Please see https://elog.ph.ed.ac.uk/ISOLDE/203 for the E_cm calculations.

Presently, we are scheduled for 9 days: 
  Nov 26-28 are three (3) days nominally for beam development
  Nov 29-Dec 4 are six (6) days nominally for physics data taking

It is not required to use all beam dev time at the beginning of the run, and we can take data in here with a beam we like before moving on.  We do, however, have to care for the fact that over the weekend of 1-2 Dec that we cannot 
change the beam (no operators) nor our target (no RP).

==Tentative Run Plan==
1 day for ion source and 2.8 MeV beam dev
1 day for High E_cm statistics, using the 6 um Ti foil
1 day for lower energy beam dev (for use with mid E_cm)
1.5 days for Mid E_cm statistics
(Switch back to 2.8 MeV/u beam, takes under 1 hour)
4.5 days for Low E_cm

---Total 9 days---

==Conditions==

The High E_cm and Low E_cm can not only share the same 2.8 MeV/u beam, which is considered a fairly easy beam since this is the nominal REX energy.

The Mid E_cm requires its own beam, and we have two conditions to choose from.  

=High E_cm=
  6um Ti, 2.8 MeV/u beam: Ecm=5.56-5.86 MeV
    Pro: Beam energy is 'easy'
    Pro: Can share E_beam with Low E_cm

=Mid E_cm=
  2.5um HAVAR, 2.2 MeV beam: Ecm=4.76-5.06 MeV
    Pro: Beam energy was delivered previously in 2012
    Con: Physics protons show up below the elastic ones

  3um Ti, 1.88 MeV/u beam: Ecm=4.27-4.58 MeV
    Pro: Physics protons show up above the elastic ones
    Pro: We already made the gas cell
    Pro: Very similar E_cm to Margerin (but different conditions)
    Con: Beam energy might be difficult to achieve (but possible)

=Low E_cm=
  12.5 Al, 2.8 MeV/u beam: Ecm=3.41-3.72 MeV
    Pro: We have the foil installed and tested
    Pro: Beam is 'easy'
    Pro: Can share E_beam with High E_cm