Minutes of Aug 19, 2009 - Revision history

AdrianRennie: /* Roundtable update on status at facilities */

2009-08-31T06:33:38Z

Roundtable update on status at facilities

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:33, 31 August 2009
Line 36:		Line 36:
	====Input to Rex on future SAS instrumentation needs for long pulse sources====		====Input to Rex on future SAS instrumentation needs for long pulse sources====
	====Roundtable update on status at facilities====		====Roundtable update on status at facilities====
	Paul Butler noted the hour had nearly elapsed but that he thought it was important for the nature of this venue to have a brief update on noteworthy items from the various facilities for those who were willing to stay a bit longer. Paul then began by saying that the expansion activities at NIST were continuing apace. He noted that there was a 10.5 month long outage originally planned to begin in May of 2010 but that in the past few days it has become clear that would be delayed till at least the end of 2010. He expected that soon more information would become available and eventually posted on the NIST website. ~~Adrian Rennie~~ pointed out that the ILL were to have an extended outage in early 2009. Paul said he knew they were normally down for January and February but Adrian said that this time they were not expecting to come up till late May or early June of 2010.		Paul Butler noted the hour had nearly elapsed but that he thought it was important for the nature of this venue to have a brief update on noteworthy items from the various facilities for those who were willing to stay a bit longer. Paul then began by saying that the expansion activities at NIST were continuing apace. He noted that there was a 10.5 month long outage originally planned to begin in May of 2010 but that in the past few days it has become clear that would be delayed till at least the end of 2010. He expected that soon more information would become available and eventually posted on the NIST website. Steve King pointed out that the ILL were to have an extended outage in early 2009. Paul said he knew they were normally down for January and February but Adrian Rennie said that this time they were not expecting to come up till late May or early June of 2010.

	==ACTION ITEMS SUMMARY==		==ACTION ITEMS SUMMARY==

Butler at 22:17, 30 August 2009

2009-08-30T22:17:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:17, 30 August 2009
Line 11:		Line 11:
	* Mitsuhiro Shibayama (U. of Tokyo reactor and Japan rep)		* Mitsuhiro Shibayama (U. of Tokyo reactor and Japan rep)
	* Eliott Gilbert (ANSTO)		* Eliott Gilbert (ANSTO)
	* Sung-Min Choi (KAIST -- HANARO)		* Sung-Min Choi (KAIST -- HANARO; but calling in from Sydney)

	'''Absent:''' Peter Boesecke (ESRF), Ken Littrell (ORNL), Charles Dewhurst (ILL), Nick Terrill (Diamond), Daniel Clemens (FRMII)		'''Absent:''' Peter Boesecke (ESRF), Ken Littrell (ORNL), Charles Dewhurst (ILL), Nick Terrill (Diamond), Daniel Clemens (FRMII)

Butler: /* Roundtable update on status at facilities */

2009-08-30T22:14:56Z

Roundtable update on status at facilities

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:14, 30 August 2009
Line 36:		Line 36:
	====Input to Rex on future SAS instrumentation needs for long pulse sources====		====Input to Rex on future SAS instrumentation needs for long pulse sources====
	====Roundtable update on status at facilities====		====Roundtable update on status at facilities====
			Paul Butler noted the hour had nearly elapsed but that he thought it was important for the nature of this venue to have a brief update on noteworthy items from the various facilities for those who were willing to stay a bit longer. Paul then began by saying that the expansion activities at NIST were continuing apace. He noted that there was a 10.5 month long outage originally planned to begin in May of 2010 but that in the past few days it has become clear that would be delayed till at least the end of 2010. He expected that soon more information would become available and eventually posted on the NIST website. Adrian Rennie pointed out that the ILL were to have an extended outage in early 2009. Paul said he knew they were normally down for January and February but Adrian said that this time they were not expecting to come up till late May or early June of 2010.

