<html><body><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div>Dear Pavel,<br></div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>I understand the 18.5 MeV exposure because Ga67 will be absent.<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>However, if as you say that there was no Cu-64 at 56 MeV, does it not make sense to<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>have an exposure at 56 MeV and have VCU separate out Ga-67 form Cu-67? This way<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>we can have a good measurement of Cu-67 and Ga-67 and verify Fluka as an additional<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>benefit.<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>-H<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div><br></div><hr id="zwchr" data-marker="__DIVIDER__"><div data-marker="__HEADERS__"><b>From: </b>"Pavel Degtiarenko" <pavel@jlab.org><br><b>To: </b>"isotope-prod" <isotope-prod@jlab.org>, "Hari Areti" <areti@jlab.org>, "douglas wells" <douglas.wells@nmt.edu>, "jamal zweit" <jamal.zweit@vcuhealth.org><br><b>Sent: </b>Monday, March 13, 2017 10:24:45 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Isotope-prod] Possible opportunity<br></div><br><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Hari,<br>
<br>
George and I just had a brief discussion, and we think that might
be a good opportunity to produce some real Cu-67 here for use at
VCU. Last week we discussed purchasing some Cu-67 for tests of the
VCU separation and spectroscopy equipment. By irradiation the
natural Ga sample here at 18.5 MeV like we did last time, we can
produce isotopically clean Cu-67 in gallium right here. After that
we can measure its quantity reliably in the target without the
separation (there will be no Ga-67 to interfere at this energy),
then may be even try to do the test of the chemical process and
see how much can be extracted. That would be up to VCU to decide
what to do with the irradiated sample and what would be the
reasonable Cu-67 activity for them to start the tests. On our
side, we would like to have better prepared experiment, including
the availability of the harps to measure beam position and energy
precisely.<br>
<br>
As far as Cu-64 is concerned, we think that might be a second
priority, because we already had a test at 56 MeV and reliably did
not see it. Our present understanding is that the FLUKA simulation
produces too much of Cu-64. This issue is being addressed to the
FLUKA collaboration; we hope they will be interested to resolve it
soon. <br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Pavel<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 03/13/2017 09:42 AM, Hari Areti wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1728224741.2890417.1489412563213.JavaMail.zimbra@jlab.org">
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:
12pt; color: #000000">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As you know, the accelerator is down to due to cold
compressor fault<br>
</div>
<div>which takes beam away from the experiments. Operations
Department<br>
</div>
<div>has a number of items they would like to do in the North
Linac and that<br>
</div>
<div>is the priority.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We can request some beam time in the injector to look at
Cu-64 production<br>
</div>
<div>at a few energies >20 MeV. If we get a chance to do
that, are we prepared?<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-H<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Isotope-prod mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Isotope-prod@jlab.org" target="_blank">Isotope-prod@jlab.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/isotope-prod" target="_blank">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/isotope-prod</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p><br></div></div></body></html>