Email from Roger:

From carlini@jlab.org Fri Sep 17 11:36:41 2004
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:23:25 -0400
From: Roger D. Carlini 
To: Mark Pitt 
Cc: 'Greg Smith' 
Subject: Re: Qweak- Collimator Working Group

    [ The following text is in the "windows-1252" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-1" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

Hi Mark:

Feel free to change the time of the next conference. It was my impression that if at least a brief call were not made 
this week then little progress would ocur. I suggest you consider Friday afternoon to give people a bit more time.

Neven's adaptation appeared to give the flattest Q**2 acceptance and allowed a reasonable FOM at a Q**2 of 0.025. I have 
been pretty much convinced by Neven and Greg that we want it as far as possible down stream. A potential "killer" for 
this arrangement is however, if the detectors can now "see line of sight" the collimator edges as the final clean up 
collimator is closer.

Feel free to leave the Boston collimator on the table a little longer. The minutes were written "per mini-torus groups 
concurance". If we got it wrong - change it back.

Best Regards

Roger

Mark Pitt wrote:
> Hi Roger,
> 
> I have two questions (one trivial and one more substantial).  
> 
> 1. At the last teleconference was it decided to have the next teleconference 
> this (Sept. 16) week or next (Sept. 23) week?  Mike Finn wanted to change 
> the time because of his office hours.  I was going to poll people for a 
> new time; I'm hoping just shifting it later on Thursday afternoon might 
> work.
> 
> 2. I didn't understand the rationale for the decision to adopt Neven's 
> collimator.  From the numbers I saw, it seemed that Jim's modifications to 
> the Boston collimator and Neven's further downstream collimator had 
> similar figures of merit.  If they were in fact "equal" on that score, 
> then I would argue that one of Jim's solutions would be better because we 
> can have the mini-torus downstream.  I think most people (me included) 
> would be more comfortable with the mini-torus downstream of the acceptance 
> defining collimator.  I talked to Greg at the G0 meeting, and he also 
> wasn't sure why the modified Boston option has been dropped (sorry if I'm 
> mischaracterizing what you said Greg).
> 
> I know that there is a desire to converge on a solution rapidly, but I 
> would propose leaving the modified Boston collimator on the table a little 
> longer unless there is an obvious disadvantage to it from the FOM point of 
> view.
> 
> Regards,
> Mark
> 
> 
>