286 



In fiscal year 1968 it is anticipated that new user group support will be essen- 

 tially nil and, indeed, some productive existing groups will be losing their 

 support * * *. 



It has been particularly diflBcult to mount new university-operated experi- 

 ments using modern electronic detectors. 



There was an unmet demand for bubble chamber pictures for analysis, 

 amounting to 3 years or 15 million pictures at Brookhaven alone. 



* * * Every high-energy physics laboratory in the country faces a serioua 

 overdemand for accelerator beam time * * *. 



The fiscal squeeze has produced conservatism in relation to technological 

 innovation.'^ 



The effects described were attributable in considerable measure to 

 the introduction of the Stanford linear accelerator into the national 

 system of high-energy physics research apparatus. This was the ac- 

 celerator that President Eisenhower had called for in 1959. It is fore- 

 seeable that a similar effect, of greater magnitude, will result from 

 the eventual activation of the 200-Bev accelerator (presumably, some 

 time after 1973). 



The apparent alternatives facing the Congress, in dealing with high- 

 energy physics, in the face of the rising costs of individual new facili- 

 ties, are — 



(1) To encourage the closing down of least productive accelera- 

 tors, disregarding their contributions as teaching tools, and their 

 considerable remaining potential for further scientific discovery ; 

 '' (2) To insure the distribution of funds among major accelera- 



tor installations so as to keep all available machines in operation 

 at some reasonable partial level of operation — and accepting the 

 inherent inefficiencies implied by this approach ; 



(3) To expand the technological research effort in the develop- 

 ment of novel accelerator concepts (such as clashing beam and 

 the "coherent accelerator" concept ^^), to enable a greater energy 

 and intensity of beam to be achieved at less cost (the effect of 

 such research, however, was not judged likely to materialize in 

 time to contribute to the proposecl 200-Bev accelerator) : 



(4) To increase the level of fimding for research in high- 

 energj' phj'sics very substantially. 



TABLE 5.— FIVE-YEAR FUNDING PLAN OF AEC FOR HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS RESEARCH i 



[In millions of dollars! 



^ Source: AEC authorizing, fiscal year 1969, pt. 1, p. 358. 



Apparently', the alternative recommended by the AEC was the 

 fourth. (See table 5.) However, Kepresentative Holifield, vice chair- 

 man of the JCAE, remarked that '** * * the thing that bothers me in 

 this is the rapid acceleration." 



« Ibid., p. 1211. 



^ Reference was made to this concept by Dr. McDanlel, pp. 103S-1040, op. clt., along 

 with an Indication that there were "ver.v exciting possibilities" in superconducting ele- 

 ments for magnets. Concerning the coherent accelerator concept, John T. Conway, staff 

 director of JCAE. remarked : "If it does prove to be feasible * ♦ • it is possible to get 

 Into these multi-Bev energiCB at a very mii'^li less cost than the current projects on th» 

 200-Bev or 400-BeT and BO-called 1,000-Bev machine." 



