Cornell continues to fall farther behind the other Ivy schools with athletic facilities improvements. With Ithaca weather being just as bad as Hanover, NH, it's all the more reason for Cornell to finally build one.
https://campus-services.dartmouth.edu/projects/projects-construction/indoor-practice-facility
What about Barton? Or the room with the Climbing Wall?
I'm not sure our rivals' making massive commitments to discretionary parts of the university experience implies we "have to" as well.
We could, for example, let them spend themselves into oblivion while directing our own resources towards education.
Quote from: TrotskyI'm not sure our rivals' making massive commitments to discretionary parts of the university experience implies we "have to" as well.
We could, for example, let them spend themselves into oblivion while directing our own resources towards education.
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that practice facility."
Quote from: martyQuote from: TrotskyI'm not sure our rivals' making massive commitments to discretionary parts of the university experience implies we "have to" as well.
We could, for example, let them spend themselves into oblivion while directing our own resources towards education.
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that practice facility."
Without immediate countermeasures, Dartmouth could be emboldened by this dangerous facility gap and sweep down on us in a sneak attack from Cortland. We must deploy an Early Warning Practice Field in Utica.
Quote from: TrotskyI'm not sure our rivals' making massive commitments to discretionary parts of the university experience implies we "have to" as well.
We could, for example, let them spend themselves into oblivion while directing our own resources towards education.
That's true, you don't "have to" if you don't care to be competitive when it comes to competing in varsity sports with your Ivy peers, especially with regards to player/team development and recruiting.
Wanna remain competitive in lax?
Was told by an insider a couple of years ago that an indoor practice facility would facilitate playing February and early March lax games inside rather than brave the unpredictable Ithaca weather.
There are plans to build a new athletic events center where the TRB lot currently sits. Stay tuned........
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: martyQuote from: TrotskyI'm not sure our rivals' making massive commitments to discretionary parts of the university experience implies we "have to" as well.
We could, for example, let them spend themselves into oblivion while directing our own resources towards education.
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that practice facility."
Without immediate countermeasures, Dartmouth could be emboldened by this dangerous facility gap and sweep down on us in a sneak attack from Cortland. We must deploy an Early Warning Practice Field in UticaDryden.
FYP!::demented::
Quote from: rss77Was told by an insider a couple of years ago that an indoor practice facility would facilitate playing February and early March lax games inside rather than brave the unpredictable Ithaca weather.
There are indoor practice facilities that are an inflatable bubble on an existing field such as Harvard, Princeton and I believe Penn. They get taken down in the spring.
Then there are full-time indoor facilities. Cornell's Richard M Ramin multipurpose room is the 27,000 sq ft turfed room at the far end of Bartels Hall; it also has the Lindseth Climbing Wall. It counts as an indoor practice facility. The one Dartmouth is doing is 56,000 sq ft and triples the laid-down artificial turf in the older Leverone Field House. For reference, an acre is 43,560 sq ft and a football field between the goal lines is also about an acre 300x160=48,000 sq ft). (Dick Ramiin '51 was a football player then Cornell's VP for PR/marcom/ass-covering and spent the early '70s trying to spin Cornell basketball, an alcoholic coach, defections by black and then white players, and the SI story "Low in Cayuga's Waters" in an upbeat light. https://www.si.com/vault/1973/02/26/617659/low-in-cayugas-waters)
For Cornell to match the Ivies or one-up them, it'd have to be a 130-yard field house (100 yards + end zones + 5 yards beyond) where you could practice full field football, or play lax or soccer on a bitterly cold day. Recall Cornell played lax inside the Michigan field house ~5 years ago and escaped with a 1-goal win. If you're doing this, you probably want it 200 feet wide so you could fit 1000-2500 fans. Could this be Berman Field (not likely since the track surrounding the field would mean a bigger / costlier bubble or roof)? One of the handful of remaining Upper Alumni Fields?
Berman Field was done on the cheap. The seats don't have a lot of elevation for a good view of the action. It's a nice HS stadium is what it is.
I believe an inflatable dome is $5-$10M (if you include upkeep, which is what Cornell is asking of athletics donors - the facility and 20+ years of upkeep). A hard roof over even a small field is serious bucks but it would one-up the other Ivies.
I wonder if the parking lot next to Schoellkopf Field is possibly in play. Or the former Schoellkopf West Stands plus the Hoy parking garage. It could become the top level of the garage. BU just built 2 fields atop a garage a couple blocks from Nickerson Field (their only field).
As Cornell pushes athletic facilities to the edges of campus, it's harder for students to drop by for a sports event after class. The beginning of the end was 45 years ago when Lower Alumni Field became Comstock Hall. It could have been the field for soccer and lacrosse, as it was when it was a grass field with wooden stands for maybe 1000 spectators, plus more sitting on the grass.
QuoteThe beginning of the end was 45 years ago when Lower Alumni Field became Comstock Hall. It could have been the field for soccer and lacrosse, as it was when it was a grass field with wooden stands for maybe 1000 spectators, plus more sitting on the grass.
Lightweight Football played on Lower Alumni Field, too.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: rss77Was told by an insider a couple of years ago that an indoor practice facility would facilitate playing February and early March lax games inside rather than brave the unpredictable Ithaca weather.
There are indoor practice facilities that are an inflatable bubble on an existing field such as Harvard, Princeton and I believe Penn. Columbia also has a practice bubble. They get taken down in the spring.
Then there are full-time indoor facilities. Cornell's Richard M Ramin multipurpose room is the 27,000 sq ft turfed room at the far end of Bartels Hall; it also has the Lindseth Climbing Wall. It counts as an indoor practice facility. The one Dartmouth is doing is 56,000 sq ft and triples the laid-down artificial turf in the older Leverone Field House. For reference, an acre is 43,560 sq ft and a football field between the goal lines is also about an acre 300x160=48,000 sq ft). (Dick Ramiin '51 was a football player then Cornell's VP for PR/marcom/ass-covering and spent the early '70s trying to spin Cornell basketball, an alcoholic coach, defections by black and then white players, and the SI story "Low in Cayuga's Waters" in an upbeat light. https://www.si.com/vault/1973/02/26/617659/low-in-cayugas-waters)
For Cornell to match the Ivies or one-up them, it'd have to be a 130-yard field house (100 yards + end zones + 5 yards beyond) where you could practice full field football, or play lax or soccer on a bitterly cold day. Recall Cornell played lax inside the Michigan field house ~5 years ago and escaped with a 1-goal win. If you're doing this, you probably want it 200 feet wide so you could fit 1000-2500 fans. Could this be Berman Field (not likely since the track surrounding the field would mean a bigger / costlier bubble or roof)? One of the handful of remaining Upper Alumni Fields?
Berman Field was done on the cheap. The seats don't have a lot of elevation for a good view of the action. It's a nice HS stadium is what it is.
I believe an inflatable dome is $5-$10M (if you include upkeep, which is what Cornell is asking of athletics donors - the facility and 20+ years of upkeep). A hard roof over even a small field is serious bucks but it would one-up the other Ivies. Dartmouth's is a permanent facility. Yale is exploring a practice facility as well. Cornell commissioned a company to develop a feasibility study report to compare an inflatable vs a permanent facility. That study is nearing completion from what I know.
I wonder if the parking lot next to Schoellkopf Field is possibly in play. Or the former Schoellkopf West Stands plus the Hoy parking garage. It could become the top level of the garage. BU just built 2 fields atop a garage a couple blocks from Nickerson Field (their only field).
As Cornell pushes athletic facilities to the edges of campus, it's harder for students to drop by for a sports event after class. The beginning of the end was 45 years ago when Lower Alumni Field became Comstock Hall. It could have been the field for soccer and lacrosse, as it was when it was a grass field with wooden stands for maybe 1000 spectators, plus more sitting on the grass.
https://brownbears.com/news/2019/4/3/general-brown-plans-for-dedicated-championship-level-lacrosse-and-soccer-center.aspx
Cornell's planned facility improvements....sound of crickets.
