| | 41 | |
| | 42 | ---- |
| | 43 | |
| | 44 | == Notes: == |
| | 45 | |
| | 46 | **//Wednesday meeting//:** |
| | 47 | |
| | 48 | **Present:** AK, OE, DC, WL, KL, JPo \\ |
| | 49 | **Phone:** CH, SB, JPar |
| | 50 | |
| | 51 | Notes of the two meetings (Wednesday and Friday) will be combined. |
| | 52 | |
| | 53 | 1. [wiki:Research/DesignStudy/Proposals/2019/EPSRC-Transformative-Healthcare-Technologies-2050 EPSRC proposal] status and timeline: KL |
| | 54 | * [raw-attachment:2019-06-05.pdf Summary] slide prepared to guide the discussion. |
| | 55 | * We noted the need to respect departmental guidelines to complete |
| | 56 | proposal ahead of the final deadline so that it can be reviewed by |
| | 57 | experienced wise men. |
| | 58 | 1. Brief discussion of related proposal to [wiki:Research/DesignStudy/Proposals/2019/STFC-2019-Opportunities/ STFC Opportunities 2019 call]: KL / All |
| | 59 | * The goal of this proposal will be to secure resources to prepare an |
| | 60 | initial CDR for LhARA, to refurbish an existing beam-line at |
| | 61 | Clatterbridge to serve radiobiology experiments and serve as a LhARA |
| | 62 | test bed, and to place the UK at the heart of the new 'international |
| | 63 | Radiobiology Collaboration' that was recently formed at a meeting at |
| | 64 | GSI. The refurbished beam-line with have proton FLASH capability so |
| | 65 | will be well aligned with the principal thrusts of the LhARA facility. |
| | 66 | * The budget will be taylored to support 6-months post-doc effort at |
| | 67 | Imperial and Liverpool, £20k--£30k for the beam-line refurbishment, |
| | 68 | and netorking resources for the UK and international collaboration |
| | 69 | building. |
| | 70 | 1. Layout and footprint: All |
| | 71 | * Two documents that may aid the discussion here: |
| | 72 | * [wiki:Communication/Conferences/2019/05-19-IPAC/ Paper submitted to IPAC19] |
| | 73 | * Old document describing the layout: https://ccap.hep.ph.ic.ac.uk/trac/raw-attachment/wiki/Research/DesignStudy/Documents/Archive/2016-03-22-Imperial-CCT.pdf |
| | 74 | * Draughtsperson effort and access to infrastructure providers has been secured at RAL. |
| | 75 | We noted the imperative to feed appropriate input to the engineer. We agreed that: |
| | 76 | * OE will proved footprint of laser source; |
| | 77 | * JPa will provide layout, supported by JPo and AK; |
| | 78 | * JPar will provide layout for end-station. |
| | 79 | * Starting point for draughting will be the 2016 document. |
| | 80 | 1. Towards a project plan: discussion by work package: |
| | 81 | * End-to-end simulation and performance: DC / All |
| | 82 | * DC outlined the content of the wp which would incude accelerator |
| | 83 | simulation, development of 'G4DNA' applications, consideration of |
| | 84 | treatment-planning enhancements, etc. SB emphasised the expertise |
| | 85 | on, e.g., BDSIM at RHUL and their intention to develop into G4DNA. |
| | 86 | WL noted the successful collaboration with Maxeler on the |
| | 87 | acceleration of relevant treatment-planning codes. |
| | 88 | * Laser-driven particle source: OE, ZN / All |
| | 89 | * (OE) principal issue will be the decision to buy a full system |
| | 90 | versus building one from stratch. Issues of cost, risk, and |
| | 91 | effort. |
| | 92 | * OE will liaise with ZN. |
| | 93 | * Ion-beam capture and initial focus: JPo / All |
| | 94 | * Status of the prototype lens at Imperial is that the lens is now |
| | 95 | operational, but, the alphas from the americium source do not make |
| | 96 | it to the scintillator. This is being investigated. |
| | 97 | * For the proposal, it will be assumed that the focusing has been |
| | 98 | observed using the present prototpype. The work plan will |
| | 99 | therefore be second prototype manufacture, commissioning and |
| | 100 | characterisation and then manufacture. |
| | 101 | * Beam transport and delivery: JPa / All |
| | 102 | * JPa was not at the phone call, so this item was postponed to |
| | 103 | Friday. |
| | 104 | * Biological end-station: J.Parsons / All |
| | 105 | * Specification of the in-vitro end-station was routine as it can be |
| | 106 | based on existing facilities in use by the Liverpool group. The |
| | 107 | issue is one of budget; i.e. depending on the level of resource it |
| | 108 | the degree of specialised equipment beyond the basic requirements |
| | 109 | can be judged. |
| | 110 | * We agreed to adopt an 'excellent specification' until we get to |
| | 111 | the point where one has to trim budget requests to fit within an |
| | 112 | envolope. |
| | 113 | * We also agreed that the deployment of equipment at test facilities |
| | 114 | to make measurements and to proove the equipment would be a |
| | 115 | critical part of the programme of this workpackage. |
| | 116 | * System integration, diagnostics, dosimetry, and controls: AK / All |
| | 117 | * This workpacge is required to deliver the LhARA system. There is |
| | 118 | potential overlap with WP1, particularly were processing as part |
| | 119 | of the feedback and control system is concerned. AK will liase |
| | 120 | with DC. |
| | 121 | * Co-creation of impact: RMc / All |
| | 122 | * RMcl was not available for this call. CH noted that the translation |
| | 123 | to clinical availability was a principal goal for this WP. |
| | 124 | 1. Developing the full proposal: |
| | 125 | * Text |
| | 126 | * Schedule |
| | 127 | * (Re)costing |
| | 128 | * These items were postponed to a future meeting. |
| | 129 | 1. Date of next meeting |
| | 130 | * We greed to meet in around a fortnight. KL to Doodle to find a date/time. |
| | 131 | 1. AoB |
