| 28 | | - Update and next steps |
| | 31 | - See cells in FaDu from all days and the higher seeding densities. |
| | 32 | - Seeing a clear dose response. |
| | 33 | - Still looks like the radiation has been too high. |
| | 34 | - No cells in HeLa. |
| | 35 | - Seem to be more sensitive. |
| | 36 | - Emma mentioned that people working with them in Birmingham at the same time as phase 2 were struggling to get results with them. So could be the cell line? However, since Emma has got back she has done more work with them and they seem fine? |
| | 37 | - Possibly worth moving to a different cell line in the future? |
| | 38 | - Cells back with Mark and he will organise their delivery to Birmingham. (Most likely after Christmas) |
| | 39 | - Results hopefully can be produced by end of Jan |
| | 40 | - Marie is keen to stay connected. She is putting together a grant about different radiation types so this work is all useful. |
| | 41 | - Emma to share the counting software she uses with Marie |
| | 42 | - Still uncertain about the uniformity. |
| | 43 | - Comet analysis should help with this |
| | 44 | - But cells were on ice for a while before being forzen so may have repaired. |
| | 45 | - Calvin to send Emma min and max dose |
| 32 | | - Discussion of options, practicalities and next steps |
| 33 | | - KL, PH on Sparse Sci-Fi. TBC |
| 34 | | - TP on thin phosphor screen. TBC |
| 35 | | - CD on beam consistency (for photodiode around the cell dish) |
| 36 | | - Other options: |
| 37 | | - Correlation of mean dose with laser diagnostic |
| 38 | | - Delaminated RCF in front of the cell dish |
| | 49 | - RCF not sent up yet, so will send in Jan |
| | 50 | - KL, PH on Sparse Sci-Fi [raw-attachment: Slides] |
| | 51 | - Peter has a simulation of the fibres used (50mm long fibre polysterene core and PMMA cladding as per BCF50) |
| | 52 | - If using a remote camera recieve order of 1/1000 power from scintillation as if using a nearby screen. |
| | 53 | - Key questions: |
| | 54 | 1) What is the typical light produced in a sparse fibre per laser pulse |
| | 55 | - How many protons per shot pass through each fibre |
| | 56 | - 20-30 is fine but 1 or 2 is too few |
| | 57 | - Can be done in sim but requires a better understanding of the source distribution |
| | 58 | 2) Dimensions of the vacuum chamber |
| | 59 | - Instead of remote could also looking at capturing the light into a larger fibre to collect more light |
| | 60 | - Phosphor screen requires face-on viewing so possibly some practical difficulties |
| | 61 | - Peter also happy to simulate this |
| | 62 | - Using the discarded beam (Photodiode). |
| | 63 | - Beam consistency shows a Pearson Correlation Coefficient of minimum 0.83. |
| | 64 | - Predicting the average pixel count inside the cell dish from the beam outside the cell dish provides a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.991, and can predict with a 6% error. |
| | 65 | - Better analysis to be done with dose once RCF properly calibrated |
| | 66 | - Delaminated RCF |
| | 67 | - Mark Hill has some and will take it to Birmingham tomorrow. |
| | 68 | - Will need to do a calibration of this before we start a new run |
| | 69 | - Least popular option |
| 41 | | - CD Presentation and Group Discussion |
| | 72 | - Critical issues are: |
| | 73 | - Beam uniformity |
| | 74 | - Shot-to-shot variation |
| | 75 | - Control Survival |
| | 76 | - Plan for next run (minimum requirements): |
| | 77 | - Repeat of phase 2 |
| | 78 | - Move the scatterer forward to improve beam uniformity |
| | 79 | - Have an in-beam diagnostic |
| | 80 | - Minimum option is delaminated RCF |
| | 81 | - Requires calibration and full description of RCF errors |
| | 82 | - Hopefully test a sparse sci-fi |
| | 83 | - Reduce the time the cells are in carousel |
| | 84 | - Reduce time between shots |
| | 85 | - Make people aware of the importance of this |
| | 86 | - Use SCAPA as destination for immediate cell work |
| | 87 | - Require an inverted microscope |
| | 88 | - At the end of the week move the cells to Marie's lab for better control |
| | 89 | - Discussion needed on the benefits of doing this run? |
| | 90 | - Longer-term |
| | 91 | - Remove scatterer and introduce more quads |
| | 92 | - Introduce a dipole chicane |
| | 93 | - Use an X-ray control |
| | 94 | - Introduce a (pseudo-)beampipe |
| | 95 | - Look at ELIMED option |
| | 96 | - Permanent SCAPA beamline? |
