Changes between Version 8 and Version 9 of Research/DesignStudy/PreCDR/SG/2019-11-28

Dec 5, 2019 11:35:08 AM (3 years ago)



  • Research/DesignStudy/PreCDR/SG/2019-11-28

    v8 v9  
    33 //**28 Nov 2019 10:00 GMT**//
     5== Draft notes: ==
     6** Present: ** M.Barbone, T.Greenshaw, K.Kirkby, A.Kurup, K.Long, J.Parsons, S.Smith, P.Ratoff \\
     7** Apologies: ** T.Becker, S.Boogert, M.Borghesi, C.Brenner, P.Burrows, C.Hardiman, D.Gujral, W.Luk, P.Mckenna, K.Prise, J.Thomason, S.Towe, P.Weightman, R.Xiao
     91. __[raw-attachment:2019-11-28-LhARA-SG1-LONG-Intro.pdf​ Welcome and introduction]: KL__ \\
     10 KL presented the items presented in the document attached to this agenda item.  Additional points noted in the discussion:
     11  * The LhARA Steering Group has been constituted along the lines of an institute board in a particle physics experiment.  Its key roles are to:
     12   * Provide oversight for the pre-CDR team as the project evolves; and
     13   * To provide institutional input to the development of the R&D plan that will be contained in the pre-CDR document.
     152. __[raw-attachment:2019-11-28-SGMeeting.pptx​ Status of development of pre-CDR]: AK__ \\
     16 //To include: //
     17  * Status of preparation of first 'baseline freeze';
     18  * Outline of structure of pre-CDR document.
     20 AK presented the material linked to this agenda item.  Points noted from the discussion:
     21  * KK: It is important to ensure an appropriate extraction system for both the in-vivo and the in-vitro end stations.  This implies sufficient height in the research rooms.  Significant effort had been expended in developing the designs of the research room at the Christie.  **JP** and **KK** would consult to ensure the lessons leaarnt in Manchester could be used to inform the specification of the LhARA end stations.
     22  * KK: The Manchester group had the intention to develop FLASH capability in the research room at the Christie.  We took note that LhARA needed to be position taking such important parallel initiatives into account.
     23  * The spot-size specification for the in-vitro and the in-vivo end-stations was discussed.  The more difficult specification was to achieve a particular uniformity over a large spot size.  So, the spot sizes were to be interpretted as the largest that would be delivered.  This would be made clear on a revision of the parameter list (action **AK**).
     24  * We noted that dosimetry in the in-vitro and in-vivo end stations was very important.
     25  * KL: The documents generated by the pre-CDR team define the status well and need to be given a CCAP/LhARA note number so that the history can be tracked (action **AK**).
     26  *
     283. __Discussion of pre-publication review of LhARA pre-CDR: All__ \\
     29 //To include: //
     30  * Discussion of possible reviewers.  To guide preparation, the review panel should be small and include a radiobiologist, an accelerator scientist, and a detector/instrumentation scientist.
     31 The goals for the review of the pre-CDR before it is submitted for publication was outlined.  The names of appropriate reviewers were proposed and discussed but are not minuted here.  **KL** promised to email the SG to solicit further input.  The goal is to get the invites issued before the Christmas 2019 break.
     333. __First discussion of structure of R&D plan: All__ \\
     34 AK presented the outline R&D plan posted on the wiki.  We discussed the need to align the R&D plan with the ambitions and requirements of the various institutes. \\
     35 KK pointed out that the research room at Christie was being prepared for FLASH and that, while there was an NDA in place with Varian, she could report that some experiments would take place at the Chistie in the near future.  KK raised the issue of the potential for a conflict of interest in respect of FLASH.  In the discussion it was felt that such issues if/when they arise can be managed without problem.
     374. __Development of LhARA consortium and furthering national and international links: All__ \\
     38 We discussed the development of links to the International Biophysics Collaborataion (IBC).  Various models for the development of a UK consortium within this new grouping were discussed.  Eventually it was agreed that a meeting would be held in the UK to which the spokespeople of the IBC would be invited (action **KL**).
     405. __Review of actions and next steps: All__ \\
     41 Actions recorded:
     42 * **KK/JP**: Consult regarding specification of the end stations.
     43 * **AK**: Ensure that the revised parameter list specifies the spot sizes at the endstations is the 'upper limit' and that focused beams will also be available.
     44 * **KL**: Solicit further input on possible pre-CDR reviewers before issuing invites.
     45 * **KL**: Initiate preparation of a meeting with interested parties in the UK and the IBC spokespeople.
     486. __DONM__ \\
     49 **17Dec19**: 10:00 GMT
     517. __AoB__ \\
     52 * Abstracts were being prepared for:
     53  * [ ACCAPP20]: deadline: 09Dec19
     54  * [ IPAC20]: deadline: 05Dec19
     55  * PTCOG: deadline: 16Dec19
     56  * [ Applied Nuclear Physics at Accelerators]: deadline: 13Dec19 \\
     57  The abstracts would be circulated for comment before submission.
     61== Meeting details ==
     63**Venue:** Blackett Laboratory Room  521 (the tutorial room). \\
     65**Videoconference** using the Vidyo system. 
     67Connection details: \\
     68 Please join the VIDYO meeting by clicking this link: ****
    572== Meeting details ==