Quote from: Ken711https://brownbears.com/news/2019/4/3/general-brown-plans-for-dedicated-championship-level-lacrosse-and-soccer-center.aspx
Cornell's planned facility improvements....sound of crickets.
"Indoor" does not appear in the Brown article. It seems to me an
indoor practice (and perhaps game) facility is what our lacrosse team needs the most.
Are our other facilities for lacrosse and soccer teams as scattershot as Brown's are?
the big issue is 2 fold, firs,t the money needs to be donated. second, the location, of which the only real places is the facility off game farm.. this is the thing that might happen when the baseball field finally moves out there in 5-10 yrs.
Quote from: upprdeckthe big issue is 2 fold, firs,t the money needs to be donated. second, the location, of which the only real places is the facility off game farm.. this is the thing that might happen when the baseball field finally moves out there in 5-10 yrs.
Should have already happened. The field looks really nice but the fact is it's absolutely massive, takes up prime real estate that could benefit many more people, and no one really cares about Cornell baseball.
Speak for yourself. I care about Cornell baseball and have since before I cared about Cornell hockey or lacrosse.
The debate about athletics v. academics occupying central campus real estate doesn't really center on any particular sport. It is just easier to move a field than a building to somewhere else. You are living in a dream world if you think an enclosed practice facility will ever be built on central campus.
enough people care about baseball to fund it
Cornell needs two new facilities:
- Field-length practice field, enclosed / domed.
- Better M/W lacrosse-soccer field seating 3,500-6,000
Lower and Upper Alumni Fields that were said to be forever greeen (for sports) got taken instead for academics, starting mid-1979s, possibly in violation of the old West Rule ["Village Council just passed an ordinance. House of ill repute and place of worship can't be within 100 yards of each other." "Oh, yeah? Where's the church moving?"]
We're seeing right-sized fields for non-football. Princeton has the best in Class of '52 Field, about 4,000 seats, steeply pitched for good sightlines, dressing facilities for men / women / visitors. Yale has
Stevenson Reece Field near Yale Bowl although its 3,000 seats were barely enough for Yale-Cornell lax. Now Dartmouth, now Brown. Also more Ivies are creating permanent indoor field houses for length-of-field practices. If not now, soon all the Ivies will need them to be competitive with non-Ivy opponents.
Below I marked up a view of Cornell on-campus playing fields and the academic buildings that took away playing fields.
There are just 4 upper alumni fields left. Two are grass surfaces. (I overlaid the boundaries of the Schoellkopf football field playing surface on one for reference). The third is Dodson Field, only for wonen's field hockey because it has AstroTurf which makes a ball roller straighter and is also more abrasive if you fall and slide. (It has portable bleachers, no permanent stands.) The fourth is the Bob Kane '34 complex / Berman Field pitch, a cost-conscious effort at a field for soccer and track with lights and modest 1000-seat stands that are low to the field. It always reminds me of something a high school would do.
If Cornell is to build a better lacrosse-maybe soccer field (with no track, for better viewing by fans), it could go:
- In place of one of the two grass fields (there for practice for the occasional grass-field football game)
- Replace (move to the west) the field hockey field, possibly create a mutual press box / stands / enclosed spectator area between that and Berman Field. For many events, even for M-Lax early-season, 1,000 seats are all you need, but for Cornell-Princeton in late April, you might want 5,000 seats.
- Replace Hoy Field and move baseball farther from campus. Moving baseball only impacts one sport.So would moving field hockey off-campus, for that matter.
- Maybe it's possible to wedge an interesting facility on the hillside between the Crescent Lot and the Oxley Lot if you drive enough pilings.
I hope Cornell keeps as many sports on campus as possible, so students without cars can go see the games. Maybe that's wishful thinking giving how low the attendance is, how few midweek afternoon games there are anymore, but it seems odd that the Ivy's second most rural campus has to push activities off campus because there isn't room on-campus.
Perhaps the Cornell 2050 plan should envision a Schoellkopf Field II more in scale with today's crowds. It sells out twice a year: graduation, and the Homecoming Friday fireworks if it's not cold/rainy. Maybe with the West Stands gone and the track gone (unused for competition), the field can be moved closer to the stands. My rough measurements find that from the edge of the lacrosse surface (~60 yards wide), there's 10-11 yards to the edge of the Crescent stands, and 26-28 yards to the edge of the parking deck / pressbox.
FYI the largest playing surface is soccer at 110-120 yards long by 70-80 yards wide (Berman is 118 x 74).
Sport Length (yd) Width
Soccer 110-120 70-80
Berman Field 118 74
Lacrosse M/W 110 53-1/3 - 60
Football 120 53-1/3
Field hockey 100 60 I also wish Cornell had one field with a rolling slope on one side so spectators could picnic, catch sun, check Tinder, and maybe watch the game. Those are probably going away because of the desire to insulate players from fans, and probably liability issues.
not sure you can build anything like that in that location with what is underground right there. you certainly have an issue disturbing the research.
Quote from: billhowardWe're seeing right-sized fields for non-football. Princeton has the best in Class of '52 Field, about 4,000 seats, steeply pitched for good sightlines, dressing facilities for men / women / visitors. Yale has Stevenson Field near Yale Bowl although its 3,000 seats were barely enough for Yale-Cornell lax.
I think Stevenson Field is Brown's current lacrosse-soccer facility. Yale's is Reece Stadium and according to their website has 1250 permanent seats. I've seen bleachers in the end zone and along the Cox Cage wall on the far side. It's a great facility because the stands are mounted above the team rooms so they are both close to the field but still have elevated sight lines.
Yale Reece Stadium (http://www.yalebulldogs.com/information/facilities/reese_stadium/index)
I've also seen Yale's Reese Stadium capacity as 1,766 permanent seats plus standing room, and 3,000. The Cornell-Yale lax match drew 2,716 according to the box score, with a lot of people along the sidelines and well back on the ends. According to the https://centerbrook.com/project/yale_university_reese_stadium, Reese's "barrel vaults and arches found on the facades of the nearby Yale Bowl and Yale Baseball Stadium, along with similar stucco, ... unite Yale's athletic village." I'm trying to recall the architectural details that unite Lynah, Schoellkopf and Berman.
Quote from: Centerbrook architectsCenterbrook has expanded and renovated Reese Stadium, raising the profile of the home for Yale University's men and women's varsity soccer and lacrosse teams. In addition to upgrading the 1981 facility with new seating, turf, lighting, and amenities for players, fans and alumni, the design employs the same barrel vaults and arches found on the facades of the nearby Yale Bowl and Yale Baseball Stadium, along with similar stucco, to unite Yale's athletic village.
"The new Reese Stadium will draw excellent coaches and students and proudly host tournaments and NCAA games – events that will bring new prestige to the teams and to Yale Athletics," according to the dedication day program.
Centerbrook previously developed a Master Plan for the university's Derby Avenue athletic campus, and designed the Kenney Center and adjacent Jensen Plaza as the formal entry to the historic Yale Bowl. Several years ago, the firm also expanded and renovated the Cullman-Heyman Tennis Center.
The new facility replaces old bleachers with an entirely new building that also houses team rooms, concessions, ticket booths, a press box, and two alumni terraces at the top of the grandstand. It hosted its first soccer games in 2010. The new stadium now seats 1,766 spectators along with additional areas for standing room viewing.
The thing I would add to a small stadium is a canopy or roof over some of the stands. We saw lacrosse games this spring that drew under 500. Then you'd at least be out of the weather if you're a spectator.
Quote from: billhowardI'm trying to recall the architectural details that unit Lynah, Schoellkopf and Berman.
Flat bench seats that haven't changed form since 1929?
testing, sorry, please ignore
I heard Cornell has received approval to begin design work on a permanent indoor practice facility, with approximately 50% of the project cost already raised through gifts and fundraising. No other details on site location.
Quote from: Ken711I heard Cornell has received approval to begin design work on a permanent indoor practice facility, with approximately 50% of the project cost already raised through gifts and fundraising. No other details on site location.
