current level of university students ~ 50 %

International collaborative schools 10


USPAS Degree Program

Masters Degree in Beam Physics and Accelerator Technology

from

Indiana University & USPAS

So far: 4 graduates

Requirements: 30 Credit Hours: with grade point average of B or above

* IU/USPAS Courses * Classical Mechanics and Electromagnetism courses

(transferred to IU from previous university or if taken at USPAS program, one course will count for both requirements)

* Master's Thesis (3 - 9 credits) * Final Examination or oral defense of thesis


USPAS Program Committee meets annually Goal: Align curriculum with evolving accelerator-based science Goal: Align curriculum with needs of sponsoring institutions

Representatives from the sponsoring labs plus universities plus USPAS director

The agenda is simple: Review past schools and successes Recommend courses & possible instructors for next four schoolsnext four schools.

Final program & instructors are set by USPAS director with the approval of the Governing Board

Host university approves courses & gives instructors temporary appointments

We develop the USPAS curriculum to meet SC and NSF needs


Relevance: Course offerings cover all areas of interest to the DOE & NSF

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fundamentals Beam Physics

Measurements Lab

Plasmas & collective effectsComputations & Modeling

Accelerator design

Synchrotron radiation & FELS

RF systems

Accelerator technologyDiagnostics and controls

Magnet technology

ApplicationsSafety systems

Number of courses

Sessions 1997 - 2005


Sample of session curriculum

Two Weeks

Accelerator Fundamentals Yannis Papaphilippou

Accelerator Physics Waldo Mackay (BNL)RF Systems J. Sebek (SLAC/SSRL)Computational Methods in Electromagnetism

K. Ko (SLAC)

One Week

RF Engineering and Signal Processing

John Fox (SLAC)Accelerators in Medical Applications

J. Flanz (MIT)

Magnet EngineeringJ. Tanabe (LBNL (emeritus)

Precision Alignment Techniques

R. Ruland (SLAC)

Laser Physics and Optics Technology

J. Chaloupka (College of W&M)

Recirculating Linac ERL G. Krafft (JLAB)

Beam Halos in Charged Particle Accelerators

T. Wangler (LANL emeritus)

Wakefields and Impedances

R. Jones (SLAC)

S-2005 USPAS at Cornell June 20 - July 1


USPAS Initiative: Curricula w. organizing themes

Such sessions must also balance demand for fundamental training in accelerator science and engineering

Confirmed lecturers in black

Introductory Lecture on the ILC Barry Barish (Caltech)

Two Weeks

Accelerator Fundamentals Stuart Henderson & Sarah Cousineau ORNL)

Accelerator PhysicsAlex Chao, SY Lee, Georg Hoffstatter, Uli Weilands or Computational Accelerator Physics

Alex Dragt & Rob Ryne or Panegiotis Spentzouris

Microwave Measurements Laboratory R. Pasquinelli & David McGinnis (FNAL)

One Week

Large Scale Metrology of Accelerators Robert Ruland and Catherine LeCocq, SLAC

Physics Tolerances & Justification T. Shea (SNS)

Collective effects & wakefields R. Jones (Cockcroft) Emittance Preservation: Theory & Practicalities

Nick Walker (Desy), or Peter Tenenbaum (SLAC)

Damping ring design & physics issues A. Wolski (Cockcroft) Beam delivery & IR design Andrei Seryi & Tom Markiewicz (SLAC)

EPICS Control Systems Andrew Johnson (ANL) & Robert Dalesio

Vacuum Systems in accelerators L. Bertollini (LLNL)

Design of Accelerator Systems P. McIntyre (TAMU) Managing Science In Research Laboratories

William Barletta (FNAL/USPAS/MIT)

W-2007 USPAS at TAMUTheme - Linear Colliders


Who teaches?Sources of support for USPAS instructors

Instructors also benefit from their teaching experience

BES25%

HEP33%

NP8%

FES3%

NSF 8%

BER + NIH2%

NNSA + DOD9%

OTHER12%


Which DOE& NSH programs do USPAS students work for?

