[Isotope-prod] Updated draft narrative

[Hari Areti]

Dear Pavel, 
Thanks for the input. 

You are absolutely right abouth hBN, I will add to the narrative, 
we do not know what radiation does to hBN's integrity and its 
properties (thermal conductivity). That is another piece of data 
that will result from this R&D. If hBN fails, we have a fall back 
in ceramic insert. 

Two more things that you can shed light on. 

We claim that low energy tests at LERF will eliminate or reduce 
local activity. Keeping to around 6 MeV will help with tungsten 
and copper. Is this true for Be and BN? 


Thanks. 

-H 



From: "Pavel Degtiarenko" <pavel at jlab.org> 
To: "isotope-prod" <isotope-prod at jlab.org> 
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 6:50:08 PM 
Subject: Re: [Isotope-prod] Updated draft narrative 

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 






_______________________________________________ 
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/20160627/18c98096/attachment.html>