Woo hoo! ::banana::
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: Ken711I heard Cornell has received approval to begin design work on a permanent indoor practice facility, with approximately 50% of the project cost already raised through gifts and fundraising. No other details on site location.
Woo boo! ::banana::
No offense to Ken711, but I'll wait for an official announcement before my banana starts dancing.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: SwampyQuote from: Ken711I heard Cornell has received approval to begin design work on a permanent indoor practice facility, with approximately 50% of the project cost already raised through gifts and fundraising. No other details on site location.
Woo boo! ::banana::
No offense to Ken711, but I'll wait for an official announcement before my banana starts dancing.
No offense taken.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: SwampyQuote from: Ken711I heard Cornell has received approval to begin design work on a permanent indoor practice facility, with approximately 50% of the project cost already raised through gifts and fundraising. No other details on site location.
Woo boo! ::banana::
No offense to Ken711, but I'll wait for an official announcement before my banana starts dancing.
A Harvey Weinstein joke lurks.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: SwampyQuote from: Ken711I heard Cornell has received approval to begin design work on a permanent indoor practice facility, with approximately 50% of the project cost already raised through gifts and fundraising. No other details on site location.
Woo boo! ::banana::
No offense to Ken711, but I'll wait for an official announcement before my banana starts dancing.
A Harvey Weinstein joke lurks.
No it doesn't.::twak::
I think you may have awhile for any real announcement shows up. Design work could mean yrs before any real work gets started.. They do generally go up quick though.
Quote from: upprdeckI think you may have awhile for any real announcement shows up. Design work could mean yrs before any real work gets started.. They do generally go up quick though.
A dome over fieldturf, quick. If it's got a physical (hard) wall and roof, a bit longer.
Questions one might ask about the rumored-to-be-real indoor practice field:
* Full size field that is 130 yards long (football plus end zones plus 5 yards)? Wide enough for lacrosse (60 yards) or soccer (supposed to be 70-80 per FIFA)? (Football is 53-1/3 yards wide)
* High enough to allow an actual game for November soccer and February lacrosse and ball doesn't hit the roof?
* Room for 1,000 spectators?
All of which make it more expensive
* Any access for students who aren't athletes? Not even, like, from midnight to 6 am?
You've got to find a place for it. Princeton has its on the football field. A $3.5M inflatable device that goes up after the last football game. $100,000-plus to put it up / take it down each year.
Princeton's "air structure": https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/04/05/princeton-announces-plan-have-bubble-over-powers-field-each-winter
Quote from: Princeton PRThe space under the bubble can be subdivided so that more than one team can use it at the same time. It will also be used by campus recreation programs, intramural and club teams, outside groups and youth teams. Beyond that, Princeton's strength and conditioning program can use the space, which will help nearly all 37 of Princeton's teams
Quote from: billhowardQuestions one might ask about the rumored-to-be-real indoor practice field:
* Full size field that is 130 yards long (football plus end zones plus 5 yards)? Wide enough for lacrosse (60 yards) or soccer (supposed to be 70-80 per FIFA)? (Football is 53-1/3 yards wide)
* High enough to allow an actual game for November soccer and February lacrosse and ball doesn't hit the roof?
* Room for 1,000 spectators?
All of which make it more expensive
* Any access for students who aren't athletes? Not even, like, from midnight to 6 am?
You've got to find a place for it. Princeton has its on the football field. A $3.5M inflatable device that goes up after the last football game. $100,000-plus to put it up / take it down each year.
Princeton's "air structure": https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/04/05/princeton-announces-plan-have-bubble-over-powers-field-each-winter
Quote from: Princeton PRThe space under the bubble can be subdivided so that more than one team can use it at the same time. It will also be used by campus recreation programs, intramural and club teams, outside groups and youth teams. Beyond that, Princeton's strength and conditioning program can use the space, which will help nearly all 37 of Princeton's teams
It is being designed as a permanent structure, not an inflatable dome that goes up and down seasonally. I doubt it would be so large as to hold 1,000 spectators for actual game use, even the permanent practice facilities at Big Ten schools aren't that large for such intended use.
If its fast tracked something could happen in 2021. But the money raised really just gets them to the 3rd phase of the project. Its unclear if they would move forward to the build from the design until all the funding is provided. Even the design phase might need to go throw multiple iterations if it is actually that far in the planning which is really unclear.
Design without location is also an issue. A Bubble vs something like SU built. How much bigger could they extent the current indoor facility or would that collide with the Wrestling upgrade?
But I wouldn't expect anything soon unless the campus policy has a huge change given the location that is currently being planned for the build.
Quote from: upprdeckIf its fast tracked something could happen in 2021. But the money raised really just gets them to the 3rd phase of the project. Its unclear if they would move forward to the build from the design until all the funding is provided. Even the design phase might need to go throw multiple iterations if it is actually that far in the planning which is really unclear.
Design without location is also an issue. A Bubble vs something like SU built. How much bigger could they extent the current indoor facility or would that collide with the Wrestling upgrade?
But I wouldn't expect anything soon unless the campus policy has a huge change given the location that is currently being planned for the build.
And wouldn't it have to be near existing facilities so there wouldn't need to be any duplication of things like locker rooms, rehab therapies, etc.?
Cornell lax played indoors at Michigan ~ 5 years ago. There were some spectators, I believe behind sidelines netting.
Quote from: Ken711It is being designed as a permanent structure, not an inflatable dome that goes up and down seasonally. I doubt it would be so large as to hold 1,000 spectators for actual game use, even the permanent practice facilities at Big Ten schools aren't that large for such intended use.
Permanent is better than seasonal so long as it doesn't have aluminum siding and roof.
The campus has buildings done on the cheap that worked well (Cornell's found-the-plans-at-Sears Lynah Rink has a prouder history than the Yale's Eero Saarinen-designed Ingalls Rink) and where not enough money was spent (the Campus Store was to have followed the curve of the hill but Cornell opted to not spend to clear out the underlying bedrock, so it's ~10 feet higher than it should be.
It would be fabulous if the indoor facility could hold fans. I said 1,000 but really even 500 would be okay. Not many soccer (M or W), field hockey, even the early-season MLax games draw more than a couple hundred. Just OK is not OK.
As for funding, Cornell's rule for buildings now is that Cornell wants not just the construction money but also money to maintain the facility for some decades into the future. Because few people are willing to donate upkeep funds to a building with somebody else's name on it.
If I recall Army (now Army West Point) has a very nice indoor practice facility, big enough for full field football practice. It has brick or brick veneer on the outside. Looks very permanent, not an eyesore.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: Ken711It is being designed as a permanent structure, not an inflatable dome that goes up and down seasonally. I doubt it would be so large as to hold 1,000 spectators for actual game use, even the permanent practice facilities at Big Ten schools aren't that large for such intended use.
Permanent is better than seasonal so long as it doesn't have aluminum siding and roof.
The campus has buildings done on the cheap that worked well (Cornell's found-the-plans-at-Sears Lynah Rink has a prouder history than the Yale's Eero Saarinen-designed Ingalls Rink) and where not enough money was spent (the Campus Store was to have followed the curve of the hill but Cornell opted to not spend to clear out the underlying bedrock, so it's ~10 feet higher than it should be.
It would be fabulous if the indoor facility could hold fans. I said 1,000 but really even 500 would be okay. Not many soccer (M or W), field hockey, even the early-season MLax games draw more than a couple hundred. Just OK is not OK.
As for funding, Cornell's rule for buildings now is that Cornell wants not just the construction money but also money to maintain the facility for some decades into the future. Because few people are willing to donate upkeep funds to a building with somebody else's name on it.
If I recall Army (now Army West Point) has a very nice indoor practice facility, big enough for full field football practice. It has brick or brick veneer on the outside. Looks very permanent, not an eyesore.
If you're going to go, might as well go big.
How about a fabulous indoor facility with retractable roof and massive retractable windows?
just dont expect anything in less than 2-3 yrs unless some major change happens or a lot more money shows up
Quote from: billhowardIt would be fabulous if the indoor facility could hold fans. I said 1,000 but really even 500 would be okay. Not many soccer (M or W), field hockey, even the early-season MLax games draw more than a couple hundred. Just OK is not OK.
