[Isotope-prod] Updated draft narrative

[Pavel Degtiarenko]

Dear Hari,

Several remarks:
1. On pages 3 and 4 the subtitle " /_Photo-production Principles" _/is 
repeated twice. The second one should probably be " /_Photo-production 
Process"_/

2. On page 5 the typos are is in the reaction description (67 should be 
superscript, and the reaction should be "gamma,alpha"):

"Similarly, 67Cu can be produced via the ^71 Ga (g, p) ^67 Cu reaction, 
as in this proposal."


3. Page 8, last line needs the dot at the end:

"including studies of targeted hybrid probes"

4. Page 16, discussion of the parasitic test at 10 MeV, the statement

"This is not a surprising result because the energy threshold for 
production is higher."

should be "This is not a surprising result because while the beam energy 
is above the production threshold, the cross section for the alpha 
particle emission is suppressed by the nuclear Coulomb barrier."

5.  Page 17, correct "stay below the ^69 Ga(g, 2n)^67 Ga because " to " 
stay below the ^69 Ga(g, 2n)^67 Ga reaction threshold because "


6.  I think that at present we don't really have a proof that hBN target 
holder will perform as we say it will. One of the questions to be 
answered by the tests is how well this material will withstand the 
radiation damage. We know that chemical structure of hBN is close to 
graphite. There are studies on the rad. damage to graphite, causing 
displacements in the crystal structure and loss of thermal conductivity. 
I think we should mention somewhere that we know about the issue, will 
do dedicated testing, and will consider alternatives if hBN won't work.

Best regards,
Pavel

On 6/26/2016 4:28 PM, Hari Areti wrote:
> I have updated two sections at the end of the narrative.
> It is in the dropbox folder 24June2016 and later. The name
> is 26June2016 draft narrative.
>
> Section on objectives - rearranged the items.
>
> Elaborated the summary to ensure that the elements mentioned in the FOA
> are addressed. You may want to elaborate.
>
> -H
>
> The elements are:
>
>
>   * clearly describe how the outcome  would support and enhance the
>     production of isotopes used for research and applications in
>     medicine, homeland security, the physical sciences, biological and
>     geological sciences, energy, industry, etc.
>   * incorporate effective ways to train personnel with essential
>     knowledge and skills related to the production, processing,
>     purification, and distribution of enriched stable and radioactive
>     isotopes
>   * Novel or improved capabilities for inducing transmutation of atoms
>     in targets to create radioisotopes;
>   * Optimum selection of the materials and effective design of targets
>     for the production of radioisotopes;
>   * Innovative approaches to model and predict behavior of targets
>     undergoing irradiation in order to optimize yield and minimize
>     target failures during routine isotope production;
>   * Chemical and physical processes to recover and purify
>     radioisotopes from activated targets, legacy materials, or
>     facility components;
>   * Automation of production and processing techniques to enhance
>     efficiency and safety of the production of radioisotopes; and
>   * Mass-separation for enriched stable isotopes and high specific
>     activity radioactive isotopes
>
> Merit Review Criteria
>
> ` Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the Project;
>
>   * What is the scientific innovation of proposed research?
>   * What is the likelihood of achieving valuable results?
>   * How might the results of the proposed work impact the direction,
>     progress, and thinking in relevant scientific fields of research?
>   * How does the proposed work compare with other efforts in its
>     field, both in terms of scientific and/or technical merit and
>     originality?
>   * Is the Data Management Plan suitable for the proposed research and
>     to what extent does it support the validation of research results?
>
> Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach;
>
>   * How logical and feasible are the research approaches?
>   * Does the proposed research employ innovative concepts or methods?
>   * Are the conceptual framework, methods, and analyses well
>     justified, adequately developed, and likely to lead to
>     scientifically valid conclusions?
>   * Does the applicant recognize significant potential problems and
>     consider alternative strategies?
>
> Competency of Applicant’s Personnel and Adequacy of Proposed Resources
>
>   * What is the past performance and potential of the Principal
>     Investigator (PI)?
>   * How well qualified is the research team to carry out the proposed
>     research?
>   * Are the research environment and facilities adequate for
>     performing the research?
>   * Does the proposed work take advantage of unique facilities and
>     capabilities?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Isotope-prod mailing list
> Isotope-prod at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/isotope-prod


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/isotope-prod/attachments/20160626/403b8357/attachment-0001.html>