Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 10:58:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dave Mack 
To: Roger D. Carlini 
Cc: Allena Opper , neven@phys.latech.edu, pitt@vt.edu,
     tony@phys.latech.edu, grimm@jlab.org, finn@jlab.org, jmammei@vt.edu,
     nmorgan@vt.edu, smithg@jlab.org, birchall@physics.umanitoba.ca,
     armd@jlab.org, yl0094a@jlab.org
Subject: Re: Qweak working group - Comments

        Roger,


On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Roger D. Carlini wrote:

> 
> Hi Folks:
> 
> My understanding of where we stand is the following:
> 
> 1)  We have re-established a base design which will allow us to achieve a 4%
qweak measurement in about 2200 hours + 
> comissioning time (at 85% polarization) even after a deduct for internal
radiative effects. There are infact several 
> solutions to choose from at various are Q**2 and Theta acceptances which fit
on a slightly longer than 2 meter bar.
> 

        Name the baseline and I'll try to estimate, using reasonable
alignment tolerances (target relative to collimator), the errors on ,
, and the net impact on Qweak. At the time the proposal was written,
it was assumed the collimator would be far enough away from the target
that longitudinal alignment tolerances would be trivially achieved.



        Dave