Well, suppose the U.S. men's soccer team wins the WC in, say, 2030, and the women's team wins it in 2023, 2027, and 2031. Now all this success makes soccer the national pastime, with kids clamoring to play it everywhere. Suppose also, that Cornell men's and women's soccer become signature sports, achieving hockey-like success and popularity. E.g., both teams are ranked #1 much of the year and win the NC. Make similar assumptions about lacrosse. Might not all this popularity and success increase crowd size beyond 500?
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: billhowardIt would be fabulous if the indoor facility could hold fans. I said 1,000 but really even 500 would be okay. Not many soccer (M or W), field hockey, even the early-season MLax games draw more than a couple hundred. Just OK is not OK.
Well, suppose the U.S. men's soccer team wins the WC in, say, 2030, and the women's team wins it in 2023, 2027, and 2031. Now all this success makes soccer the national pastime, with kids clamoring to play it everywhere. Suppose also, that Cornell men's and women's soccer become signature sports, achieving hockey-like success and popularity. E.g., both teams are ranked #1 much of the year and win the NC. Make similar assumptions about lacrosse. Might not all this popularity and success increase crowd size beyond 500?
About the same odds as a nuclear strike destroying the indoor practice facility.
the big issue is that once they start creating space for people to watch the exit costs for those people adds costs. just adding space for a few rows of people means the building has to be 10-20 ft wider
Quote from: upprdeckjust dont expect anything in less than 2-3 yrs unless some major change happens or a lot more money shows up
I'm sure that's true on timing. I'm just happy that it's finally in motion, I can wait a few years. The benefits for coaches on selling the recruits a new practice facility shouldn't be underestimated as well.
Quote from: upprdeckthe big issue is that once they start creating space for people to watch the exit costs for those people adds costs. just adding space for a few rows of people means the building has to be 10-20 ft wider
I agree. I don't see seating for fans as very likely at all. In all the facilities I've seen, there's maybe some standing space along the sidelines, but very little. The primary purpose for most of these facilities is for practice only.
Things can change on the timing. Just going by what I have been told. Count the construction projects on campus right now.
Quote from: Ken711Quote from: upprdeckthe big issue is that once they start creating space for people to watch the exit costs for those people adds costs. just adding space for a few rows of people means the building has to be 10-20 ft wider
I agree. I don't see seating for fans as very likely at all. In all the facilities I've seen, there's maybe some standing space along the sidelines, but very little. The primary purpose for most of these facilities is for practice only.
Seriously, I think this depends on how the new facility fits into a larger plan. If all it is is for practice, then of course practice-only makes the most sense. But if there's a plan to consolidate sports under a modern multi-use indoor facility, something more like the Carrier Dome might make more sense.
A big question is where are they going to put it? And given concerns like traffic, geographic access, etc., might it make the most sense to think of something like replacing venerable Barton Hall?
As an inhabitant on the ground floor of Barton for 32 years , I'd be all for the replacement of Barton Hall. But Barton Hall isn't going anywhere in my lifetime.
I'd venture to guess that Alumni Fields is probably the likeliest location for convenience (central location & utilities are already in place), but that would require that the University's green space language would need to be amended, and I would suspect that would be quite a fight.
Quote from: Cop at LynahAs an inhabitant on the ground floor of Barton for 32 years , I'd be all for the replacement of Barton Hall. But Barton Hall isn't going anywhere in my lifetime.
I'd venture to guess that Alumni Fields is probably the likeliest location for convenience (central location & utilities are already in place), but that would require that the University's green space language would need to be amended, and I would suspect that would be quite a fight.
Be funny - sad funny, ironic funny - if after the academics steal away all the greenspace of lower and upper alumni fields, the athletics department can't put a facility there. I'm still pissed lower alumni field went away. I like the idea of athletic facilities being on campus, not out with the polo barn and, okay, the tennis facility.
There are not a lot of locations to choose from, but the one they chose is interesting.. It could change i suppose if some donor steps up.
Quote from: mike1960If you're going to go, might as well go big. How about a fabulous indoor facility with retractable roof and massive retractable windows?
Do the building right the first time, which doesn't require a Taj Mahjal. There won't be a second chance for decades. 3-4 rows of bleachers that fold back against the wall probably like in your high school gym. Or an adjoining raised box stretching between the 30 yard lines with viewing windows cut in, high-up on the wall, so the main roof doesn't have to be expanded. There could be a ground level for officials dressing room, replay room (you know that's going to be a thing), restrooms, trainer/medical space, maybe a changing area. You could do the same thing at one of the end zones.
Maybe the NCAA codifies rules for lax, soccer that allow play-on if the ball hits the roof and deflects downward in the direction of travel but not backwards and not if it goes directly into the goal. After you've seen American Gladiators, no rule seems bizarre.
Five hundred spectator seats would be adequate for most of last year's February and March men's lacrosse games. All of the games were played in not-bitter cold that would have further depressed attendance. Even versus Penn, the marquee matchup of 2019, barely drew 600. The traditional season finale vs. Princeton only drew 792.
Early 2019 MLax games at Schoellkopf, attendance:
342 2/24 Bucknell (weather mid-40s)
351 3/19 St Bonaventure 3/19 (weather low-40s)
614 3/23 Penn 3/23 (weather, mid-40s)
510 3/30 Dartmouth 3/30 (weather mid-60s) The modest attendance for Cornell field sports also speaks to the need for a jewel of an outdoor lacrosse-soccer field like Princeton's Class of 1952 field, the one with stands / pressbox on one side for 3,000, low bleachers on the other for another thousand, all ringed by tall evergreens. The current Cornell soccer field feels blah. At Schoellopf, it feels as if you're rattling around a stadium too big for everything except commencement and the Homecoming fireworks. But first, the indoor facility.
Quote from: upprdeckThere are not a lot of locations to choose from, but the one they chose is interesting.. It could change i suppose if some donor steps up.
There are two grass fields remaining on Alumni Field. Cornell could build atop the Crescent lot. Or atop Campus Road and depress the roadway for 300 feet.
If Schoellkopf were ever replaced, it could be moved east or west by ~20 yards. Short term if the playing surface was bumped right up against the edge of the Crescent (rip up the unused track), the fans would sit closer to the action, and there'd be room for a smaller west stands with, perhaps, an awning to keep 1,000 hardy fans dry in not warm. I can't imagine anything happening to the Crescent itself for decades; just keep patching it up. And if it got replaced by a 15,000 seat stadium, where would you do commencement?
BU put an Astroturf field over a new parking garage next to Nickerson Field. Astroturf is the preferred surface for field hockey but for other sports it's harder and more abrasive when you fall. Deck and field, press box, ~1,000 seats, and lights were about $25M.
I worry Cornell will say things such as, "Academic buildings have to come first." Maybe so. But Homecoming isn't held to celebrate Klarman Hall.
All the parking issues on campus they could have done the same thing when they did the fball field.. Go down 5-10 ft and raise the field a small but and boom hundreds of parking spaces..
With the millions spent to fix the crescent thats gonna stay around for awhile.
It has been a while since I sat in on athletics advisory council meetings and similar events but I recall that the long-term master plan for campus has new athletics facilities moving away from central campus. This is controversial but the expansion of academic buildings makes it harder to accommodate both kinds of activities there. That is one reason why Gates Hall looms over Hoy Field -- Hoy Field is likely to be relocated one of these days and replaced with non-athletic buildings. So an indoor "practice" facility most likely will not be anywhere close to Barton.
Quote from: dag14It has been a while since I sat in on athletics advisory council meetings and similar events but I recall that the long-term master plan for campus has new athletics facilities moving away from central campus. This is controversial but the expansion of academic buildings makes it harder to accommodate both kinds of activities there. That is one reason why Gates Hall looms over Hoy Field -- Hoy Field is likely to be relocated one of these days and replaced with non-athletic buildings. So an indoor "practice" facility most likely will not be anywhere close to Barton.
