Dragon Meeting, July 25, 2006

Present: PM, JP, DH, MT, LB, CV, GR, EO'C, JZ, MP


1. previous minutes
--------------------

there are some minor changes to the minutes which will be added when DH sends
them around later

2.  hardware
------------

* PM : modification of clamp ring successful
  - no big scratches
  - DH : if it fails during water pressure test, should have a picture of 
HOW it failed.  
  - DH :should do pressure (water) test on all 3 tubes first 
  - if pressure tests pass, will move to vacuum tests (leaking in and leaking
out) 

3. alpha acceptance
-------------------

* Evan :  did tests with Q1 "standard" and -5%; 0%, -2% and +2% energy 
settings with DSSSD just behind the X Mass slits.  The angular acceptance 
was limited by a collimator with a notch which passed alphas with initial 
angles approx (12 to 20 mrad) x (-5 to +5 mrad).  Four orientations of the 
notch were studied: "Left" (West), "Right" (East), Up and Down.
* evidence of tail in -y direction, no matter what horizontal angle at target
is
  -  slight evidence of energy dependence , lower energy worse (?)
* correlation of y-position at the mass slits with horizontal angle
* will try with a collimator with 10-mrad diam. hole at the centre.
* test simulations by moving quads (e.g. Q2 by 3mm) and source vertically 
  to see what happens
  -  MT comments that he wouldn't be surprised if magnets were fairly
     displaced from nominal values.  
* [figures x/y positions at mass slit for different collimator notch
orientations is attached]

4.  beam requests
------------------

*  MT will be putting in a beam request, but first wants to know DH's fall
schedule  (stable 20Ne development)
* JP will put in a request for 17O(p,g) for higher resonances and a 
look-see at possible problems at the 193 keV/u resonance.

* DH thinks that an 26Al implantation expt is the only astrophys. one 
'competing' for time in the October-December period.

5.  other business
------------------
*  PRL referee comments that 12C paper not worthy for PRL, while suggesting a
whole raft of changes.
   -  only one referee,  second ref was 'not able' to do it
   - LB discussed options, including suggesting a second ref, or 
submitting to PRC.  Much discussion ensued.
     > if we go PRC route, paper should be expanded to address ref's issues
   - DH and LB tend to the "ask another ref" option, challenging non-PRL
designation.  Response of the student, CM, is awaited.

6. 22Na
--------
* MT: read 7Be safety report from U.Washington
* MT: UW would like to see a mildly doped sample (with 22Na) to see how 
much it migrates
  -  therefore 10uC sample likely too hot
  
meeting adjourned 3:15