skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Report of the Community Review of EIC Accelerator R&D for the Office of Nuclear Physics

Abstract

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.

Authors:
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
US Department of Energy, Washington, DC (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC), Nuclear Physics (NP) (SC-26)
OSTI Identifier:
1367855
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS; NUCLEAR PHYSICS; REVIEWS; ACCELERATORS; ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Citation Formats

None, None. Report of the Community Review of EIC Accelerator R&D for the Office of Nuclear Physics. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.2172/1367855.
None, None. Report of the Community Review of EIC Accelerator R&D for the Office of Nuclear Physics. United States. doi:10.2172/1367855.
None, None. Mon . "Report of the Community Review of EIC Accelerator R&D for the Office of Nuclear Physics". United States. doi:10.2172/1367855. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1367855.
@article{osti_1367855,
title = {Report of the Community Review of EIC Accelerator R&D for the Office of Nuclear Physics},
author = {None, None},
abstractNote = {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.},
doi = {10.2172/1367855},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Feb 13 00:00:00 EST 2017},
month = {Mon Feb 13 00:00:00 EST 2017}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share: