| | 4 | |
| | 5 | //Beam line simulation: // |
| | 6 | * Simulation of LION beam line appreciated as relatively mature. It was felt that the tilts needed to get similarity between simulation and RCF measurement was acceptable. Suggestion to return to consideration of modest shifts in (x,y) [i.e. perpendicular to beam axis]. Equally, it was recognised that it would not be possible to find a unique description of RCF since the system is under constrained with just the measurement of dose at the end of the beam line. |
| | 7 | * Suggestion to consider integrated simulated dose distribution for comparison with the optical measurement. This may show that the details of the shape in (x,y) is not spoken important. |
| | 8 | * Important now to take practical approach to get a simulation "good enough" to support the interpretation of the data in the paper. |
| | 9 | |
| | 10 | //Optical analysis: // |
| | 11 | * All felt the "Hobson cut" was the right way to develop the analysis and to look at the optical signal and optical/acoustic comparison as a function of the Hobson cut. |
| | 12 | * Agreed that plotting the correlation shot-to-shot of the integrated optical response (using the Hobson cut) with the acoustic response was likely to be the productive approach. This would also mean that a data/data comparison would be made making the reliance on the beam-line simulation less. |
| | 13 | |
| | 14 | //Paper goal: // |
| | 15 | * We agreed to try and get a good draft of the paper by Christmas 2025. |
| | 16 | |
| | 17 | ---- |
| | 18 | |
| | 19 | == Presentations == |