	==ACTION ITEMS SUMMARY==		==ACTION ITEMS SUMMARY==

Butler at 22:06, 30 August 2009

2009-08-30T22:06:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:06, 30 August 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This inaugural meeting took place as a "meet-me" audio conference call at 6AM USA Mountain Time and 10PM Sydney time. The participants to the call were:		This inaugural meeting took place as a "meet-me" audio conference call at 6AM USA Mountain Time and 10PM Sydney time. The participants to the call were:

	~~===~~Participants~~===~~
			'''Participants'''
	* Paul Butler: convener (NIST)		* Paul Butler: convener (NIST)
	* Rex Hjelm (LANSCE)		* Rex Hjelm (LANSCE)
Line 16:		Line 17:
	----		----

			====Working Groups Update====

	The meeting began with an update of the status of the various canSAS working groups:		The meeting began with an update of the status of the various canSAS working groups:

Butler at 18:32, 30 August 2009

2009-08-30T18:32:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:32, 30 August 2009
Line 27:		Line 27:
	Andrew Jackson noted that there had been some discussion on nomenclatures so that packages from different facilities would not step on each others toes and that at this point NIST and APS had made the necessary changes in their code and that Ken Littrell of ORNL had agreed to do so but that he was unsure where that stood. Asked about ANSTO and Andy Nelson's code, Andrew said that Andy's code already was done in a way not to be problematic.		Andrew Jackson noted that there had been some discussion on nomenclatures so that packages from different facilities would not step on each others toes and that at this point NIST and APS had made the necessary changes in their code and that Ken Littrell of ORNL had agreed to do so but that he was unsure where that stood. Asked about ANSTO and Andy Nelson's code, Andrew said that Andy's code already was done in a way not to be problematic.
	* Global SAS web portal:		* Global SAS web portal:
	Paul Butler suggested taking this out of order as he understood not much progress had been made here and that the standards might precipitate much discussion. In the end the portal discussion was perhaps more lively. Steven King began by agreeing that there had been a start to the portal project (which can be found at http://www.small-angle.ac.uk)but that the postdoc who was to lead that project left and that resources were limiting. Some discussion of the requirements for such resources ensued. Paul Butler suggested that once we understood the content and an idea of lay out, he could find the resources to employ a high school student or an undergrad to implement it. Steve said that he'd had some positive discussions with Diamond people about allowing access to someone outside the firewall so that issue should be resolvable as well. On a related topic, Stephen pointed out that he thought that at the last canSAS meeting Peter Timmins had agreed to get someone at ILL to update the world wide neutron directory. However he has not been able to find anything to date. Adrian agreed and pointed out that indeed Peter had later announced that Ralf Schweins had accepted the task. The suggestion was made that someone should contact Ralf to find out the status of the project. Adrian agreed to take on that action item. Also raised here was the question of other sources of SAS information, including wikipedia. A suggestion that a useful project might be to contribute articles to wikipedia. A quick look by some participants revealed that already some work has been done though not clear who the main contributors are. Certainly a SAS portal could point to such information appropriately. Other web 2.0 types of venues should probably also be thought about.		Paul Butler suggested taking this out of order as he understood not much progress had been made here and that the standards might precipitate much discussion. In the end the portal discussion was perhaps more lively. Steven King began by agreeing that there had been a start to the portal project (which can be found at http://www.small-angle.ac.uk) but that the postdoc who was to lead that project left and that resources were limiting. Some discussion of the requirements for such resources ensued. Paul Butler suggested that once we understood the content and an idea of lay out, he could find the resources to employ a high school student or an undergrad to implement it. Steve said that he'd had some positive discussions with Diamond people about allowing access to someone outside the firewall so that issue should be resolvable as well. On a related topic, Stephen pointed out that he thought that at the last canSAS meeting Peter Timmins had agreed to get someone at ILL to update the world wide neutron directory. However he has not been able to find anything to date. Adrian agreed and pointed out that indeed Peter had later announced that Ralf Schweins had accepted the task. The suggestion was made that someone should contact Ralf to find out the status of the project. Adrian agreed to take on that action item. Also raised here was the question of other sources of SAS information, including wikipedia. A suggestion that a useful project might be to contribute articles to wikipedia. A quick look by some participants revealed that already some work has been done though not clear who the main contributors are. Certainly a SAS portal could point to such information appropriately. Other web 2.0 types of venues should probably also be thought about.
	* Standadization:		* Standadization:
	Adrian Rennie who is the chair of this working group indicated that there had been progress on two fronts. In the first case there had been some more general and global discussions on what a good standard is and how to benchmark etc, while another front saw a round robin done with a glassy carbon sample provided by Jan Ilavsky of APS which produced some interesting results and exchanges with things still not completely understood (i.e. still an ongoing project). Results will be reported by Jan in Oxford. Adrian felt that this had been a very useful exercise for several reasons: (a) a reference sample had allowed anomalies in data reduction to be identified, (b) reproducibility of a sample could be established. There is considerable interest in circulating other samples to test other features such as wavelength, resolution etc. as work on the glassy carbon draws to a close.		Adrian Rennie who is the chair of this working group indicated that there had been progress on two fronts. In the first case there had been some more general and global discussions on what a good standard is and how to benchmark etc, while another front saw a round robin done with a glassy carbon sample provided by Jan Ilavsky of APS which produced some interesting results and exchanges with things still not completely understood (i.e. still an ongoing project). Results will be reported by Jan in Oxford. Adrian felt that this had been a very useful exercise for several reasons: (a) a reference sample had allowed anomalies in data reduction to be identified, (b) reproducibility of a sample could be established. There is considerable interest in circulating other samples to test other features such as wavelength, resolution etc. as work on the glassy carbon draws to a close.

