Status of MICE

Muon ionization cooling is the only practical method for preparing high-brilliance beams needed for a neutrino factory or muon collider. The muon ionization cooling experiment (MICE) under development at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory comprises a dedicated beamline to generate a range of input emittance and momentum, with time-of-flight and Cherenkov detectors to ensure a pure muon beam. A first measurement of emittance is performed in the upstream magnetic spectrometer with a scintillating-fiber tracker. A cooling cell will then follow, alternating energy loss in liquid hydrogen with RF acceleration. A second spectrometer identical to the first and a particle identification system will measure the outgoing emittance. Plans for measurements of emittance and cooling are described.Comment: Poster presented at ICHEP08 Conference, Philadelphia, USA, July 2008. 3 pages, 3 figure

The False Promise of Jurisdition Stripping

Jurisdiction stripping is seen as a nuclear option. Its logic is simple: By depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over some set of cases, Congress ensures those courts cannot render bad decisions. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To its critics, it poses a grave threat to the separation of powers. Both sides agree, though, that jurisdiction stripping is a powerful weapon. On this understanding, politicians, activists, and scholars throughout American history have proposed jurisdiction-stripping measures as a way for Congress to reclaim policymaking authority from the courts. The conventional understanding is wrong. Whatever the scope of Congress’s Article III power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts, jurisdiction stripping is unlikely to succeed as a practical strategy. At least beyond the very short term, Congress cannot use it to effectuate policy in the face of judicial opposition. Its consequences are chaotic and unpredictable, courts have tools they can use to push back on jurisdiction strips, and the judiciary’s active participation is ultimately necessary for Congress to achieve many of its goals. Jurisdiction stripping will often accomplish nothing and sometimes will even exacerbate the problems it purports to solve. Jurisdiction stripping can still prove beneficial, but only in subtle and indirect ways. Congress can regulate jurisdiction to tweak the timing of judicial review, even if it cannot prevent review entirely. Jurisdiction stripping also provides Congress a way to signal to the public and the judiciary the importance of an issue—and, possibly, to pressure courts to change course. But these effects are contingent, indeterminate, and unreliable. As a tool to influence policy directly, jurisdiction stripping simply is not the power that its proponents hope or its critics fear

The False Promise of Jurisdiction Stripping

Jurisdiction stripping is seen as a nuclear option. Its logic is simple: by depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over some set of cases, Congress ensures those courts cannot render bad decisions. In theory, it frees up the political branches and the states to act without fear of judicial second-guessing. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To critics, it poses a grave threat to the separation of powers. Both sides agree, though, that jurisdiction stripping is a powerful weapon. On this understanding, politicians, activists, and scholars throughout American history have proposed jurisdiction stripping measures as a way for Congress to reclaim policymaking authority from the courts. The conventional understanding is wrong. Whatever the scope of Congress’s Article III power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts, jurisdiction stripping is unlikely to succeed as a practical strategy. At least beyond the very short term, Congress cannot use it to effectuate policy in the face of judicial opposition. Its consequences are chaotic and unpredictable, courts have tools they can use to push back on jurisdiction strips if they desire, and the active participation of the judiciary is ultimately necessary for Congress to achieve many of its goals. Jurisdiction stripping will often accomplish nothing and sometimes will even exacerbate the very problems it purports to solve. Jurisdiction stripping can still prove beneficial, but only in subtle and indirect ways. Congress can regulate jurisdiction to manipulate the timing of judicial review—slowing things down or speeding them up—even if it cannot prevent review entirely. Jurisdiction stripping also provides a means for Congress to signal to the public and the judiciary the importance of an issue—and, possibly, to pressure courts to change course. But these effects are contingent, indeterminate, and unreliable. As a tool to influence policy directly, jurisdiction stripping simply is not the power that its proponents hope or its critics fear

Development and testing of hermetic, laser-ignited pyrotechnic and explosive components

During the last decade there has been increasing interest in the use of lasers in place of electrical systems to ignite various pyrotechnic and explosive materials. The principal driving force for this work was the requirement for safer energetic components which would be insensitive to electrostatic and electromagnetic radiation. In the last few years this research has accelerated since the basic concepts have proven viable. At the present time it is appropriate to shift the research emphasis in laser initiation from the scientific arena--whether it can be done--to the engineering realm--how it can be put into actual practice in the field. Laser initiation research and development at EG&G Mound was in three principal areas: (1) laser/energetic material interactions; (2) development of novel processing techniques for fabricating hermetic (helium leak rate of less than 1 x 10(exp -8) cu cm/s) laser components; and (3) evaluation and testing of laser-ignited components. Research in these three areas has resulted in the development of high quality, hermetic, laser initiated components. Examples are presented which demonstrate the practicality of fabricating hermetic, laser initiated explosive or pyrotechnic components that can be used in the next generation of ignitors, actuators, and detonators

First Occurrence of \u3ci\u3eHippodamia Variegata\u3c/i\u3e (Goeze) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in Ohio

(excerpt) Ladybird beetles, or coccinellids (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), are significant arthropod predators in a variety of terrestrial ecosystems. Numerous classical biological control projects undertaken over the last 120 years in North America have involved importation of exotic ladybird beetle species for the control of invasive insect species in annual and perennial agricultural production systems