<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
Dear All,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Interesting thread of thoughts… Perhaps, we should dedicate the next Friday mtg. to continue this discussion…?</div>
<div>As Todd mentioned, arcs with nonzero momentum compaction can be used to compress beam longitudinally. This is especially relevant for an RLA, where individual linac passes may have different gang phases. We considered such mode of operation for the LHeC
ERL, where cumulative SR momentum spread was detrimental to energy recovery…</div>
<div>Certainly, higher order dispersion and momentum compaction effects on FFA Optics needs to be checked..</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Alex<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">___________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">S. Alex Bogacz,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Accelerator Physics Group Leader<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Center for Advanced Studies of Accelerators<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Jefferson Lab<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><font color="#000000"><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><a href="x-apple-data-detectors://8" dir="ltr" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="address" x-apple-data-detectors-result="8" style="text-decoration-color: rgba(127, 127, 127, 0.380392);">12000
Jefferson Avenue,</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><font color="#000000"><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><a href="x-apple-data-detectors://8" dir="ltr" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="address" x-apple-data-detectors-result="8" style="text-decoration-color: rgba(127, 127, 127, 0.380392);">Newport
News, VA 23606</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">___________________________________</span>
<div>Sent from my iPhone</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On May 25, 2023, at 2:02 PM, Todd Satogata via FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab@jlab.org> wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span>Heyos,</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Longitudinal match is critical for high-power ERLs since they are</span><br>
<span>very loss-intolerant, a lesson David beat into me for ER@CEBAF and</span><br>
<span>JLEIC cooler work.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Running off-crest doesn't necessarily break this; indeed it is part</span><br>
<span>of the ER@CEBAF longitudinal match that Gus did with Alex and David</span><br>
<span>Williams. But it does have to be done in an integrated way, with</span><br>
<span>particular attention to higher-order compaction in the arcs (T566</span><br>
<span>and U5666). How big are those for the FFA arcs?</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Alex should probably comment more with his experience. I'd worry</span><br>
<span>that it is a bigger effect than the SR-driven momentum spread when</span><br>
<span>pulling off crest enough to make appreciable (~10% or more) changes</span><br>
<span>in energy gain per module.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span> -Todd</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>======================================================================</span><br>
<span>Todd Satogata</span><br>
<span>Director, Center for Advanced Studies of Accelerators</span><br>
<span>Jefferson Lab</span><br>
<span>12000 Jefferson Avenue</span><br>
<span>Newport News, VA 23606</span><br>
<span>Cell: (631) 807-0674</span><br>
<span>======================================================================</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>On 5/25/23 1:54 PM, Edith Nissen via FFA_CEBAF_Collab wrote:</span><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>That's a fair point about the longitudinal dynamics. My background is in synchrotron based boosters, so intuitively, to me, running off crest would be better than on crest. That being said, we would be switching between on and
off crest rapidly without much in terms of synchrotron motion happening to smooth things out. It's probably worth simulating if tunability is something that's strongly desired by the users.</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Edy Nissen</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>*From:* Brooks, Stephen <sbrooks@bnl.gov></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>*Sent:* Thursday, May 25, 2023 1:28 PM</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>*To:* Kirsten Deitrick <kirstend@jlab.org>; FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab@jlab.org>; Berg, J Scott <jsberg@bnl.gov>; Edith Nissen <nissen@jlab.org></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>*Subject:* Re: [FFA_CEBAF_Collab] [EXTERNAL] RE: FFA energy range</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>--[If we want some tunability in the energy, couldn't we keep the bottom energy of the FFA arc the same, then just do some path length adjustments to have the higher passes run off crest? that would be a knob to lower the energy
not raise it]--</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Yes, that would actually fix the problem! I just don't know how much the longitudinal dynamics would cooperate with being off-crest.</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span> -Stephen</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>________________________________________</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>From: FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab-bounces@jlab.org> on behalf of Edith Nissen via FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab@jlab.org></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent: 25 May 2023 13:25</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>To: Kirsten Deitrick; FFA_CEBAF_Collab; Berg, J Scott</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Subject: Re: [FFA_CEBAF_Collab] [EXTERNAL] RE: FFA energy range</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>If we want some tunability in the energy, couldn't we keep the bottom energy of the FFA arc the same, then just do some path length adjustments to have the higher passes run off crest? that would be a knob to lower the energy not
raise it (unless we leave some phase room in the nominal configuration).</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>It would make the splitters/recombiners a bit more complicated, and that may end up being a showstopper.</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Edy Nissen</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>________________________________</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>From: FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab-bounces@jlab.org> on behalf of Berg, J Scott via FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab@jlab.org></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 12:15 PM</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>To: Kirsten Deitrick <kirstend@jlab.org>; FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab@jlab.org></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Subject: Re: [FFA_CEBAF_Collab] [EXTERNAL] RE: FFA energy range</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>If everything adjusted to keep the energy ratios the same in the splitters, then we would not need to do anything. If the ratios aren’t maintained, then there will be some steering adjustments needed. Presumably the same issue
is faced in CEBAF.</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>-Scott</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>From: FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab-bounces@jlab.org> On Behalf Of Kirsten Deitrick via FFA_CEBAF_Collab</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 12:05 PM</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>To: FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab@jlab.org></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Subject: Re: [FFA_CEBAF_Collab] [EXTERNAL] RE: FFA energy range</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Isn't there a concern that just because the FFA can accept any energy in the range, the splitter lines won't have the necessary flexibility to provide position/angle for different energies? Or is this a case of "if we know we need
it, we can make sure we have that flexibility"?</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>-Kirsten</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>________________________________</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>From: FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab-bounces@jlab.org<mailto:ffa_cebaf_collab-bounces@jlab.org>> on behalf of Berg, J Scott via FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab@jlab.org<mailto:ffa_cebaf_collab@jlab.org>></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 11:59 AM</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>To: FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab@jlab.org<mailto:ffa_cebaf_collab@jlab.org>></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Subject: [FFA_CEBAF_Collab] [EXTERNAL] RE: FFA energy range</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Presumably this could also be addressed with a redesign of the FFA? I would think we could accommodate the additional energy range and flexibility at the cost of larger magnets and maybe some other modest penalties like radiation?