Perhaps you are referring to the Game Farm Road complex.
https://fcs.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/imce/site_contributor/Dept_University_Architect_and_Campus_Planning/documents/Campus_Planning/Game%20Farm%20Road%20Athletic%20Complex%20Facilities%20Master%20Plan.pdf
Quote from: Ken711Quote from: dag14It has been a while since I sat in on athletics advisory council meetings and similar events but I recall that the long-term master plan for campus has new athletics facilities moving away from central campus. This is controversial but the expansion of academic buildings makes it harder to accommodate both kinds of activities there. That is one reason why Gates Hall looms over Hoy Field -- Hoy Field is likely to be relocated one of these days and replaced with non-athletic buildings. So an indoor "practice" facility most likely will not be anywhere close to Barton.
Perhaps you are referring to the Game Farm Road complex.
https://fcs.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/imce/site_contributor/Dept_University_Architect_and_Campus_Planning/documents/Campus_Planning/Game%20Farm%20Road%20Athletic%20Complex%20Facilities%20Master%20Plan.pdf
Thanks!
Too bad there isn't a quick tennis emoji (which is what I want). I'm the guy on the right getting the dope slap. ::twak::
The campus master plan pre-dates the link you reference by at least 15 years but this shows that it has been conceded that Athletics is being displaced
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: SwampyQuote from: billhowardIt would be fabulous if the indoor facility could hold fans. I said 1,000 but really even 500 would be okay. Not many soccer (M or W), field hockey, even the early-season MLax games draw more than a couple hundred. Just OK is not OK.
Well, suppose the U.S. men's soccer team wins the WC in, say, 2030, and the women's team wins it in 2023, 2027, and 2031. Now all this success makes soccer the national pastime, with kids clamoring to play it everywhere. Suppose also, that Cornell men's and women's soccer become signature sports, achieving hockey-like success and popularity. E.g., both teams are ranked #1 much of the year and win the NC. Make similar assumptions about lacrosse. Might not all this popularity and success increase crowd size beyond 500?
About the same odds as a nuclear strike destroying the indoor practice facility.
Good one, Al.:-D
Quote from: TimVQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: SwampyQuote from: billhowardIt would be fabulous if the indoor facility could hold fans. I said 1,000 but really even 500 would be okay. Not many soccer (M or W), field hockey, even the early-season MLax games draw more than a couple hundred. Just OK is not OK.
Well, suppose the U.S. men's soccer team wins the WC in, say, 2030, and the women's team wins it in 2023, 2027, and 2031. Now all this success makes soccer the national pastime, with kids clamoring to play it everywhere. Suppose also, that Cornell men's and women's soccer become signature sports, achieving hockey-like success and popularity. E.g., both teams are ranked #1 much of the year and win the NC. Make similar assumptions about lacrosse. Might not all this popularity and success increase crowd size beyond 500?
About the same odds as a nuclear strike destroying the indoor practice facility.
Good one, Al.:-D
Is there still a nuclear reactor on campus?
Quote from: dag14The campus master plan pre-dates the link you reference by at least 15 years but this shows that it has been conceded that Athletics is being displaced
That is probably the long term fate of on-campus athletics facilities: They get moved farther away. Still,it's a shame.
Cornell did not - my opinion - give enough consideration to higher-density central campus academic buildings and this goes back to making Uris Hall (1973) just four above-ground floors. I wonder if the AD White House and its extensive grounds will ever serve a higher (density) purpose. Cornell could also buy up more of Collegetown for academic buildings. If Pine Tree Road area is the future of Cornell athletics, the loooong term plan needs to relocate football and hockey there. Be nice if Cornell keeps Teagle Hall as a fit-rec center for students.
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: TimVQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: SwampyQuote from: billhowardIt would be fabulous if the indoor facility could hold fans. I said 1,000 but really even 500 would be okay. Not many soccer (M or W), field hockey, even the early-season MLax games draw more than a couple hundred. Just OK is not OK.
Well, suppose the U.S. men's soccer team wins the WC in, say, 2030, and the women's team wins it in 2023, 2027, and 2031. Now all this success makes soccer the national pastime, with kids clamoring to play it everywhere. Suppose also, that Cornell men's and women's soccer become signature sports, achieving hockey-like success and popularity. E.g., both teams are ranked #1 much of the year and win the NC. Make similar assumptions about lacrosse. Might not all this popularity and success increase crowd size beyond 500?
About the same odds as a nuclear strike destroying the indoor practice facility.
Good one, Al.:-D
Is there still a nuclear reactor on campus?
Nope. Closed in 2002.
I took a reactor design course sophomore year, and it was pretty cool seeing the reactor in operation. You could actually see it working because of the Cherenkov Radiation.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: dag14The campus master plan pre-dates the link you reference by at least 15 years but this shows that it has been conceded that Athletics is being displaced
That is probably the long term fate of on-campus athletics facilities: They get moved farther away. Still,it's a shame.
Cornell did not - my opinion - give enough consideration to higher-density central campus academic buildings and this goes back to making Uris Hall (1973) just four above-ground floors. I wonder if the AD White House and its extensive grounds will ever serve a higher (density) purpose. Cornell could also buy up more of Collegetown for academic buildings. If Pine Tree Road area is the future of Cornell athletics, the loooong term plan needs to relocate football and hockey there. Be nice if Cornell keeps Teagle Hall as a fit-rec center for students.
FWIW, the idea of the sports facilities being located a short distance from campus works pretty well at Lehigh. The key is parking for visitors and transportation for students.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: dag14The campus master plan pre-dates the link you reference by at least 15 years but this shows that it has been conceded that Athletics is being displaced
That is probably the long term fate of on-campus athletics facilities: They get moved farther away. Still,it's a shame.
Cornell did not - my opinion - give enough consideration to higher-density central campus academic buildings and this goes back to making Uris Hall (1973) just four above-ground floors. I wonder if the AD White House and its extensive grounds will ever serve a higher (density) purpose. Cornell could also buy up more of Collegetown for academic buildings. If Pine Tree Road area is the future of Cornell athletics, the loooong term plan needs to relocate football and hockey there. Be nice if Cornell keeps Teagle Hall as a fit-rec center for students.
+1
Quote from: dag14The campus master plan pre-dates the link you reference by at least 15 years but this shows that it has been conceded that Athletics is being displaced
The document at the end of the link is dated 2015. It refers to a "2008 Cornell Master Plan" (p. 4). 15-8 = 7, just ask osorojo.
Also, the term "field" appears 234 times in the document; "indoor" appears 3 times, and never in relation to anything the plan actually proposes:
- "The Lindseth Climbing Wall was the best of its kind when it first went up and still is the largest natural rock indoor climbing wall in North America."
- "Ideally Athletics would like to fit all sports in a new indoor multi-purpose facility because they could practice to late hours without any neighbor complaints of lights/noise" [or errant lacrosse balls]
- "Batting Cage(s) (indoor preferred)" [see comment about lacrosse balls]
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: billhowardQuote from: dag14The campus master plan pre-dates the link you reference by at least 15 years but this shows that it has been conceded that Athletics is being displaced
That is probably the long term fate of on-campus athletics facilities: They get moved farther away. Still,it's a shame.
Cornell did not - my opinion - give enough consideration to higher-density central campus academic buildings and this goes back to making Uris Hall (1973) just four above-ground floors. I wonder if the AD White House and its extensive grounds will ever serve a higher (density) purpose. Cornell could also buy up more of Collegetown for academic buildings. If Pine Tree Road area is the future of Cornell athletics, the loooong term plan needs to relocate football and hockey there. Be nice if Cornell keeps Teagle Hall as a fit-rec center for students.
FWIW, the idea of the sports facilities being located a short distance from campus works pretty well at Lehigh. The key is parking for visitors and transportation for students.
When I visited Lehigh last year with my son to take a tour, I didn't like that the athletic facilities were not part of the "main" campus.
would anything on game farm be any further than the walk for PSU from downtown to the football stadium? 5-10 min walk but vastly easier parking up there.