Butler at 18:31, 30 August 2009

2009-08-30T18:31:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:31, 30 August 2009
Line 27:		Line 27:
	Andrew Jackson noted that there had been some discussion on nomenclatures so that packages from different facilities would not step on each others toes and that at this point NIST and APS had made the necessary changes in their code and that Ken Littrell of ORNL had agreed to do so but that he was unsure where that stood. Asked about ANSTO and Andy Nelson's code, Andrew said that Andy's code already was done in a way not to be problematic.		Andrew Jackson noted that there had been some discussion on nomenclatures so that packages from different facilities would not step on each others toes and that at this point NIST and APS had made the necessary changes in their code and that Ken Littrell of ORNL had agreed to do so but that he was unsure where that stood. Asked about ANSTO and Andy Nelson's code, Andrew said that Andy's code already was done in a way not to be problematic.
	* Global SAS web portal:		* Global SAS web portal:
	Paul Butler suggested taking this out of order as he understood not much progress had been made here and that the standards might precipitate much discussion. In the end the portal discussion was perhaps more lively. Steven King began by agreeing that there had been a start to the portal project (which can be found at ~~www.small-angle.ac.uk [[~~http://www.small-angle.ac.uk~~\|www.small-angle.ac.uk]]~~)but that the postdoc who was to lead that project left and that resources were limiting. Some discussion of the requirements for such resources ensued. Paul Butler suggested that once we understood the content and an idea of lay out, he could find the resources to employ a high school student or an undergrad to implement it. Steve said that he'd had some positive discussions with Diamond people about allowing access to someone outside the firewall so that issue should be resolvable as well. On a related topic, Stephen pointed out that he thought that at the last canSAS meeting Peter Timmins had agreed to get someone at ILL to update the world wide neutron directory. However he has not been able to find anything to date. Adrian agreed and pointed out that indeed Peter had later announced that Ralf Schweins had accepted the task. The suggestion was made that someone should contact Ralf to find out the status of the project. Adrian agreed to take on that action item. Also raised here was the question of other sources of SAS information, including wikipedia. A suggestion that a useful project might be to contribute articles to wikipedia. A quick look by some participants revealed that already some work has been done though not clear who the main contributors are. Certainly a SAS portal could point to such information appropriately. Other web 2.0 types of venues should probably also be thought about.		Paul Butler suggested taking this out of order as he understood not much progress had been made here and that the standards might precipitate much discussion. In the end the portal discussion was perhaps more lively. Steven King began by agreeing that there had been a start to the portal project (which can be found at http://www.small-angle.ac.uk)but that the postdoc who was to lead that project left and that resources were limiting. Some discussion of the requirements for such resources ensued. Paul Butler suggested that once we understood the content and an idea of lay out, he could find the resources to employ a high school student or an undergrad to implement it. Steve said that he'd had some positive discussions with Diamond people about allowing access to someone outside the firewall so that issue should be resolvable as well. On a related topic, Stephen pointed out that he thought that at the last canSAS meeting Peter Timmins had agreed to get someone at ILL to update the world wide neutron directory. However he has not been able to find anything to date. Adrian agreed and pointed out that indeed Peter had later announced that Ralf Schweins had accepted the task. The suggestion was made that someone should contact Ralf to find out the status of the project. Adrian agreed to take on that action item. Also raised here was the question of other sources of SAS information, including wikipedia. A suggestion that a useful project might be to contribute articles to wikipedia. A quick look by some participants revealed that already some work has been done though not clear who the main contributors are. Certainly a SAS portal could point to such information appropriately. Other web 2.0 types of venues should probably also be thought about.
	* Standadization:		* Standadization:
	Adrian Rennie who is the chair of this working group indicated that there had been progress on two fronts. In the first case there had been some more general and global discussions on what a good standard is and how to benchmark etc, while another front saw a round robin done with a glassy carbon sample provided by Jan Ilavsky of APS which produced some interesting results and exchanges with things still not completely understood (i.e. still an ongoing project). Results will be reported by Jan in Oxford. Adrian felt that this had been a very useful exercise for several reasons: (a) a reference sample had allowed anomalies in data reduction to be identified, (b) reproducibility of a sample could be established. There is considerable interest in circulating other samples to test other features such as wavelength, resolution etc. as work on the glassy carbon draws to a close.		Adrian Rennie who is the chair of this working group indicated that there had been progress on two fronts. In the first case there had been some more general and global discussions on what a good standard is and how to benchmark etc, while another front saw a round robin done with a glassy carbon sample provided by Jan Ilavsky of APS which produced some interesting results and exchanges with things still not completely understood (i.e. still an ongoing project). Results will be reported by Jan in Oxford. Adrian felt that this had been a very useful exercise for several reasons: (a) a reference sample had allowed anomalies in data reduction to be identified, (b) reproducibility of a sample could be established. There is considerable interest in circulating other samples to test other features such as wavelength, resolution etc. as work on the glassy carbon draws to a close.

