Since graduate school I've been designing, building and operating devices with which other people do physics. My training was initially in plasma physics and controlled fusion. Had funding for that not gone south, I would have stayed in that field. As it was, I went into applied superconductivity. I felt it would give me an avenue to remain in physics.

I grew up in Queens, New York. Nine years or so ago I was at the Department of Energy's SSC [Superconducting Supercollider] office in Germantown, Maryland, with an impending transfer to Dallas. I was 39 years old and figured that, by the time I was 50, I'd be out of a job. So I started looking around. I had met Hermann [Grunder] earlier at SSC reviews and he heard I was looking.

Prior to going to the SSC program I worked at General Electric designing and manufacturing superconducting magnets for magnetic resonance imagers, MRIs. That experience meshed well with the Lab's need at that time to improve cavity assembly. So Hermann asked me to come down and interview. I've been here since September 30, 1991.

For the first two-and-a-half years here I managed cavity assembly. My manufacturing experience at GE allowed me to help the SRF Group increase both productivity and technical performance, enabling the Lab to promise an eventual energy of 6 GeV to our users.

I started attending the daily 8 o'clock meetings when my supervisor at the time, Charlie Reece, thought there wasn't sufficient communication within the Superconducting Radio Frequency Group and asked me to write a regular summary. That was in August 1995. About that same time, I transferred to the Operations Department. People had started to learn about the report, mostly by word of mouth. At that point Andrew Hutton asked me to forward a copy of the report to everyone in operations. It became an official internal e-mail list.

When I was in operations, I spent a fair amount of time speaking to the technicians and engineers trying to understand why certain repairs were made and how the accelerator functioned in general. I still do that. As a result, during the three-and-a-half years I was in ops I built up a broad base of knowledge about the machine.

I still do a lot of ops support when the machine gets reconfigured. I maintain all the magnet files used during reconfiguration. I keep an eye on the machine orbit and how it changes over time. I'm working now on the 12 GeV upgrade and the magnet and power supply interactions. I'm also doing optics work on the new Hall D line.


For Love of the Job

I enjoy writing the report. It requires a breadth of understanding of the machine. I like to have a broad and moderately deep picture of my work. One thing I've tried to be is open about mistakes, hoping that I can set an example that others follow. I don't believe in assigning blame. If there's a screw-up I don't put any name on it but my own. It's better for everyone that things are surfaced before we experience them the hard way.

Jay Benesch sits at his double-headed Mac as he prepares to design integrated Hall A optics incorporating new quadrupole magnets installed during the January maintenance period.

The report takes about six hours of my time a week. There are roughly 250 people who receive it by e-mail. I don't know how many others read it on the web. When I get back from the 8 o'clock meeting, around 8:30 [a.m.], I'll review the e-logs and the e-mailed reports. Then I go and try to tell the story of the last day or three.

Although my most important constituency is the Directors' Council, there are different types of readers I try to satisfy. One of the difficulties is writing for a general audience. There's a wide range of technical levels and interests at the Lab. There are those who have no physics or engineering backgrounds or experience. Then there are the Ph.D.s who know accelerator physics and who have been here for 14 years. The challenge is to balance explanation while providing enough information density so that those who are technically aware remain interested so they can use the report as a reliable source of information.

I don't have time to polish the report, but I'm fast and reasonably accurate. There is an edge in my writing. A lot of people like that approach, and my humor. Some don't. And yes: I misspell words. I don't spell check.

I fall off the tightrope an average of once a quarter. I say something and I get my knuckles rapped. The topics I'm allowed to address and how open I'm allowed to be are determined by ongoing feedback from management. There is no set of written guidelines.

As far as my accident goes: I decided to ride my bike to work one day when I took my car in for service. I needed the exercise and it was a good opportunity. It was the first time I had ridden in a long time. As I was biking to the station to pick-up my car, I took the curb cut at too shallow an angle, skidded, and fell over. I thought everything was fine until I tried to get up and my leg didn't work. I had broken the femur just at its neck.

The accident was this past August 6 and the operation was on August 7. I have an internal pin and plate that may have to come out later this year. It's been more than five months and I still feel it.

A decade can make a major difference in reflex and reaction times. I haven't given up on riding bikes, but haven't ridden since the accident. For now, it's stationary bikes. I've had a lot of help and support from people at the Lab, for which I'm really thankful. I learned I connected more with my colleagues as an individual than I thought I had. It's gratifying.

One final thing: if anyone wants to join the daily report list, send me a message. I'll add your name and address. Contact Benesch by e-mail at benesch@jlab.org or call ext. 7085.

maintained by webmaster@jlab.org