SU half the people park and ride a bus into games.
This is not like Uconn with the stadium being 1/2 hr from campus.
Nope , Ward Lab decommissioned several years ago
Quote from: upprdeckwould anything on game farm be any further than the walk for PSU from downtown to the football stadium? 5-10 min walk but vastly easier parking up there.
SU half the people park and ride a bus into games.
This is not like Uconn with the stadium being 1/2 hr from campus.
I think that location will be close enough with the added advantage as you indicated of easier parking access,
I realize that the doc refers to 2008; however, the Trustees, et al were in favor of moving athletics off campus way before that. Coming up with a precise alternative location didn't happen until this millennium.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: SwampyQuote from: TimVQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: SwampyQuote from: billhowardIt would be fabulous if the indoor facility could hold fans. I said 1,000 but really even 500 would be okay. Not many soccer (M or W), field hockey, even the early-season MLax games draw more than a couple hundred. Just OK is not OK.
Well, suppose the U.S. men's soccer team wins the WC in, say, 2030, and the women's team wins it in 2023, 2027, and 2031. Now all this success makes soccer the national pastime, with kids clamoring to play it everywhere. Suppose also, that Cornell men's and women's soccer become signature sports, achieving hockey-like success and popularity. E.g., both teams are ranked #1 much of the year and win the NC. Make similar assumptions about lacrosse. Might not all this popularity and success increase crowd size beyond 500?
About the same odds as a nuclear strike destroying the indoor practice facility.
Good one, Al.:-D
Is there still a nuclear reactor on campus?
Nope. Closed in 2002.
I took a reactor design course sophomore year, and it was pretty cool seeing the reactor in operation. You could actually see it working because of the Cherenkov Radiation.
The cyclotron footprint is in an interesting location. If I knew this I was still surprised to see it depicted like this.
(https://www.classe.cornell.edu/rsrc/Home/Research/CESR/WebHome/cesr_aerial.jpg)
Quote from: martyQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: SwampyQuote from: TimVQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: SwampyQuote from: billhowardIt would be fabulous if the indoor facility could hold fans. I said 1,000 but really even 500 would be okay. Not many soccer (M or W), field hockey, even the early-season MLax games draw more than a couple hundred. Just OK is not OK.
Well, suppose the U.S. men's soccer team wins the WC in, say, 2030, and the women's team wins it in 2023, 2027, and 2031. Now all this success makes soccer the national pastime, with kids clamoring to play it everywhere. Suppose also, that Cornell men's and women's soccer become signature sports, achieving hockey-like success and popularity. E.g., both teams are ranked #1 much of the year and win the NC. Make similar assumptions about lacrosse. Might not all this popularity and success increase crowd size beyond 500?
About the same odds as a nuclear strike destroying the indoor practice facility.
Good one, Al.:-D
Is there still a nuclear reactor on campus?
Nope. Closed in 2002.
I took a reactor design course sophomore year, and it was pretty cool seeing the reactor in operation. You could actually see it working because of the Cherenkov Radiation.
The cyclotron footprint is in an interesting location. If I knew this I was still surprised to see it depicted like this.
(https://www.classe.cornell.edu/rsrc/Home/Research/CESR/WebHome/cesr_aerial.jpg)
I'm nit-picking, but it's a synchrotron, not a cyclotron.
Quote from: David HardingQuote from: martyQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: SwampyQuote from: TimVQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: SwampyQuote from: billhowardIt would be fabulous if the indoor facility could hold fans. I said 1,000 but really even 500 would be okay. Not many soccer (M or W), field hockey, even the early-season MLax games draw more than a couple hundred. Just OK is not OK.
Well, suppose the U.S. men's soccer team wins the WC in, say, 2030, and the women's team wins it in 2023, 2027, and 2031. Now all this success makes soccer the national pastime, with kids clamoring to play it everywhere. Suppose also, that Cornell men's and women's soccer become signature sports, achieving hockey-like success and popularity. E.g., both teams are ranked #1 much of the year and win the NC. Make similar assumptions about lacrosse. Might not all this popularity and success increase crowd size beyond 500?
About the same odds as a nuclear strike destroying the indoor practice facility.
Good one, Al.:-D
Is there still a nuclear reactor on campus?
Nope. Closed in 2002.
I took a reactor design course sophomore year, and it was pretty cool seeing the reactor in operation. You could actually see it working because of the Cherenkov Radiation.
The cyclotron footprint is in an interesting location. If I knew this I was still surprised to see it depicted like this.
(https://www.classe.cornell.edu/rsrc/Home/Research/CESR/WebHome/cesr_aerial.jpg)
I'm nit-picking, but it's was a synchrotron, not a cyclotron.
FYP::burnout::
hmm.
cornell cyclotron tour (https://www.cornell.edu/tour/Cyclotron_Node2a)
Quote from: upprdeckhmm.
cornell cyclotron tour (https://www.cornell.edu/tour/Cyclotron_Node2a)
https://www.machinedesign.com/learning-resources/whats-the-difference-between/article/21832184/what-are-the-differences-between-linear-accelerators-cyclotrons-and-synchrotrons
Thats over my head..
So which does Cornell have since they have it posted both ways?
cornell synchrotron (https://www.chess.cornell.edu/)
Quote from: upprdeckThats over my head..
So which does Cornell have since they have it posted both ways?
cornell synchrotron (https://www.chess.cornell.edu/)
It is a synchrotron. The only place it's referenced as a cyclotron by my googling is in the titles of that virtual tour you linked to. CHESS stands for Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source.
Cyclotron —> spiral
Synchrotron —> circle
I guess.. i leave that to the experts from this site its neither.
its collider (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accelerators_in_particle_physics#Cyclotrons)
from what i see we built a cyclotron in 1935
and from here posted in 2020 about cornell research its a cyclotroncyclotron research (https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.02819)
I know last time i was in it which was about 2 yrs ago they called it a cyclotron.
maybe we have both a CSER and a CHESS
its listed as 2 devices. (http://www-elsa.physik.uni-bonn.de/accelerator_list.html)
i think this explains it
the book of answers (https://books.google.com/books?id=NC9YydnRiiwC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=cornell+Cyclotron&source=bl&ots=7TKNO3X4cS&sig=ACfU3U1KjOOBM2-XwakcApszp-kIRkANUA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_-K6Ck_fnAhWkgXIEHabMApA4PBDoATADegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=cornell%20Cyclotron&f=false)
Quote from: upprdeckI guess.. i leave that to the experts from this site its neither.
its collider (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accelerators_in_particle_physics#Cyclotrons)
from what i see we built a cyclotron in 1935
and from here posted in 2020 about cornell research its a cyclotron cyclotron research (https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.02819)
I know last time i was in it which was about 2 yrs ago they called it a cyclotron.
maybe we have both a CSER and a CHESS
its listed as 2 devices. (http://www-elsa.physik.uni-bonn.de/accelerator_list.html)
i think this explains it
the book of answers (https://books.google.com/books?id=NC9YydnRiiwC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=cornell+Cyclotron&source=bl&ots=7TKNO3X4cS&sig=ACfU3U1KjOOBM2-XwakcApszp-kIRkANUA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_-K6Ck_fnAhWkgXIEHabMApA4PBDoATADegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=cornell%20Cyclotron&f=false)
Good sleuthing.
The Berkelman book ("the book of answers" ) does explain the history well. The tunnel was first excavated in the 1960's to house a synchrotron when the basement of Newman Lab was no longer big enough to hold the next generation synchrotron that Cornell physicists wanted to build. They had been on the cutting edge of accelerator construction since synchrotrons replaced cyclotrons as the highest energy particle accelerators in the late 1940's. Both cyclotrons and synchrotrons accelerate particles, usually electrons or protons (or their anti-particles), for use in experiments, but synchrotrons can reach far higher energies, making them more exciting to physicists who study particle collisions. Cyclotrons are still important, but in other fields.
