| 59 | | Present: |
| 60 | | |
| 61 | | Apologies: |
| 62 | | |
| | 59 | Participants: AK, JPas, OE, GA, JT, WS, JPar, HTL |
| | 60 | Apologies: CW |
| | 61 | * Previous action items |
| | 62 | * AK to note the instrumentation requirements for the definition of the baseline. |
| | 63 | * Ongoing. KL will follow up with proposed WPM from RAL PPD next week. |
| | 64 | * AK to add note on the wiki about requirements. |
| | 65 | * OE to circulate what was done for safety case for the laser in 027. |
| | 66 | * Assessment is to build and install a laser so may not be so relevant for a commercial system. |
| | 67 | * Need to consider high voltage and cooling water hazards. There is a blank assessment form available. Can send this. |
| | 68 | * JT: Would like to look at the STFC safety health and environment code regarding lasers to get an idea of what's required. Could ask Cerri. |
| | 69 | * AK to arrange meeting between laser and capture WPMs. |
| | 70 | * Comments from CW: meeting with OE cleared up a lot and slides from JPas were also very useful. |
| | 71 | * OE: Need 10-15cm for diagnostics behind the laser. Limit is the hole in the plate needed for differential pumping that separates the laser target vessel from the first Gabor lens. Need to work out the location of the plate and the efficiency of differential pumping. |
| | 72 | * JPas: this will be very difficult for the beam transmission. |
| | 73 | * OE: Can remove the plate to make the measurements of the laser performance and then put it back in and run. |
| | 74 | * Discussion on what the issues are at this interface. |
| | 75 | * KL: Look at making the contaminant layer uniform. Can be part of the R&D plan. |
| | 76 | * OE: Scitech at RAL already do this. |
| | 77 | * OE: biggest worry is reproducing the pointing direction. |
| | 78 | * KL: Need to work out this detail. Should arrange dedicated discussion with the appropriate experts. |
| | 79 | * AK to arrange a meeting. Smaller initial meeting to work out requirements before bringing in engineering support. |
| | 80 | * JPar to define beam specs for in vivo experiments. |
| | 81 | * Ongoing. Trying to arrange a meeting with Karen Kirkby. Had meeting with Mark Hill and got some details. Need to understand issues regarding Home Office license regarding using animals in this context. |
| | 82 | * AK to prepare list of the 4 abstracts needed. One abstract, 4 different "spins". |
| | 83 | * PTCOG deadline extended. Next deadline is Thursday for IPAC. |
| | 84 | * AK to prepare abstract today. |
| | 85 | * Status updates |
| | 86 | * Laser - OE. |
| | 87 | * AK: Is George looking at generating an input beam for our simulations? |
| | 88 | * OE: not yet, tied up with upcoming experiment. Looking at smearing the energy vs angle histogram with a Gaussian to give the 3D energy, theta, phi distribution. Would be good if someone can also look into this. |
| | 89 | * Beam transport - JPas. |
| | 90 | * Updated the parameter list for last week's deadline. A number of parameters are still in the process of being investigated. |
| | 91 | * May have issues with space charge throughout the beam line at the various focal points. Looking at alternative optics that have weaker focussing to mitigate this. |
| | 92 | * Looked at external radius of the FFA and the magnet gap. |
| | 93 | * Will look at RF next week. |
| | 94 | * AK: Need to focus on getting the simulations done and the beam transport is a major part of this. Arranged to discuss with WS after this meeting. |
| | 95 | * AK: to ask Simon for a repository to store the simulation input files. |
| | 96 | * Slides from Will on comparing the simulations with and without space charge. |
| | 97 | * WS: Still having issues connecting to the server. AK to investigate. |
| | 98 | * Discussion on the simulations. |
| | 99 | * AK: May not be able to use BDSIM for looking at optics in the ring within a magnet. |
| | 100 | * WS: Can now have samplers at global locations so can do this. |
| | 101 | * End stations - JPar. |
| | 102 | * Discussions with Birmingham and FLASH. Unlikely that we will now do experiments at Clatterbridge due to potential issues of high current operation on their clinical operation. Non-flash work will continue. |
| | 103 | * Will meet with Birmingham to discuss using their physics beamline. They need to sort out dosimetry. |
| | 104 | * They would like a sperate beam line for FLASH radiobiology studies but need the biology set up. |
| | 105 | * AK: Progress with tying down the beam requirements for the in vivo? |
| | 106 | * JPar: Karen mentioned some options, passive scattering and spot scanning, need more discussions. |
| | 107 | * KL: Should provide both passive scattering and spot scanning. |
| | 108 | * JPas: what is the required beam size for passive scattering? |
| | 109 | * 1 cm beam size should be sufficient. |
| | 110 | * Discussion on beam requirements. |
| | 111 | * Current values in the parameter table, i.e. 1-3cm spot size, is good for in vitro and in vivo end stations. |
| | 112 | * AK: what would be the requirements of spot size for the spot scanning? |
| | 113 | * JPar: Issue is variations from spot-to-spot. Spoke to Proton Partners about possibility of using their spot scanning machine in Reading for tests. |
| | 114 | * AOB |
| | 115 | * Plenary presentations. |
| | 116 | * Will keep the next meeting, which is the day before the plenary meeting. |
| | 117 | |
