Cyrus
>
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>This message shall update you on the situation of FELIX and will also allow
> you to examine the correspondence we have exchanged with the
>management of CERN or with the chairman of the LHCC.
>
>The complete text of all relevant messages quoted in this document, together
>with additional documents, can be found on the FELIX private web pages,
>http://www.cern.ch/FELIX/private/LHCC/index.html, login:felix, password:
>felixcat. You can also get there by clicking on "situation after the LHCC and
>the Research Board" from the main page.
>
>Since our last message, the CERN Research Board has
>met and considered the LHCC's recommendation regarding
>FELIX. Chris Llewellyn Smith, CERN Director General,
>provided us with the draft Research Board minutes
>regarding that part of the discussion. They read:
>
>>He (Iarocci) also reported on the discussion of the FELIX proposal [6], which
>>led to the conclusion reported in the draft minutes (CERN/LHCC 97-61:LHCC31).
>>The Research Board discussed these conclusions thoroughly, taking into
>account
>>the large material and manpower cost of constructing an additional
>>intersection region, which could only be done at the expense of some other
>>activity in the CERN programme. The Research Board upheld the decision of the
>>LHCC not to encourage the FELIX Collaboration to proceed to a proposal, and
>>noted that a full coverage experiment would not be part of the first
>>generation LHC programme, despite the potential physics interest.
>
>The DG provided additional bad news, in an e-mail message we received
>on 3 December,in which, among other things, he stated that:
>
>>DoE has just announced a prohibition on funding any LHC activities except
>ATLAS and CMS
>
>While we have not yet been able to confirm this with DOE, if true, it
>certainly complicates the lives of our US collaborators.
>
>Despite all of this bad news, these various decisions are not completely
>without hope. In particular, it has become clear through various discussions
>and messages, that the underlying cause of these decisions is financial. An
>important corollary is that the collaboration is judged to be much too weak,
>with an inadequate participation of CERN member states collaborators.
>
>In an e-mail message of 25 November, discussing our memo of October '96
>(Progress Report about FELIX, LHCC 96-37,
>http://www.cern.ch/FELIX/News/memor.html ),
>Enzo Iarocci, Chair of the LHCC, noted that
>
>> At the end of the document there are two requests
>> related to I4 which were accepted by the
>> management. In fact I4 is available now, if the
>> resources were there.
>
>This point was reiterated in an e-mail from the DG which we received
>on 3 December:
>
>>The LHCC/Research Board action should not be construed as a decision not
>>to provide collisions at I4 under any circumstances. However, the resources
>>to make an interaction point at I4 in the foreseeable future simply do not
>>exist in our budget (it is not just a question of the material cost but also
>>of manpower: we have just completed a major review of manpower needs which
>>revealed shortfalls in the accelerator and technical sector, and in the
>>research sector - there is not really enough to support the approved
>>experiments, let alone to add others). Nevertheless, if a sufficiently good
>>proposal came from a strong well supported group I would be prepared to
>>consider equipping I4, although it would have to be at the expense of some
>>other activity in the already approved CERN programme. The trouble is that
>>FELIX seems to be too far from the threshold for us to encourage the
>collaboration.
>
>Given this, the question is how best to proceed.
>
>In the very short term (next week), we believe that the collaboration should
>write a letter to the members of the LHCC and the Research Board. In our
>discussions with various committee members, we have discovered that even many
>of them are not aware of many relevant facts. In part, this was because of
>the serious procedural irregularities, including in particular:
>(1) We had no contact with the referees prior to the LHCC meeting to discuss
>FELIX; and
>(2) when Karsten adressed the question of contacts with the referees to one of
>the referees at CERN he got as an answer that the referees were told to
>proceed slowly. We hence thought that contacts with the referees will follow
>later and that a decision will not be takem now, particularly since no
>official presentation of the FELX LOI had yet taken place.
>Thus the fact that the LHCC had made a decision came as a complete shock.
>
>We believe that we should request an opportunity to properly present our
>ideas, with particular emphasis on staging scenarios which can minimize costs.
>
>In the somewhat longer term, it is clear that we must redouble our efforts to
>build the collaboration. Your help in this will be essential. We hope that with
>our complaints about the irregular procedure of the LHCC in dealing with
>our LOI we can re-open the discussion about FELIX at the LHCC at an appropriate
>time. We also believe that the Research Board should only deal with FELIX once
>we have a strong collaboration.
>
>Your fast input as we search for the right starting point for the future is
>extremely important, and we urge you to contact us, either directly, or by
>e-mail to the full FELIX mailing list at felix@listbox.cern.ch
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Karsten Eggert (karsten.eggert@cern.ch)
>Cyrus Taylor (cct@po.cwru.edu)
>
-----------------------------------
Cyrus Taylor (216) 368-3710
Associate Professor (216) 368-4671 (FAX)
Department of Physics cct@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University ctaylor@fnal.fnal.gov
Cleveland, OH 44106-7079 (co-spokesman, Fermilab T-864)
USA (co-spokesman, FELIX at the LHC)