| 16 | | * |
| | 16 | * Discussion with ND on carbon ion beams: |
| | 17 | * Little data available in literature. TNSA not effective for ions. One paper has studied but at low energy. |
| | 18 | * Simulation work needed with PIC codes, lack of personnel to undertake. |
| | 19 | * similar spectral shape expected in theory possible to adapt Lara linear optics. Scale Q/M ratio. Conversion efficiency around 3 to 6%. |
| | 20 | * Could expect 10^8 ions up to a maximum ~ 10 MeV/u. |
| | 21 | * Discussion with ND on electron distribution: |
| | 22 | * no one measured electron distribution. Evidence suggests complete space charge cancellation, ie co-propagating electrons with same velocity distribution. |
| | 23 | * fast electrons (5 to 10 MeV) Will hit the nozzle causing it to charge and potentially deflect the lower ion beam. Timescale too short for charge to dissipate. |
| | 24 | * likely that the first electrons follow the laser angle rather than the proton beam. |
| | 25 | * Large angle assumption is valid similar to protons. Some will still enter the nozzle, order a few percent. Typically 30° incident angle, and 30° divergence. |
| | 26 | * Very relativistic, space charge unimportant. |
| | 27 | * MMC update: RF track matches the BDSIM model but not the emittance. Unsure why, still investigating. WS email KL regarding GPT access. |
| | 28 | |
| | 29 | * Collaboration meeting agenda. |
| | 30 | * JP out 15th-29th April |
| | 31 | * IPAC paper |
| | 32 | * Draft deadline agreed for Friday 1st May. |
