| | 1 | = Notes and conclusions of meeting between G. Arduini, P. Bolton and A. Giacca, K. Long, 01Sep22] |
| | 2 | |
| | 3 | The review session on 30Aug22 swas well received. On 01Sep22 A. Giacca and K. Long I had a meeting with P. Bolton and G. Arduini to discuss how to plan the review sessions on the 29/30Sep. |
| | 4 | |
| | 5 | The discussion focused on two principal topics: |
| | 6 | 1. The need for the LhARA collaboration to articulate the key experiments that it would target with LhARA as soon as beams become available and the need for the LhARA collaboration to develop a “LhARA collaboration” radiation-biology activity in the short/medium term; and |
| | 7 | 2. The review panel’s proposal (decision) to focus the technical-review sessions on the 29/30Sep on the accelerator-science aspects of the programme. This decision reflects the technical expertise that G. Adruini has assembled. The need for a sister review to look at the instrumentation, diagnostics, novel end-station development, and radiobiological topics was recognised. |
| | 8 | |
| | 9 | Taking these points in term: |
| | 10 | |
| | 11 | 1. __Rbio and non-accelerator programme:__ \\ |
| | 12 | The review panel proposes that the first section of the review (29Sep) focus on the articulation of “3 key topics in radiation biology” that LhARA will address as soon as it comes on line. A. Giacca and J. Parsons will initiate a discussion to identify the three topics and to flesh them out a little for the 29Sep. We shall need to point out that our vision for the 3-key topics will necessarily evolve as the status of the science progresses. |
| | 13 | |
| | 14 | P. Bolton urged us to consider the development of a plan for the “LhARA biological science programme” as well structured as we have now developed for the LhARA Project. J. Parsons will prepare a discussion of how to address this interesting provocation which gives us the opportunity to bring together some so-far unstructured aspects of our programme. |
| | 15 | |
| | 16 | The possible timing of the sister review was discussed and a target of Feb/Mar23 was agreed. This puts a timeframe on the first round of user consultation lead by WP5. A first fleshed out plan for how to bring the consultation to a conclusion by the 29/30Sep will need to be prepared for the 29/30Sep meetings. |
| | 17 | |
| | 18 | 2. __Accelerator programme:__ \\ |
| | 19 | G. Arduini and P. Bolton have produced a “stream of consciousness” document of questions they would like to be addressed (attached). The document should be considered in preparation of the review. |
| | 20 | |
| | 21 | The following presentations will be prepared for the technical review: |
| | 22 | |
| | 23 | - WP2: Laser, target, and simulation; |
| | 24 | - WP3: Plasma confinement study plans, simulation, planning for development of next prototype; |
| | 25 | - WP5: Beam-line diagnostics — the other items will be covered in the next review |
| | 26 | - WP6: Separate presentations on development of design and simulation and the engineering integration. |
| | 27 | |
| | 28 | K. Long, 02Sep22 |
| | 29 | |
| | 30 | ---- |
