Skip to main content

Reset your password

Please enter the e-mail address you used to register to reset your password

Note: The verification e-mail to change your password should arrive immediately. However, in some cases it takes longer. Don't forget to check your spam folder.

If you haven't received the e-mail in 24 hours, please contact customerservices@ioppublishing.org

Registration complete

Thank you for registering with Physics World
If you'd like to change your details at any time, please visit My account

Close
Home » Page 1965

France opens new research facility – and closes two

However, this good news comes at a time when the budget for nuclear physics is shrinking, and more cutbacks to accelerator facilities are likely in the future. The Saturne accelerator in Saclay has already been closed. The Siloé neutron source in Grenoble has also been closed down.

SPIRAL is an extension to the GANIL heavy-ion accelerator, France’s largest nuclear physics facility. The laboratory is jointly run by the French research council (CNRS) and the atomic energy commission (CEA). SPIRAL re-accelerates radioactive ions produced when the GANIL beam strikes a fixed target, and the first radioactive beams are due to come on-line in November. In addition to nuclear physicists, SPIRAL will also used by astrophysicists and solid-state physicists.

Although SPIRAL is undoubtedly good news for the French nuclear physics community, the government’s policy of cutting back on large facilities is hitting the field hard. The director of the CNRS, Catherine Bréchignac, has identified accelerators and neutron facilities as the two areas where there may be more cuts in the future.

Meanwhile the closure of Siloé research reactor has deprived French researchers of one of their two national neutron sources. Although plans for a new source – which would come on-line in 2005 – are advanced, many scientists believe that it is time to review the country’s neutron scattering facilities. Until recently the CEA operated two research reactors: Osiris in Saclay, near Paris, and Siloé in Grenoble. The CEA uses the reactors to improve the performance of France’s nuclear power stations by testing different nuclear fuels and materials. Neutron beams from the reactors are also used for fundamental research.

The closure will also contribute to Europe’s looming neutron drought. Only two or three of the research reactors currently operating in Europe are expected to be working in early in the next century. The CEA is currently designing the Jules Horrowitz Reactor to replace Osiris and Siloé. The agency hopes that the two billion franc pressurized-water reactor will open at its Cadarache site in 2005.

However, not everyone agrees that a reactor-based neutron source is the best way forward. Indeed, most of the next-generation neutron sources currently being planned are spallation sources based on accelerators rather than reactors.

Larger lenses

Despite the popularity of cheap plastic lenses, glass lenses are still essential for many applications. To make a glass lens, a gob of molten glass is dropped onto a catching tool, which compresses it into the desired shape. This glass blank is then polished to the correct magnification.

However, the compression method used to manufacture glass lenses can cause imperfections in the material. Kodak with Patent 5709723 have developed a method to get rid of two of the more common problems – chill winkle and shear marks. Chill winkle happens when the gob of hot glass meets the cold surface of the catching tool: as the glass cools down, a wave-like pattern (the winkle) develops on the surface. Shear marks are caused by the teardrop shape of the gob as it falls under gravity. This shape causes marks to be absorbed into the blank as the gob cools rapidly.

In Kodak’s process, a gob of molten glass is ejected onto a heated catching tool which stays warm until the gob achieves the correct shape. As the glass retains its elasticity and heat, the gob can settle into the correct shape without blemishes appearing on the surface.

UK focuses on research strengths and opportunities

The analyses were commissioned by Sir John Cadogan, director general of the research councils, who chairs a panel that is reviewing the UK science budget. He is using the SWOT analyses to help him judge the impact of publicly-funded research on the government’s long-term objectives.

Cadogan is also consulting professional bodies and learned societies to find out how a change in funding would affect their disciplines. But his review is just one part of a comprehensive spending review covering all government departments. Any proposals that Cadogan makes will be judged against those from other areas, and will not come into force until 1999/2000 at the earliest.

There is a fear that the government might use the spending review to transfer money from the physical sciences to biology. In its response to Cadogan, the Institute of Physics emphasizes the benefits that physics brings to medicine and the biosciences. It also points out the importance of emerging areas like nanotechnology and quantum computing, and highlights the impact that physics has on wealth creation and the quality of life. “Industry is overwhelmingly dependent on basic research and if the government is keen to improve wealth creation, it must increase its funding for science, and the physical sciences in particular, ” says Alun Jones, the institute’s chief executive. The institute calls for a 5% increase in the science budget, pointing out that this is comparable with recent increases in science spending in the US and Japan.

The SWOT analyses also give valuable insights into how the research councils see themselves. The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC), for example, highlights the international standing of its researchers, but is concerned that current excellence is based on earlier investment that can no longer be afforded. “The key issue for PPARC is to make sure its priorities are scientifically optimized, concentrating limited funds in growth areas where the UK has a competitive advantage, ” says Sir Martin Rees of the University of Cambridge.

