Cy
a
y
-35~
of the scientific community and, moreover, that it would be of long range.
value in greatly strengthening nuclear physics research at that institution. (The doubt about ORNL and UCRL was based on the facts thet these
laboratories already have a great abundance of nuclear machines and highi:
developed nuclear programs, and on the feeling that three heavy particle
accelerators might be unwarranted duplication in this field,
No final
conclusion was reached as to the ORNL and UCRL requests, however.
Opinion was divided as to which Laboratory should be the site of a second
machine if it were built. (Appendix B, item 3)
|
At 12:40 p.m, this session was adjourned,
SIXTH SESSION
(November 6, 1953)
The Committee reconvened in executive session at 1:25 p.m
All
members, the Secretary, and Mr. Tomei were present.
The controlled thermonuclear program was briefly discussed,
Con=trolled
Dr.
Rabi said he felt that on political grounds it would be very hard not to
Thermo-
go along with this program; the basis for support on technical grounds
Reactions
was not so well established.
nuclear
He felt the program would go along better
if coalesced in about a year, but mentioned that E. O, Lawrence favored
keeping it decentralized, The Committee did not feel that the presentation on this subject called for any action by the GAC, other than to note
the program with interest.
Dr. Buckley observed that experience with
large scale technical projects indicates that many fruitful results are
likely to come from the effort even if the initial goal is not reached.
Appendix B, item 3)
(APP
,
pe
NOE ARCHIVES
Department cf Prec
meerers (a7
Oy