| | 2 | |
| | 3 | == Notes: == |
| | 4 | |
| | 5 | **Present:** AK, KL, JPa, WS, JPo, JPrsns |
| | 6 | |
| | 7 | 1. Introduction: KL |
| | 8 | * EPSRC H/c Tech. for 2050 outline bid was rejected. Reasons given were lack of engagement with clinicians, industry, and patients. We discussed the concept that we would seek to develop some patient input solicitation. Need to involve Clatterbridge and Manchester (via JPrsns). Perhaps overseas? We **agreed** to try and develop this going forward. |
| | 9 | * [wiki:Research/DesignStudy/Proposals/2019/STFC-2019-Opportunities/ STFC Opportunities 2019 call]: |
| | 10 | * Draft [raw-attachment:2019-06-23-AT4Rbi&CRT.pptx slides] had been circulated for comment. |
| | 11 | * Today we received the [raw-attachment:01-STFC-Opportunities-Call-STT0026381.pdf questions] from the reviewers as well as instructions for what to hand in on the 03Jun19. |
| | 12 | * We agreed to discuss this in place of the item on the CDR below. |
| | 13 | |
| | 14 | 2. Layout, footprint, and infrastructure: JPo |
| | 15 | * JPo explained that there was a meeting with J. Thomason last Monday to lay the foundations. JPo is now trying to get a meeting with the engineer working with us on the layout. JPo has the relevant document. Need to firm up on, e.g., dipoles as we go. JPo will pass information to the engineer. |
| | 16 | * Two documents linked again for reference: |
| | 17 | * [wiki:Communication/Conferences/2019/05-19-IPAC/ Paper submitted to IPAC19] |
| | 18 | * 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 |
| | 19 | |
| | 20 | 3. Preparation of response to referees on STFC Opportunities 2019 call: All \\ |
| | 21 | We went through the questions one by one: |
| | 22 | 1. "Please clarify the status of the work already underway at CCAP on the LhARA CDR, and what is required to bring it to completion." \\ |
| | 23 | Various items to consider in the response were suggested: |
| | 24 | * Leverage effort from other institutions (e.g. RHUL, but also accelerator institutes, labs, ...); |
| | 25 | * Need to mention support we currently enjoy (e.g. infrastructure study); |
| | 26 | * Issue of use of FFA style dipoles in in-vitro set up. In any case, some firming up of dipole/magnet specs required; |
| | 27 | * Argue that can do in-vitro concept now to October. Then, with support, do FFA and in-vivo set-up, and deliver outline CDR. |
| | 28 | * **JPa** agreed to draft this answer. |
| | 29 | |
| | 30 | 2. "Please also clarify the work required to upgrade the CCC beamline to facilitate FLASH." \\ |
| | 31 | Points noted: |
| | 32 | * JPrsns understanding from CCC is that commissioning of beam line involves making appropriate/systematic dosimetry to nail the dose rate. |
| | 33 | * RHUL is supporting Liverpool student in simulation of Clatterbridge beam line. This aspect should be brought into the answer. |
| | 34 | * JPo noted the importance of defining what we mean by FLASH. |
| | 35 | * **JPrsns** agreed to draft this answer. |
| | 36 | |
| | 37 | 3. "The project covers 24 months, while funding is requested for two PDRAs for 6 months each. Please clarify the project plan ; what work the PDRAs will do, and when, and what work is required by other researchers." \\ |
| | 38 | Points we discussed: |
| | 39 | * Agreed that critical point was the direct (publication) and indirect (positioning to bid for more resources) benefits of the Opportunities funding. |
| | 40 | * We discussed whether we should name the post-docs we plan to employ to deliver the CDR. We **agreed** not to unless pressed, but if pressed we would name the post-docs--felt to be uncomfortable not to be in a position to do so. |
| | 41 | * Noted that we need to detail the networking activity and point out that a requirement was to spend the bulk of the money in the first 6 months. |
| | 42 | * We noted that we would explain that for the CCC b/line work, the dosimetry activity would be rapid, then move on to experiment work funded through other routes. |
| | 43 | * **KL** agreed to draft this answer. |
| | 44 | |
| | 45 | 4. "Clarify the value added by this proposal to the overall LhARA project." \\ |
| | 46 | We noted: |
| | 47 | * Funding would allow us to complete the first step in the development of the project and position us to bid to take the next steps (prototypiing and more detailed design work. |
| | 48 | * Enable us to get the CDR done and therefore prepare the necessary first step. Essentially the outline CDR will 'define' what LhARA really is. |
| | 49 | * **JPo** agreed to draft this answer. |
| | 50 | |
| | 51 | * We **agreed** that the **deadline for draft contributions would be Friday, 28Jun19, morning.** |
| | 52 | |
| | 53 | 4. Comments on draft slides: |
| | 54 | * Instructions from STFC imply the need for a rewrite. JPa's comment re use of CCC beam to be taken into account. |
| | 55 | * Second draft of pair of slides Friday. |
| | 56 | |
| | 57 | 4. Date of next meeting \\ |
| | 58 | We **agreed** to meet at 15:00 on Tuesday 02Jun19; we'd cancel the meeting if the preparation of the response to STFC and the slides were completed. |
| | 59 | |
| | 60 | Then, continue 2-weekly patter. Every other meeting will be with teh broader group. Implies that next meeting will be with broader group: 09Jul19. |
| | 61 | |
| | 62 | 5. AoB |
| | 63 | * AK asked for clarification: goal is to circulate on assembled draft response and slides on Friday. |
| | 64 | |
| | 65 | ---- |