The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, meanwhile, appears to pride itself on its efficient administration, its links with the Technology Foresight exercise, and much of its physics research. Increased multidisciplinary research and improved technology transfer are among the opportunities that it sees ahead, while under-investment in laboratory equipment and ageing staff are among the perceived threats.

Why are American workers more productive than British and German workers?

Germany is thought to have some of the most highly trained and productive workers in the world. However, new data from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) in London show that workers in the US are even more productive and British workers come third.

“The main reason for taking an interest in productivity is its long term influence on living standards” says Geoff Mason, one of the authors of the report. Productivity is, however, difficult to quantify. Companies can be profitable with low worker productivity, but this is only achieved by moving to regions with low labour costs such as Asia.

American companies have some natural advantages over their European competitors. The US market is one of the largest in the world, and also the most competitive. This means that manufactured goods can have longer production runs, which reduces the unit cost per worker significantly.

According to the report US company workers are, on average, 33 percent more productive than the best German workers interviewed in the survey, and German workers are on average 23 percent more productive that their equivalents in the UK. The UK only leads Germany in two sectors: computers and electrical engineering. It will take British and German companies some 50 years to match the productivity of American companies if they continue to improve their productivity levels at the current rate.

Worker Education

Why are US companies so productive? To answer this question Mason and his colleague Mary O’Mahony measured a number of factors in all three countries – education standards of the work force, research and development costs, and management structures. To measure educational standards Mason and O’Mahony divided workers into three groupings: high level skills (degrees or equivalent), intermediate vocational skills (trade apprenticeships or technicians) and low skills. They found that the average US worker is less skilled than an UK worker, who in turn is not as skilled as an German worker. Only 53% of US employees needed qualified training for their position, and only 38% received training while holding that job ().

The high skill level of the German shop floor – obtained through the nation-wide apprenticeship scheme – has meant Germany has overtaken the UK as the most productive region in Europe. German shop floor workers can perform a wider range of tasks than their UK equivalents, and to a higher standard. However, UK labour costs are cheaper.

So how does the US achieve the highest productivity level with the least-skilled work force? The key seems to be the involvement of graduate engineers. These workers frequently recondition old equipment. They also spend a lot of time and money improving the performance of existing machinery. According to the report, equipment investments in the US were estimated at 64% higher than the UK (per physical capital per hour). Factories in the US also have more efficient layouts than those in the UK and Germany.

Although the limited skills of the shop floor means that it takes longer to set up production runs in the US, larger and hence more profitable production runs are possible due to the large home market for products. American companies have also invested more in computer controlled machinery.

British companies follow a similar pattern by using low skilled workers, but with less support from their engineering departments. This support factor is crucial: US productivity in some areas of high precision engineering is 60% higher than in the UK.

Research and Development

The authors claim that after taking into account physical capital, R&D, and labour productivity, it quickly becomes apparent that continued strong long term R&D investment in computers, motor vehicles, other transport equipment, and instrument engineering have had a statistically significant effect in creating the large productivity lead the US holds over the UK in these areas.

Another large difference between US and European companies is the level of R&D expenditure per worker – the figure in the UK is only 45% of that in the US companies. Mason and O’Mahony suggest that there are significant benefits related to R&D that do not show up in usual indicators. If the UK and Germany increased their investment on R&D, they argue, the return would be 5-7 times greater than the initial investment when capital gains by investors and other benefits are included.

The different levels of regulation and competition in the various countries also play a key role. Many economists have argued that the competitive environment in the US has increased productivity drastically. However, Germany is more productive than the UK even though its markets are not as competitive.

Organic laser breakthrough

Organic lasers are attractive for optical applications because they are inexpensive to manufacture, can be grown as thin films and have good temperature stability. Results from the Princeton team suggest that they can be made to operate at wavelengths between 460 and 510 nm, making them ideal for use in optical storage devices. The Princeton team report their results in the January 23 issue of Science.

The device works by creating a thin semiconductor tris-(8-hydroxyquinoline) aluminium film doped with a laser dye. This film is sandwiched between two highly reflecting mirrors. A nitrogen laser then optically pumps energy into the film, causing light emission.

So far the Princeton team has achieved an output power of 3 Watts, which is considerably lower than the 50 Watts they have achieved with horizontal versions of the laser. However, vertical lasers are more useful to the optoelectronics industry. The next challenge is to pump the laser with an electric current rather than another laser.

Physicist shares Japan Prize

The prize was awarded in the category “Generation and Design of New Materials Creating Novel Functions.” Ironically, when Esaki first submitted his paper describing the use of thin-film growth techniques to engineer new semiconductor materials, it was rejected by Physical Review Letters because it was “too speculative” and involved “no new physics.” Esaki was working for IBM at the time and later published a shortened version of the paper in the IBM Journal of Research and Development .

