Ion Acoustic Imaging Meeting

JM 18/11/2021

Present: Ben Cox, Amato Giacca, Jamie Guggenheim, Emma Harris, Ken Long, John Matheson, Jason Parsons, Tony Price, Colin Whyte


EH reported that JB had circulated an updated version of the Gantt chart for the proposal.

JM had sent some comments in return and these were discussed. “Current Beamline” in the text refers to the existing test beamline(s) that will be used to validate the modelling. JM was worried about the difficulty of measuring the Stage 1 LhARA beamline but KL commented that we would use a test beam with energy 10s-100s MeV to validate the model and that Stage 1 would likely have only one plane of scintillating fibres. Once the ion acoustic measurement is demonstrated the scintillator could become redundant.

The desirability of a traceable dosimetric calibration was discussed. NPL have been working on portable calorimetry as a primary standard for proton beam dosimetry, because they have no proton beam in house. Birmingham and Clatterbridge have traceable secondary standards available. (Techniques which can be used include RCF, ionisation chamber, alanine pellets, calorimetry). KL commented that although these facilities have the advantage of in-house dosimetry, their time structure may not be optimal for the ion acoustic measurements. CERN or AVO may be advantageous. EH suggested we find out more about the laser plasma beam at LBL. CW commented there is a similar facility in China. KL suggested the energy spread of these laser plasma sources might be a worry. EH suggested we should populate a table of potential test beams with their properties and identify the most promising. This is a possible task for IC-PPD PhD student (Maria Maxouti).

TP and JG started a discussion of the UKRI Call to develop basic technologies in sensing and imaging. Because the energy of the AVO beamline is designed to be tunable on-the-fly, it is foreseen to kick the beam between a water phantom and the patient, for measurement and treatment. The proposal needs a problem owner (e.g. AVO and ICR would fit) and a solution provider (e.g. Birmingham and PPD would fit) in different fields. Based on the schedule of the AVO beamline, we would expect to get beam on the timescale of an 18 month PoC project. Looks promising.

CW asked that the ongoing proposal be written into Overleaf by 24th, notwithstanding the remaining uncertainties.


KL, JM – talk to MM re: table of test beams \ TP – talk to Steve Myers/AVO \ JP, AG please read proposal \ All ensure proposal written up in Overleaf Closing date for EoI 27th Oct

Last modified 2 years ago Last modified on Dec 19, 2021 3:37:40 PM