Butler at 18:30, 30 August 2009

2009-08-30T18:30:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:30, 30 August 2009
Line 27:		Line 27:
	Andrew Jackson noted that there had been some discussion on nomenclatures so that packages from different facilities would not step on each others toes and that at this point NIST and APS had made the necessary changes in their code and that Ken Littrell of ORNL had agreed to do so but that he was unsure where that stood. Asked about ANSTO and Andy Nelson's code, Andrew said that Andy's code already was done in a way not to be problematic.		Andrew Jackson noted that there had been some discussion on nomenclatures so that packages from different facilities would not step on each others toes and that at this point NIST and APS had made the necessary changes in their code and that Ken Littrell of ORNL had agreed to do so but that he was unsure where that stood. Asked about ANSTO and Andy Nelson's code, Andrew said that Andy's code already was done in a way not to be problematic.
	* Global SAS web portal:		* Global SAS web portal:
	Paul Butler suggested taking this out of order as he understood not much progress had been made here and that the standards might precipitate much discussion. In the end the portal discussion was perhaps more lively. Steven King began by agreeing that there had been a start to the portal project (which can be found at www.small-angle.ac.uk []http://www.small-angle.ac.uk\|www.small-angle.ac.uk]])but that the postdoc who was to lead that project left and that resources were limiting. Some discussion of the requirements for such resources ensued. Paul Butler suggested that once we understood the content and an idea of lay out, he could find the resources to employ a high school student or an undergrad to implement it. Steve said that he'd had some positive discussions with Diamond people about allowing access to someone outside the firewall so that issue should be resolvable as well. On a related topic, Stephen pointed out that he thought that at the last canSAS meeting Peter Timmins had agreed to get someone at ILL to update the world wide neutron directory. However he has not been able to find anything to date. Adrian agreed and pointed out that indeed Peter had later announced that Ralf Schweins had accepted the task. The suggestion was made that someone should contact Ralf to find out the status of the project. Adrian agreed to take on that action item. Also raised here was the question of other sources of SAS information, including wikipedia. A suggestion that a useful project might be to contribute articles to wikipedia. A quick look by some participants revealed that already some work has been done though not clear who the main contributors are. Certainly a SAS portal could point to such information appropriately. Other web 2.0 types of venues should probably also be thought about.		Paul Butler suggested taking this out of order as he understood not much progress had been made here and that the standards might precipitate much discussion. In the end the portal discussion was perhaps more lively. Steven King began by agreeing that there had been a start to the portal project (which can be found at www.small-angle.ac.uk [[http://www.small-angle.ac.uk\|www.small-angle.ac.uk]])but that the postdoc who was to lead that project left and that resources were limiting. Some discussion of the requirements for such resources ensued. Paul Butler suggested that once we understood the content and an idea of lay out, he could find the resources to employ a high school student or an undergrad to implement it. Steve said that he'd had some positive discussions with Diamond people about allowing access to someone outside the firewall so that issue should be resolvable as well. On a related topic, Stephen pointed out that he thought that at the last canSAS meeting Peter Timmins had agreed to get someone at ILL to update the world wide neutron directory. However he has not been able to find anything to date. Adrian agreed and pointed out that indeed Peter had later announced that Ralf Schweins had accepted the task. The suggestion was made that someone should contact Ralf to find out the status of the project. Adrian agreed to take on that action item. Also raised here was the question of other sources of SAS information, including wikipedia. A suggestion that a useful project might be to contribute articles to wikipedia. A quick look by some participants revealed that already some work has been done though not clear who the main contributors are. Certainly a SAS portal could point to such information appropriately. Other web 2.0 types of venues should probably also be thought about.
	* Standadization:		* Standadization:
	Adrian Rennie who is the chair of this working group indicated that there had been progress on two fronts. In the first case there had been some more general and global discussions on what a good standard is and how to benchmark etc, while another front saw a round robin done with a glassy carbon sample provided by Jan Ilavsky of APS which produced some interesting results and exchanges with things still not completely understood (i.e. still an ongoing project). Results will be reported by Jan in Oxford. Adrian felt that this had been a very useful exercise for several reasons: (a) a reference sample had allowed anomalies in data reduction to be identified, (b) reproducibility of a sample could be established. There is considerable interest in circulating other samples to test other features such as wavelength, resolution etc. as work on the glassy carbon draws to a close.		Adrian Rennie who is the chair of this working group indicated that there had been progress on two fronts. In the first case there had been some more general and global discussions on what a good standard is and how to benchmark etc, while another front saw a round robin done with a glassy carbon sample provided by Jan Ilavsky of APS which produced some interesting results and exchanges with things still not completely understood (i.e. still an ongoing project). Results will be reported by Jan in Oxford. Adrian felt that this had been a very useful exercise for several reasons: (a) a reference sample had allowed anomalies in data reduction to be identified, (b) reproducibility of a sample could be established. There is considerable interest in circulating other samples to test other features such as wavelength, resolution etc. as work on the glassy carbon draws to a close.

