| 10 | | - **MB/EM**: Evaluate the cells |
| 11 | | - **STANDS** |
| 12 | | - **CD, AFr**: Complete analysis of RCF with Error Calculation |
| 13 | | - **STANDS** (Waiting for Orientation Scans) |
| 14 | | - **EM/ED/LJ**: Send calibration films to SCAPA and scan them in both orientations |
| 15 | | - **STANDS** |
| 16 | | - **AFr, DA**: Write out RCF procedure document |
| 17 | | - **STANDS** |
| 18 | | - **EM, JMcG**: Write up summary of PoPLaR Phase 2, including technical summary of cell irradiation procedure |
| 19 | | - **STANDS** |
| 20 | | - **RW, CD**: Study correlation between laser diagnostics and mean dose |
| 21 | | - **STANDS** |
| 22 | | - **CD, TP**: Evaluate LET in the cells with the RCF in front |
| 23 | | - **STANDS** |
| 24 | | - **CD**: Compare dose profile consistency |
| 25 | | - **DONE** |
| | 10 | - **MB/EM**: Evaluate the cells |
| | 11 | - **STANDS** |
| | 12 | - **CD, AFr**: Complete analysis of RCF with Error Calculation |
| | 13 | - **STANDS** (Waiting for Orientation Scans) |
| | 14 | - **EM/ED/LJ**: Send calibration films to SCAPA and scan them in both orientations |
| | 15 | - **STANDS** |
| | 16 | - **AFr, DA**: Write out RCF procedure document |
| | 17 | - **STANDS** |
| | 18 | - **EM, JMcG**: Write up summary of PoPLaR Phase 2, including technical summary of cell irradiation procedure |
| | 19 | - **STANDS** |
| | 20 | - **RW, CD**: Study correlation between laser diagnostics and mean dose |
| | 21 | - **STANDS** |
| | 22 | - **CD, TP**: Evaluate LET in the cells with the RCF in front |
| | 23 | - **STANDS** |
| | 24 | - **CD**: Compare dose profile consistency |
| | 25 | - **DONE** |
| 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) |
| | 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) |
| 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 |
| | 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 |
| 48 | | - RCF Update |
| 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 |
| | 48 | - RCF Update |
| | 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 |
| 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? |
| | 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? |
| 99 | | - Date: February (9th, 10th, 24th, 25th, 26, 27th are currently the best options) |
| 100 | | - Place: Strathclyde will be the default. Second choice would be Birmingham |
| 101 | | - Need to discuss further |
| 102 | | - lettuceMeet: https://lettucemeet.com/l/lWwgW |
| | 99 | - Date: February (9th, 10th, 24th, 25th, 26, 27th are currently the best options) |
| | 100 | - Place: Strathclyde will be the default. Second choice would be Birmingham |
| | 101 | - Need to discuss further |
| | 102 | - lettuceMeet: https://lettucemeet.com/l/lWwgW |
| 113 | | - **EM, MB**: Organise transport of cells to Birmingham for evaluation |
| 114 | | - **EM**: Evaluate the cell results |
| 115 | | - **CD, AFr**: Complete analysis of RCF with errors |
| 116 | | - **EM/ED/LJ**: Send calibration films to SCAPA and scan them in both orientations |
| 117 | | - **EM, JMcG**: Write up summary of PoPLaR Phase 2, including technical summary of cell irradiation procedure |
| 118 | | - **EM**: Share the counting software she uses with Marie |
| 119 | | - **MB**: Comet analysis |
| 120 | | - **CD**: Tell Emma the min and max dose seen on the cell dish |
| | 116 | - **EM, MB**: Organise transport of cells to Birmingham for evaluation |
| | 117 | - **EM**: Evaluate the cell results |
| | 118 | - **CD, AFr**: Complete analysis of RCF with errors |
| | 119 | - **EM/ED/LJ**: Send calibration films to SCAPA and scan them in both orientations |
| | 120 | - **EM, JMcG**: Write up summary of PoPLaR Phase 2, including technical summary of cell irradiation procedure |
| | 121 | - **EM**: Share the counting software she uses with Marie |
| | 122 | - **MB**: Comet analysis |
| | 123 | - **CD**: Tell Emma the min and max dose seen on the cell dish |
| 123 | | - **AFr, DA**: Write out RCF procedure document |
| 124 | | - **Unassigned**: Find all the errors associated with RCF |
| 125 | | - **RW, CD**: Study correlation between laser diagnostics and mean dose |
| 126 | | - **CD, TP**: Evaluate LET in the cells with the RCF in front |
| 127 | | - **RW, ED**: Tell Peter the dimensions of the vacuum chamber |
| 128 | | - **Unassigned (CD)**: Use sim to answer how many protons per shot in each fibre |
| | 126 | - **AFr, DA**: Write out RCF procedure document |
| | 127 | - **Unassigned**: Find all the errors associated with RCF |
| | 128 | - **RW, CD**: Study correlation between laser diagnostics and mean dose |
| | 129 | - **CD, TP**: Evaluate LET in the cells with the RCF in front |
| | 130 | - **RW, ED**: Tell Peter the dimensions of the vacuum chamber |
| | 131 | - **Unassigned (CD)**: Use sim to answer how many protons per shot in each fibre |