Or is there something that stops this from working? I'm not suggesting it's the best choice, just an option.</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>-Scott</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>-----Original Message-----</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>From: FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab-bounces@jlab.org<mailto:ffa_cebaf_collab-bounces@jlab.org>> On Behalf Of Jay</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Benesch via FFA_CEBAF_Collab</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 11:53 AM</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>To: FFA_CEBAF_Collab <ffa_cebaf_collab@jlab.org<mailto:ffa_cebaf_collab@jlab.org>></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Subject: [FFA_CEBAF_Collab] FFA energy range</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Colleagues,</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>I did not understand this limitation when we changed to one FFA. I</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>suggest that being able to vary the beam energy is more important to</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>physics than 22 GeV. It would make the splitters easier to design too;</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>for that matter it's not clear that six splitters fit in the tunnel at</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>all.</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Jay</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>-------- Forwarded Message --------</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: FFA energy range</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 15:41:43 +0000</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>From: Brooks, Stephen <sbrooks@bnl.gov<mailto:sbrooks@bnl.gov>></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>To: Jay Benesch <benesch@jlab.org<mailto:benesch@jlab.org>></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>CC: Katheryne Price <kprice@jlab.org<mailto:kprice@jlab.org>></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Yes, essentially having the tunability costs you a turn because it</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>requires the FFA to accommodate lower energy beams at the low energy end</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>of the range, which would increase the ratio unless the highest energy</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>is also lowered.</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>You have three options:</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>~22GeV with no tunability, just discrete energies (14, 16, 18, 20, 22)</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>~22GeV with a percent or two of tunability, so a small range around each</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>energy above</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>~20GeV with close to full tunability (I haven't checked if it can 100%</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>cover with no gaps)</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span> -Stephen</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>________________________________________</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>From: Jay Benesch <benesch@jlab.org<mailto:benesch@jlab.org>></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Sent: 25 May 2023 11:36</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>To: Brooks, Stephen</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Cc: Katheryne Price</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: FFA energy range</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Stephen,</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>I did not understand that. If we had only five FFA passes, 20 GeV top,</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>could the good field region and tune accommodate some energy span? The</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>users might prefer that to fixed energies, especially given the</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>unreliability of our SRF.</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>Jay</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>On 5/25/23 11:27, Brooks, Stephen wrote:</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>> There isn't any adjustable linac energy range in the 1-FFA solution. This</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>is one of the requirements that ended up being dropped when we changed to a</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>single FFA. Or to put it another way, accommodating linac tunability to get</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>a fully continuous energy range was one of the things that pushed me towards</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>the 2-FFA solution.</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>> Of course we could accommodate a couple of percent by running at slightly</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>dubious tunes.</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>> -Stephen</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>> ________________________________________</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>> From: Jay Benesch <benesch@jlab.org<mailto:benesch@jlab.org>></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>> Sent: 25 May 2023 11:22</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>> To: Brooks, Stephen</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>> Subject: FFA energy range</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>> Stephen,</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>> I've forgotten the allowed energy range as it's been a year since it's</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>> been discussed. I remember linac energy range 1000-1100 MeV. Is that</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>> correct?</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>> Jay</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>FFA_CEBAF_Collab mailing list</span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>FFA_CEBAF_Collab@jlab.org<mailto:FFA_CEBAF_Collab@jlab.org></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><span>https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/ffa_cebaf_collab <https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/ffa_cebaf_collab></span><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>FFA_CEBAF_Collab mailing list</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>FFA_CEBAF_Collab@jlab.org<mailto:FFA_CEBAF_Collab@jlab.org></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/ffa_cebaf_collab <https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/ffa_cebaf_collab></span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>FFA_CEBAF_Collab mailing list</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>FFA_CEBAF_Collab@jlab.org</span><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/ffa_cebaf_collab</span><br>
</blockquote>
<span></span><br>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>FFA_CEBAF_Collab mailing list</span><br>
<span>FFA_CEBAF_Collab@jlab.org</span><br>
<span>https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/ffa_cebaf_collab</span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>