Butler at 18:28, 30 August 2009

2009-08-30T18:28:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:28, 30 August 2009
Line 27:		Line 27:
	Andrew Jackson noted that there had been some discussion on nomenclatures so that packages from different facilities would not step on each others toes and that at this point NIST and APS had made the necessary changes in their code and that Ken Littrell of ORNL had agreed to do so but that he was unsure where that stood. Asked about ANSTO and Andy Nelson's code, Andrew said that Andy's code already was done in a way not to be problematic.		Andrew Jackson noted that there had been some discussion on nomenclatures so that packages from different facilities would not step on each others toes and that at this point NIST and APS had made the necessary changes in their code and that Ken Littrell of ORNL had agreed to do so but that he was unsure where that stood. Asked about ANSTO and Andy Nelson's code, Andrew said that Andy's code already was done in a way not to be problematic.
	* Global SAS web portal:		* Global SAS web portal:
	Paul Butler suggested taking this out of order as he understood not much progress had been made here and that the standards might precipitate much discussion. In the end the portal discussion was perhaps more lively. Steven King began by agreeing that there had been a start to the portal project (which can be found at www.small-angle.ac.uk [http://www.small-angle.ac.uk])but that the postdoc who was to lead that project left and that resources were limiting. Some discussion of the requirements for such resources ensued. Paul Butler suggested that once we understood the content and an idea of lay out, he could find the resources to employ a high school student or an undergrad to implement it. Steve said that he'd had some positive discussions with Diamond people about allowing access to someone outside the firewall so that issue should be resolvable as well. On a related topic, Stephen pointed out that he thought that at the last canSAS meeting Peter Timmins had agreed to get someone at ILL to update the world wide neutron directory. However he has not been able to find anything to date. Adrian agreed and pointed out that indeed Peter had later announced that Ralf Schweins had accepted the task. The suggestion was made that someone should contact Ralf to find out the status of the project. Adrian agreed to take on that action item. Also raised here was the question of other sources of SAS information, including wikipedia. A suggestion that a useful project might be to contribute articles to wikipedia. A quick look by some participants revealed that already some work has been done though not clear who the main contributors are. Certainly a SAS portal could point to such information appropriately. Other web 2.0 types of venues should probably also be thought about.		Paul Butler suggested taking this out of order as he understood not much progress had been made here and that the standards might precipitate much discussion. In the end the portal discussion was perhaps more lively. Steven King began by agreeing that there had been a start to the portal project (which can be found at www.small-angle.ac.uk []http://www.small-angle.ac.uk\|www.small-angle.ac.uk]])but that the postdoc who was to lead that project left and that resources were limiting. Some discussion of the requirements for such resources ensued. Paul Butler suggested that once we understood the content and an idea of lay out, he could find the resources to employ a high school student or an undergrad to implement it. Steve said that he'd had some positive discussions with Diamond people about allowing access to someone outside the firewall so that issue should be resolvable as well. On a related topic, Stephen pointed out that he thought that at the last canSAS meeting Peter Timmins had agreed to get someone at ILL to update the world wide neutron directory. However he has not been able to find anything to date. Adrian agreed and pointed out that indeed Peter had later announced that Ralf Schweins had accepted the task. The suggestion was made that someone should contact Ralf to find out the status of the project. Adrian agreed to take on that action item. Also raised here was the question of other sources of SAS information, including wikipedia. A suggestion that a useful project might be to contribute articles to wikipedia. A quick look by some participants revealed that already some work has been done though not clear who the main contributors are. Certainly a SAS portal could point to such information appropriately. Other web 2.0 types of venues should probably also be thought about.
	* Standadization:		* Standadization:
	Adrian Rennie who is the chair of this working group indicated that there had been progress on two fronts. In the first case there had been some more general and global discussions on what a good standard is and how to benchmark etc, while another front saw a round robin done with a glassy carbon sample provided by Jan Ilavsky of APS which produced some interesting results and exchanges with things still not completely understood (i.e. still an ongoing project). Results will be reported by Jan in Oxford. Adrian felt that this had been a very useful exercise for several reasons: (a) a reference sample had allowed anomalies in data reduction to be identified, (b) reproducibility of a sample could be established. There is considerable interest in circulating other samples to test other features such as wavelength, resolution etc. as work on the glassy carbon draws to a close.		Adrian Rennie who is the chair of this working group indicated that there had been progress on two fronts. In the first case there had been some more general and global discussions on what a good standard is and how to benchmark etc, while another front saw a round robin done with a glassy carbon sample provided by Jan Ilavsky of APS which produced some interesting results and exchanges with things still not completely understood (i.e. still an ongoing project). Results will be reported by Jan in Oxford. Adrian felt that this had been a very useful exercise for several reasons: (a) a reference sample had allowed anomalies in data reduction to be identified, (b) reproducibility of a sample could be established. There is considerable interest in circulating other samples to test other features such as wavelength, resolution etc. as work on the glassy carbon draws to a close.