In the 1970's it was time for the next step, which was to build a second ring of magnets in the same tunnel to store a beam of electrons that had been accelerated by the synchrotron along with a beam of anti-electrons (AKA positrons), also accelerated by the synchrotron, going in the other direction. The particles collided head on, providing much more energy to produce new particles. That was the collider known as CESR. (Cornell Electron Storage Ring.) With upgrades, CESR ran from 1979-2009.
A byproduct of bending high energy electrons is high energy x-rays known as synchrotron radiation or synchrotron light. Cornell physicists realized in the 1970's that they could use those x-rays to study material properties and started using some of those otherwise wasted x-rays. In the 1990's a facility was built to enhance the production of that synchrotron light, making it a "light source", called CHESS (Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source). With upgrades, CHESS is still an active enterprise. (further reading (https://www.chess.cornell.edu/about/news/history-science-cornell-high-energy-synchrotron-source))
The linked article on "cyclotron research" is stored on a web site hosted by Cornell, but is a theoretical paper from the University of Tokyo. It reports calculations about a phenomenon that takes its name from one of the key concepts of the operation of a cyclotron (a cyclotron resonance), but does not use the Cornell facilities.
Very informative discussion.
So 'splan this to me Lucy: what is a "linear accelerator" (as in "Stanford Linear Accelerator Center" - SLAC (https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/about/slac-overview/about-our-name)) and why would anyone use one after synchrotrons were invented? (I should know this.)
Quote from: SwampyVery informative discussion.
So 'splan this to me Lucy: what is a "linear accelerator" (as in "Stanford Linear Accelerator Center" - SLAC (https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/about/slac-overview/about-our-name)) and why would anyone use one after synchrotrons were invented? (I should know this.)
From the link (https://www.machinedesign.com/learning-resources/whats-the-difference-between/article/21832184/what-are-the-differences-between-linear-accelerators-cyclotrons-and-synchrotrons) I posted above that's over upperdeck's head:
QuoteLinacs can accelerate heavy ions to speeds not possible with ring-type accelerators (cyclotrons and synchrotrons), because they are limited by the strength of the magnetic fields needed to keep the ions on their curved path. Linacs are also better for sending electrons up to relativistic speeds because electrons lose energy (and speed) through radiation when they travel along an arc. But linacs require lots of real estate, making them costly to build.
Quote from: martyQuote from: David HardingQuote from: martyQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: SwampyQuote from: TimVQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: SwampyQuote from: billhowardIt would be fabulous if the indoor facility could hold fans. I said 1,000 but really even 500 would be okay. Not many soccer (M or W), field hockey, even the early-season MLax games draw more than a couple hundred. Just OK is not OK.
Well, suppose the U.S. men's soccer team wins the WC in, say, 2030, and the women's team wins it in 2023, 2027, and 2031. Now all this success makes soccer the national pastime, with kids clamoring to play it everywhere. Suppose also, that Cornell men's and women's soccer become signature sports, achieving hockey-like success and popularity. E.g., both teams are ranked #1 much of the year and win the NC. Make similar assumptions about lacrosse. Might not all this popularity and success increase crowd size beyond 500?
About the same odds as a nuclear strike destroying the indoor practice facility.
Good one, Al.:-D
Is there still a nuclear reactor on campus?
Nope. Closed in 2002.
I took a reactor design course sophomore year, and it was pretty cool seeing the reactor in operation. You could actually see it working because of the Cherenkov Radiation.
The cyclotron footprint is in an interesting location. If I knew this I was still surprised to see it depicted like this.
(https://www.classe.cornell.edu/rsrc/Home/Research/CESR/WebHome/cesr_aerial.jpg)
I'm nit-picking, but it's was a synchrotron, not a cyclotron.
FYP::burnout::
The synchrotron continues to run, feeding the storage ring, which is used a synchrotron light source. The present tense is correct.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: SwampyVery informative discussion.
So 'splan this to me Lucy: what is a "linear accelerator" (as in "Stanford Linear Accelerator Center" - SLAC (https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/about/slac-overview/about-our-name)) and why would anyone use one after synchrotrons were invented? (I should know this.)
From the link (https://www.machinedesign.com/learning-resources/whats-the-difference-between/article/21832184/what-are-the-differences-between-linear-accelerators-cyclotrons-and-synchrotrons) I posted above that's over upperdeck's head:
QuoteLinacs can accelerate heavy ions to speeds not possible with ring-type accelerators (cyclotrons and synchrotrons), because they are limited by the strength of the magnetic fields needed to keep the ions on their curved path. Linacs are also better for sending electrons up to relativistic speeds because electrons lose energy (and speed) through radiation when they travel along an arc. But linacs require lots of real estate, making them costly to build.
The linked article is generally a pretty good explanation, with the exception of the first quoted sentence which is just plain wrong. The highest energy accelerators we have built are all circular machines. Just look at the tables in the Wikipedia article linked above. There is a concept that has been floating around for 20+ years for a pair of linear accelerators with their beams aimed at each other to produce high energy collisions. It's called the International linear Collider (ILC). It's still in the distant future. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a circular accelerator whose particles reach ~25 time the energy of the ILC. It's been running for over ten years. Before that, the Fermilab Tevatron, another circular machine, was the highest energy machine in the world for ~25 years at almost 4 times the energy of the ILC. Even electrons can do very well in high energy circular machines, as demonstrated by the Large Electron-Positron Collider (LEP).
The gizmos that give the particles you are accelerating a push are called radio frequency accelerating cavities. One pass through a cavity increases the particle's energy by a certain amount. If you want to give the particles lots of energy, you have two choices: make a linear accelerator where the particles go through a long line of accelerating cavities or make a circular accelerator where they go through the same small set of cavities over and over again.
Trying to answer the question why use a linac:
1) A linac can produce an essentially continuous beam of particles. (A cyclotron can, too.) A synchrotron produces pulses of particles.
2) A linac can can produce an intense beam of electrons with a narrower spread in particle energies.
::deadhorse::
Quoteelectrons lose energy (and speed) through radiation when they travel along an arc
Huh. I always thought that from the electron's POV it wasn't an arc, it was a straight line through space that happened to be curved through no fault or concern of the electron.
This whole discussion is fascinating; thank you everyone who is contributing. I could read about this stuff all day.
Beats workin'.
Quote from: TrotskyQuoteelectrons lose energy (and speed) through radiation when they travel along an arc
Huh. I always thought that from the electron's POV it wasn't an arc, it was a straight line through space that happened to be curved through no fault or concern of the electron.
This whole discussion is fascinating; thank you everyone who is contributing. I could read about this stuff all day.
Beats workin'.
I suppose that from the electron's POV the whole world around it could be turning, but the electron would have to be pushing hard to make it so. The energy that the electron radiates is the synchrotron light I mentioned above. It's a curse if you want to push the electrons to higher energy. If you want high energy x-rays, it's a blessing.
This is my work.
Quote from: David HardingQuote from: TrotskyQuoteelectrons lose energy (and speed) through radiation when they travel along an arc
Huh. I always thought that from the electron's POV it wasn't an arc, it was a straight line through space that happened to be curved through no fault or concern of the electron.
This whole discussion is fascinating; thank you everyone who is contributing. I could read about this stuff all day.
Beats workin'.
I suppose that from the electron's POV the whole world around it could be turning, but the electron would have to be pushing hard to make it so. The energy that the electron radiates is the synchrotron light I mentioned above. It's a curse if you want to push the electrons to higher energy. If you want high energy x-rays, it's a blessing.
This is my work.
Nice drift. The picture I scouted was due to my curiosity concerning how much space the Wilson buildings and surroundings included. The slope of the ground makes this an absurd question. And the cyclo/synchro banker makes me humble squared.
Quote from: David HardingThis is my work.
Thanks for discussing! Your insight and clarifications are very much appreciated. I'm just a guy with a couple Physics degrees and a penchant for googling.
Andy said, on a recent football podcast with Dave Archer, that $18.5MM has been raised for the indoor practice facility (about 75% of total cost). Would be used by football, lacrosse, club teams. & intramurals. Get out your checkbooks. Would be a large, free standing building. And a game changer.