(Estimate from historical funding of and attendance from sponsoring laboratories)

BES26%

HEP41%

NP20%

OFES2%

NSF 4%

NNSA + DOD7%


Session attendance remains high


Nu

mb

er o

f st

ud

ents

110

The ASU school lost several students at the last minute due to visa problems


Our students favor fundamentals

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fundamentals Beam Physics

Measurements Lab

Plasmas & collective effectsComputations & Modeling

Accelerator design

Synchrotron radiation & FELS

RF systems

Accelerator technologyDiagnostics and controls

Magnet technology

ApplicationsSafety systems

Number of students



Students from sponsoring laboratories

Sessions: 1997 - 2005


Participation by non-US students is now >20%

Breakdown by Foreign Country

Winter, 2005

Australia 1

Austria1

Brazil1

Chile1

China1

Colombia 1

England 7

Germany 3

Italy12

Slovenia 1

Sweden 1

Taiwan12

Turkey1

______________________Total foreign 43

Attendance by Foreign students

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1997 UCB1997 MIT

1998 UT Austin1998 Stanford1999 Vanderbilt

1999 Chicago2000 IU/Tucson

2000 Stony Brook

2001 Rice2001 Boulder

2002 UCLA2002 Yale

2003 IU/Baton Rouge2003 Santa Barbara

2004 Wm & Mary2004 Madison

2005 UCB2005 Cornell

Foreign

2006

ASU

Steady increase of students from Europe & Asia demonstrates preference for an academically rigorous school


Steady progress in increasing attendance by women

Attendance by Women

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1997 UCB1997 MIT

1998 UT Austin1998 Stanford1999 Vanderbilt

1999 Chicago2000 IU/Tucson

2000 Stony Brook

2001 Rice2001 Boulder

2002 UCLA2002 Yale

2003 IU/Baton Rouge2003 Santa Barbara

2004 Wm & Mary2004 Madison

2005 UCB2005 Cornell


Example of student diversity: Winter 2005 session

Breakdown by Education

PhD 44Grad student 63Masters 20Bachelors 40Undergrad 4

Breakdown by SourceLaboratories 81Universities 79Military 5Government 0Industry 9

Other Students Statistics

For credit 105Women 25Foreign 43


Student & University feedback improves our planning of future sessions

Course Name:

1) Are you taking this course for credit? Y or N

2) On the basis of the following characteristics, how do you rate this course?

Poor Fair GoodVeryGood Excellent

-content, emphasis -student material provided -homework problems -computer simulations (if applicable)

3) Compare the level of difficulty of this course with other university courses you have taken:

More difficult ______ Equal difficulty _____ Less difficult _____

Effectiveness of Instructors

4) On the basis of the following characteristics, how do you rate the performance of theinstructors for this course?


-teaching effectiveness -classroom performance -attitude toward students

5) Compare the quality of instructors for this course with other university instructors:

Better ______ Equal _____ Worse _____

6) Did your background adequately prepare you for this course?Not at all Only Slightly Somewhat For the Most Part Very Much So

7) Rate the value of this course for your current job:

Unimportant Slightly ImportantWill have noImpact

SomewhatImportant

VeryImportant

8) Rate the value of this course for your future career:

Unimportant Slightly ImportantWill have noImpact

SomewhatImportant

VeryImportant

9) What courses would you like to see in the future?

10) Suggestions or comments on this course or on the USPAS in general:

USPAS Office Evaluation Form

As part of an ongoing assessment of the USPAS organization, please complete the followingevaluation. Be frank in your answers and your comments. Your honesty is essential to our success. Ifyou need more space for comments and suggestions please use the reverse side.

1) In your direct contact with USPAS staff, and in your general observations, how would yourate overall performance.


- Support - Response - Attitude

2) How would you rate the USPAS Office performance compared with other such organizations?

Unfavorably Comparable Superior

3) Please provide brief comments on USPAS strengths and defi ciences. Include suggestions forimprovement.

4) How would you rate the teaching conditions? (audio-visual, computer equipment/software,lab equipment, etc)

5) Additional comments:

Student Survey


We have successfully managed USPAS session economics

50

250

200

150

100

0

0.5

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.0

Co

st p

er s

cho

ol

k$

Co

s t p

e r s

t ud

e nt

(k$ )

Program cost

# of students

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

UCLA UCSB

UCB MIT

Cost per student has remained roughly constant for past eight years


USPAS Initiative: Provide more “hands-on” training

Present practice Experimental component of Accelerator Fundamentals course Experimental course in Microwave Measurements Periodic schools where there is a machine with a flexible schedule

Stanford, UWisconsin, Duke, MSU, U.Md, Vanderbuilt

Our initiative for new DOE & NSF funding 2 month internships at labs -

Interns selected by course instructors Instructors serve as mentors to the interns ~ $200 k would provide ~20 student internships

Improved experiments for Fundamentals course < $50 k for experiments fabricated at university shops

Asst. Sec. Orbach was very supportive of this idea Recommended briefings to all Ads as next step Recommend 30 min presentation about USPAS to all SC advisory committees


Thank you for this opportunity to brief you

Documents

US Particle Accelerator School US Particle Accelerator School: A Vital Resource for the Office of Science & NSF Presentation to HEPAP AARD Sub-panel William