Results 1 - 10 of 481
Results 1 - 10 of 481. Search took: 0.021 seconds
|Sort by: date | relevance|
[en] In August the Program Advisory Committee at Brookhaven, along with a Detector Technical Advisory Committee, reviewed updated letters of intent for experiments at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) being constructed at the Laboratory
[en] This report provides the results of an extensive and important study of the potential for a U.S. scientific program that will extend our knowledge of neutrino oscillations well beyond what can be anticipated from ongoing and planned experiments worldwide. The program examined here has the potential to provide the U.S. particle physics community with world leading experimental capability in this intensely interesting and active field of fundamental research. Furthermore, this capability is not likely to be challenged anywhere else in the world for at least two decades into the future. The present study was initially commissioned in April 2006 by top research officers of Brookhaven National Laboratory and Fermilab and, as the study evolved, it also provides responses to questions formulated and addressed to the study group by the Neutrino Scientific Advisory Committee (NuSAG) of the U.S. DOE and NSF. The participants in the study, its Charge and history, plus the study results and conclusions are provided in this report and its appendices. A summary of the conclusions is provided in the Executive Summary
[en] The mission of the Fusion Simulation Project is to develop a predictive capability for the integrated modeling of magnetically confined plasmas. This FSP report adds to the previous activities that defined an approach to integrated modeling in magnetic fusion. These previous activities included a Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee panel that was charged to study integrated simulation in 2002. The report of that panel (Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 135 (2001)) recommended the prompt initiation of a Fusion Simulation Project. In 2003, the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences formed a steering committee that developed a project vision, roadmap, and governance concepts (Journal of Fusion Energy 23, 1 (2004)). The current FSP planning effort involved forty-six physicists, applied mathematicians and computer scientists, from twenty-one institutions, formed into four panels and a coordinating committee. These panels were constituted to consider: Status of Physics Components, Required Computational and Applied Mathematics Tools, Integration and Management of Code Components, and Project Structure and Management. The ideas, reported here, are the products of these panels, working together over several months and culminating in a three-day workshop in May 2007.
[en] The Committee commends and thanks the presenters and GA for providing clear and informative presentations. We present our responses to 5 questions raised in the Charge, as well as additional comments that may be useful for the project. (Question 1) The IMFIT framework is based on PYTHON and CCA; can IMFIT meet its long-term goals with this choice of language for framework? Our first recommendation is to change the terminology; it appears that the project is not really utilizing CCA (Common Component Architecture). The project is really about using Python to organize workflow among components that are spawned as processes via pipes from Python. We suggest that in describing the project, the team drop the designation 'CCA' and simply state that the IMFIT framework is based on using Python to control workflow among components. Concerning the specific question: we understand the principal goal of the project to be the development of an easy-to-use tool that efficiently integrates different physics modules to support experimental data analysis and modeling. Yes, Python and the workflow-based framework are appropriate choices for meeting this objective. The Committee, in examining the goal, discussed whether the IMFIT project was duplicative of other projects; there are several others in the U.S. and elsewhere with integrated modeling goals. In particular in the U.S., SWIM, PTRANSP, and the proto-FSP's. However this project occupies a reasonably unique niche through its emphases on integrating experimental data, use of existing components, its near-term focus, and the extent to which is targeted at experimentalist users. (Question 2) Will IMFIT benefit from the additional use of an interoperability language for framework such as BABEL? No, IMFIT is not really doing inter-language communication. In particular this will be the case as long as inter-component communication is via files--and that's OK so long as you aren't doing lots of short steps with communication at each step. (Question 3) IMFIT GUI is based on the public PyGTK toolkit; will IMFIT benefit from the additional use of other public Python graphic toolkits such as wxPython that is a cross-platform wrapper, or PyQt, or a commercial package such as IDL? PyGTK seems adequate for now. The team needs to decide if it needs more capability. Avoid licensed software that interferes with portability and the open-source goal (and thus in particular avoid IDL). (Question 4) Will IMFIT benefit from using a XML-RPC as alternative to sending files thru sockets? IMFIT could benefit by adopting some kind of self-describing format, such as XML or HDF5, but data can still be sent over sockets. This is part of a broader question: 'Should IMFIT adopt some kind of standard for communicating data between components?' To do anything other than what is done now requires modification of individual components (or convertors/wrappers). But moving to a self-describing standard is a good idea, which should be considered. You don't need to impose a standard, but you could decide on one and move toward it gradually, as the architecture doesn't impose a standard. But whether you adopt a standard and the pace of moving toward it is up to you. (Question 5) Will IMFIT benefit from any other available computational tool? (a) IMFIT would benefit from fuller use of an already incorporated tool--python language in the task execution specification, to enable desired features like branching; (b) If there is a high degree of data hierarchy, IMFIT should explore HDF5 as well as NETCDF and compare; (c) IMFIT would benefit from moving toward common data standards; (d) It would be useful for the IMFIT team to monitor developments in related projects such as the proto-FSP's and PTRANSP to ascertain if there are potentially useful tools
[en] At the beginning of 2015, a Local Dialog Group (LDG) was set-up under the FP7 ARCADIA project, as an interface between the implementer of ALFRED demonstrator (Fostering ALfred CONstruction - FALCON consortium) and local community from Mioveni town. The paper discusses the current situation and the possible evolution of the group beyond the ARCADIA project (November 2016). The possible evolution could be the transformation in a Local Committee (LC), this fact leading to the extension of LDG.s actual role, towards a larger participation in decision making process (DMP). Aspects regarding LC construction elements as local context, mission and role, legitimacy, funding and resources, organizing mode, products and outputs, the interaction with other stakeholders, are presented in the paper. In order to describe the context, some general elements concerning the Local Committees (LCs) as tools for the communities. involvement in the DMP are also introduced. (authors)
[en] Organizing Committee for ICADME 2017 Chair Ir. Dr. Khairul Salleh Basaruddin Co-Chair Dr. Mohd. Afendi Bin Rojan Secretary Dr. Mohd. Sani Mohamad Hashim Dr. Ishak Ibrahim Technical/Publication Dr. Nur Saifullah Kamarruddin Dr. Tan Wei Hong Dr. Shah Fenner Khan Mohamad Khan Bursary Dr. Liyana Tajul Lile Arrangement. Mohd Hafif Basha Mohamad Jamel Basha Secretariat. Dr. Mohd Ridzuan Mohd Jamir List of Advisory Committees are available in this pdf. (paper)
[en] The Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC) of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Physics (NP) recommended in the 2015 Long Range Plan (LRP) for Nuclear Science that the proposed Electron Ion Collider (EIC) be the highest priority for new construction. This report noted that, at that time, two independent designs for such a facility had evolved in the United States, each of which proposed using infrastructure already available in the U.S. nuclear science community.
[en] Recently, the situation regarding major detectors for the planned SSC Superconducting Supercollider in Ellis County, Texas, has changed in two ways. First, the door was closed on the L* collaboration led by Sam Ting, and second, detailed analysis of the detectors has led to increased anticipated costs for the experimental programme. Nevertheless, the SSC Program Advisory Committee has reaffirmed its belief in the desirability, if not absolute necessity, of having two major detectors available when the SSC starts up