Quote from: CASAndy said, on a recent football podcast with Dave Archer, that $18.5MM has been raised for the indoor practice facility (about 75% of total cost). Would be used by football, lacrosse, club teams. & intramurals. Get out your checkbooks. Would be a large, free standing building. And a game changer.
This is known as "putting your money where your mouth is."
at this point it might get delayed but a few yrs
Quote from: upprdeckat this point it might get delayed but a few yrs
Horrible timing by the virus :/
I was told it was already a few yrs off from happening before any of this happened.. I dont think it was ever past the initial money for pre-design.
Quote from: CASAndy said, on a recent football podcast with Dave Archer, that $18.5MM has been raised for the indoor practice facility (about 75% of total cost). Would be used by football, lacrosse, club teams. & intramurals. Get out your checkbooks. Would be a large, free standing building. And a game changer.
Looks like they have a great start with the construction funding. It's supposed to be a design similar to Dartmouth's facility which was planned to have their dedication ceremony on May 1.
https://campus-services.dartmouth.edu/projects/projects-construction/indoor-practice-facility
As per Andy's announcement Darmouth's facility is only 75 yards long. Cornell's will contain a full football field and it will also be able to hold regular season men's and women's lacrosse games.
Would it be too much to ask to set aside a small space for a golf simulator to be set up. I can't remember which other Ivy has that but one has that available to be used by students/staff/faculty
Would be great to have an indoor facility to hold February lax games.
Quote from: rss77As per Andy's announcement Darmouth's facility is only 75 yards long. Cornell's will contain a full football field and it will also be able to hold regular season men's and women's lacrosse games.
Nice,
Quote from: Ken711Quote from: CASAndy said, on a recent football podcast with Dave Archer, that $18.5MM has been raised for the indoor practice facility (about 75% of total cost). Would be used by football, lacrosse, club teams. & intramurals. Get out your checkbooks. Would be a large, free standing building. And a game changer.
Looks like they have a great start with the construction funding. It's supposed to be a design similar to Dartmouth's facility which was planned to have their dedication ceremony on May 1.
https://campus-services.dartmouth.edu/projects/projects-construction/indoor-practice-facility
I went to look at the pix of Dartmouth's facility and found the quote on a wall in one of the pix.
"Dear old Dartmouth, give a rouse
For the College on the hill..."
I never thought of Dartmouth as being on a hill. So I pulled a topo map. (https://store.usgs.gov/map-locator)
I guess if you are in the river, it's on a hill. But as you drive in, well it's not much of a hill to me.
Quote from: Jim HylaI guess if you are in the river, it's on a hill. But as you drive in, well it's not much of a hill to me.
The text for Dartmouth's Alma Mater (https://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/rauner/dartmouth/alma_mater.html) seems to have been written in 1894, the music in 1908. When the text was written, most students, I imagine, traveled north from White River Junction on the Connecticut & Passumpsic Railroad, which eventually became part of the Boston & Maine. The station was in Lewiston, at the bottom of the hill, along the river.
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: Jim HylaI guess if you are in the river, it's on a hill. But as you drive in, well it's not much of a hill to me.
The text for Dartmouth's Alma Mater (https://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/rauner/dartmouth/alma_mater.html) seems to have been written in 1894, the music in 1908. When the text was written, most students, I imagine, traveled north from White River Junction on the Connecticut & Passumpsic Railroad, which eventually became part of the Boston & Maine. The station was in Lewiston, at the bottom of the hill, along the river.
I guess, I certainly can't come up with another explanation. Once you're on campus it seems pretty flat to me.
To me, CU & SU are examples of schools on a hill.
Quote from: Jim HylaTo me, CU & SU are examples of schools on a hill.
There are probably school songs for midwestern colleges that rattle on about the school "on the hill." If you're from the coastal plain, that tiny rise up from the river to Dartmouth probably seems like a hill; if you're from the mountains, not so much. Many probably didn't get around as much back then.
For me, Cornell was the school "down the road"—I grew up on further north "on the ridge."
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: Jim HylaI guess if you are in the river, it's on a hill. But as you drive in, well it's not much of a hill to me.
The text for Dartmouth's Alma Mater (https://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/rauner/dartmouth/alma_mater.html) seems to have been written in 1894, the music in 1908. When the text was written, most students, I imagine, traveled north from White River Junction on the Connecticut & Passumpsic Railroad, which eventually became part of the Boston & Maine. The station was in Lewiston, at the bottom of the hill, along the river.
I guess, I certainly can't come up with another explanation. Once you're on campus it seems pretty flat to me.
To me, CU & SU are examples of schools on a hill.
And Lehigh.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: Jim HylaI guess if you are in the river, it's on a hill. But as you drive in, well it's not much of a hill to me.
The text for Dartmouth's Alma Mater (https://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/rauner/dartmouth/alma_mater.html) seems to have been written in 1894, the music in 1908. When the text was written, most students, I imagine, traveled north from White River Junction on the Connecticut & Passumpsic Railroad, which eventually became part of the Boston & Maine. The station was in Lewiston, at the bottom of the hill, along the river.
I guess, I certainly can't come up with another explanation. Once you're on campus it seems pretty flat to me.
To me, CU & SU are examples of schools on a hill.
And Lehigh.
And Colgate
The NJ town two over from us is Mountainside. Elevation 230 feet.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82And Lehigh.
Amen. Much of Lehigh's main academic campus is built on the equivalent of Libe Slope, with dorms at the top.
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: Jim HylaI guess if you are in the river, it's on a hill. But as you drive in, well it's not much of a hill to me.
The text for Dartmouth's Alma Mater (https://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/rauner/dartmouth/alma_mater.html) seems to have been written in 1894, the music in 1908. When the text was written, most students, I imagine, traveled north from White River Junction on the Connecticut & Passumpsic Railroad, which eventually became part of the Boston & Maine. The station was in Lewiston, at the bottom of the hill, along the river.
I guess, I certainly can't come up with another explanation. Once you're on campus it seems pretty flat to me.
To me, CU & SU are examples of schools on a hill.
And Lehigh.
And Colgate
and uvm
On the lax town hall, Andy reiterated that $18.5 million of the $25 million total cost (including a $2MM maintenance endowment) had been raised for the indoor practice facility. He said the project has President Pollack's full support & was confident it would be built.
Noel also noted that construction is at least a year out and given the pandemic issues he is comfortable with the timing [since it likely would have been put on hold anyway]. He also discussed potential locations with 2 central campus locations in the running. He favors putting it where the field hockey turf currently sits; the President et al prefer the spot east of the soccer field where the shot put, discus, et al throwing happens. Also noted it would be a big building with room for spectators.
Quote from: CASOn the lax town hall, Andy reiterated that $18.5 million of the $25 million total cost (including a $2MM maintenance endowment) had been raised for the indoor practice facility. He said the project has President Pollack's full support & was confident it would be built.
Thanks for the update.
first Time I have seen actual mention so of the spots in the public. I know they were no releasing that info for a long time. with the money hurt the school has now will future money go there or to helping the college survive.
Quote from: upprdeckfirst Time I have seen actual mention so of the spots in the public. I know they were no releasing that info for a long time. with the money hurt the school has now will future money go there or to helping the college survive.
I believe it won't change where the money supporting athletics and this facility specifically is raised for.
No the point is that with the fund raising the school is doing to close the budget gap, how many people will be giving to athletics vs the general fund vs specific other issues on campus.
Quote from: dag14Noel also noted that construction is at least a year out and given the pandemic issues he is comfortable with the timing [since it likely would have been put on hold anyway]. He also discussed potential locations with 2 central campus locations in the running. He favors putting it where the field hockey turf currently sits; the President et al prefer the spot east of the soccer field where the shot put, discus, et al throwing happens. Also noted it would be a big building with room for spectators.
For those who need as much help as I did visualizing the sites, here's a map. https://goo.gl/maps/xjxNVHREc1PLHRmz9 For scale, the official field hockey field length is 100 yards, while lacrosse is 110 yards.