Butler at 13:22, 30 August 2009

2009-08-30T13:22:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:22, 30 August 2009
Line 33:		Line 33:
	====Discussion topics for canSAS session at SAS09====		====Discussion topics for canSAS session at SAS09====

	==Input to Rex on future SAS instrumentation needs for long pulse sources==		====Input to Rex on future SAS instrumentation needs for long pulse sources====
	==Roundtable update on status at facilities==		====Roundtable update on status at facilities====

	==ACTION ITEMS SUMMARY==		==ACTION ITEMS SUMMARY==

Butler at 13:22, 30 August 2009

2009-08-30T13:22:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:22, 30 August 2009
Line 31:		Line 31:
	Adrian Rennie who is the chair of this working group indicated that there had been progress on two fronts. In the first case there had been some more general and global discussions on what a good standard is and how to benchmark etc, while another front saw a round robin done with a glassy carbon sample provided by Jan Ilavsky of APS which produced some interesting results and exchanges with things still not completely understood (i.e. still an ongoing project). Results will be reported by Jan in Oxford. Adrian felt that this had been a very useful exercise for several reasons: (a) a reference sample had allowed anomalies in data reduction to be identified, (b) reproducibility of a sample could be established. There is considerable interest in circulating other samples to test other features such as wavelength, resolution etc. as work on the glassy carbon draws to a close.		Adrian Rennie who is the chair of this working group indicated that there had been progress on two fronts. In the first case there had been some more general and global discussions on what a good standard is and how to benchmark etc, while another front saw a round robin done with a glassy carbon sample provided by Jan Ilavsky of APS which produced some interesting results and exchanges with things still not completely understood (i.e. still an ongoing project). Results will be reported by Jan in Oxford. Adrian felt that this had been a very useful exercise for several reasons: (a) a reference sample had allowed anomalies in data reduction to be identified, (b) reproducibility of a sample could be established. There is considerable interest in circulating other samples to test other features such as wavelength, resolution etc. as work on the glassy carbon draws to a close.

	==Discussion topics for canSAS session at SAS09==		====Discussion topics for canSAS session at SAS09====

	==Input to Rex on future SAS instrumentation needs for long pulse sources==		==Input to Rex on future SAS instrumentation needs for long pulse sources==