On Aug 24, 2013, at 6:15 PM, "Graham W. Wilson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 
> Dear Chip, Michael and Ashutosh,
> 
>     This looks reasonably OK within the confines of what has so far been discussed, but I do 
> worry that not everybody will read it in the same informed spirit as Ashutosh. I do agree with points a and b.


hi Graham,
			What we can do is lay out the logic in the longer part of the Summary in a little more detail so that people will read it in the informed spirit. 


 
> I would however counsel against the explicit mention of accelerator R&D. The earlier wording about 
> "more concerted work on its design and physics capability" seems to me to strike the right tone.


that would be OK too… but presumably accelerator R&D is referring to high field magnet R&D, which is a US strength we should not let go of…

 
> We should also all realize that current US accelerator R&D is already funding 
> LARP, high-field magnets, MAP, but has cut back/zeroed out high-gradient 
> super-conducting RF (ILC) and put on life-support other parts of the ILC R&D program.  
> Getting the best science out of ILC will need US accelerator development efforts.


well, are you thinking that we should choose one or the other between SRF and high-field magnets?  I think that would be way too restrictive. 

or are you saying we should mention something about ILC accelerator R&D also?

regards,
Ashutosh


>        regards
>               Graham

########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-EF list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-EF&A=1