Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 10:00:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Allena Opper 
To: mack@jlab.org
Cc: neven@phys.latech.edu, pitt@vt.edu, tony@phys.latech.edu, grimm@jlab.org,
     finn@jlab.org, jmammei@vt.edu, nmorgan@vt.edu, carlini@jlab.org,
     smithg@jlab.org, opper@jlab.org, birchall@physics.umanitoba.ca,
     armd@jlab.org, yl0094a@jlab.org
Subject: Re: Qweak working group - next meeting

Dear Working Group,

Neven, Jim, and Mike are doing lots of work in different directions and
that's good but don't we need to agree on the constraints of the problem? 
There seem to be two very different schools of thought right now:
1) Increase the distance between the target and the defining collimator to
improve the definition of the scattering angle (and Q^2).  Neven has
pursued this by having the upstream side of the most downstream collimator
define the acceptance.
2) Using the upstream collimator to define the acceptance by make changes
to the "Boston" collimator.  This has the added advantage of defining the
acceptance upstream of the mini-torus.  Jim and Mike have pursued this.


If we are to have wire chambers in region 2 (ie just upstream of the main
torus) we need the minitorus and the acceptance defining collimator must
be upstream of the minitorus.  Making the target appear more point-like is
also a goal to aim for.  Might both of these goals be reached if the
upstream collimator defines the acceptance AND the target is moved
upstream?

Allena