Superlattices crystals are composed of layered thin films that exploit quantum effects to generate unusual electrical and optical properties now used in a wide variety of semiconductor products. Almost half of the world’s semiconductor physicists now work in this area.

Esaki was born in Osaka in 1925 and received both his BSc and PhD from the University of Tokyo. He received the Nobel prize for his PhD work on what is now known as the Esaki tunnel diode.

Sensenbrenner criticises Shuttle-Mir missions

The missions were established “for all the wrong reasons” and gave the impression that scientific co-operation is a form of foreign aid, Sensenbrenner told the Indian Science Congress Association in a recent speech. He said that the Shuttle-Mir mission, worth $400 million, was compensation to Russia for the cancellation of a rocket technology deal with India in 1994. “I disagree with the President Clinton’s chief scientific advisor, Jack Gibbons, who offers ‘no apologies’ for the fact that US-Russian co- operation is part of overall US foreign policy, not just space policy” he said.

Sensenbrenner was also concerned about international agreements in general, noting that over 90 percent of NASA’s space projects now have international components. He seemed more optimistic when discussing the recent agreement between the US and CERN, the European particle physics laboratory, hailing it as a classic example of how US scientific interests are best served. “The lessons learned during the negotiation of the LHC [at CERN] agreement should be applied to any scientific negotiations that the US undertakes.” Sensenbrenner hopes a similar contract will be undertaken with negotiations for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER).

Physicists honoured at the Savoy

The awards were presented by Brian Manley, president of the Institute. Speaking before the presentations, Manley stressed the importance of education to the UK and outlined his hopes for the Institute’s 16- to 19-year old curriculum initiative. Manley also called for increased investment in science education and basic research in the physical sciences.

The guest speaker, Peter Williams, chairman of Oxford Instruments, also stressed the importance of education and the need for science to capture the hearts, minds and imaginations of the young. Williams also took issue with recent suggestions that the 21st century would be the century of biology, or the Internet, saying that every area of science, engineering and technology would play a central role in the next century.

The Institute of Physics Awards 1998
President’s Medal: Lord Dainton

Premier awards
Glazebrook Medal & Prize: Cyril Hilsum
Guthrie Medal & Prize: Derek Charles Robinson
Paul Dirac Medal & Prize: David Deutsch

Principle awards
Max Born Medal & Prize: Gerhard Abstreiter
Harrie Massey Medal & Prize: Donald Blair Melrose
Holweck Medal & Prize: William Gelletly

Senior awards
Charles Vernon Boys Medal & Prize: Shaun Neil Fisher
Bragg Medal & Prize: Maurice George Ebison
Duddell Medal & Prize: Meirion Francis Lewis
Kelvin Medal & Prize: Lesley Scott Dent Glasser
Maxwell Medal & Prize: Andrew James Fisher
Paterson Medal & Prize: Neil Loxley
Rutherford Medal & Prize: Anthony Michael Hillas

Science budget fails to match inflation in the UK

In a now common procedure, the actual figures were released in a written answer to a question from a MP, thus avoiding any debate about the figures. The figure for the next financial year will be £1, 338.326 million, an increase of 0.6% on last year but 2% below the official inflation rate.

However, the figures for the two research councils which support most of the physicists in UK universities have fallen slightly. The budget of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) is down by 0.87%, while that of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) will fall by 0.3%.

The lobby group Save British Science Society was not impressed: “this is not what we expect from a government whose Prime Minister has committed it to correcting the effects of past under-funding” it said in a press release.

Science Budget allocations

£ million
1997-98 1998-99
BBSRC 183.300 185.739
ESRC 64.896 65.990
EPSRC 386.373 382.982
MRC 289.070 290.208
NERC 165.116 171.771
PPARC 191.850 191.268
International Subscription Reserve 8.800 3.028
CCLRC 1.450 1.462
Pensions 11.530 12.298
Royal Society 22.271 22.621
Royal Academy 3.370 3.436
OST Initiatives 2.302 2.376
Joint Research Equipment Initiative — 4.147
LINK/Foresight — 1.000
Total 1, 330.327 1, 338.326

Light gets in your eyes

To do this Levy adapted a technique used by solar astronomers in which a black disk is placed in the focal plane of the telescope. The size of the disk is chosen so that it exactly matches the Sun’s image in the focal plane, allowing astronomers to observe the delicate structure of the corona. Levy hit upon the idea of splitting a mirror or visor into an array of optical components. He then placed a layer of a photosensitive material, such as indium tin oxide, in the focal plane of each component. As light intensity increases, the layer becomes optically thick. However, only those segments being illuminated by light from bright objects get dark, and the rest of the image can pass through the array. Such a device could have applications in rear-view mirrors, or cars, or in binoculars.

Copyright © 2026 by IOP Publishing Ltd and individual contributors