Email from Greg:

From smithg@jlab.org Fri Sep 17 11:39:15 2004
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:35:31 -0400
From: Greg Smith 
To: Mark Pitt 
Cc: Roger Carlini , finn@physics.wm.edu,
     'Neven Simicevic' ,
     'Jim Birchall' ,
     'Dave Mack' , 'Juliette Mammei' ,
     'Klaus Grimm' , armd@jlab.org,
     'Allena Opper' , 'Norman Morgan' ,
     'Mike Finn' , 'Yongguang Liang' ,
     'Shelley Page' ,
     'Tony Forest' , richard.t.jones@uconn.edu
Subject: Re: Qweak- Collimator Working Group

Hi Mark,

My own opinion is that there was no good reason to pick one over the
other at this point in time. I think Roger was simply trying to help by
avoiding too much parallel effort. If both solutions are equally viable
then having someone make even an arbitrary choice can be helpful. It's
certainly true we can't wring our hands too long over this issue, we have
a proposal to (re-)write! However, it's too early to make this choice I
think, and although Roger is out of town today, I think he'd reluctantly
agree. For example, it could turn out that we get a lot more photon
background onto the quartz with a primary too far downstream, and we
might have to move back upstream part of or all the way back to Boston.
In prehistoric times, Neven made some plots I remember which showed the
sources of rays which struck the bars. Those plots helped us a lot to
identify and design out hot spots, etc. I think at a minimum we have to
look at stuff like that before we lock ourselves into one plan. We had
also agreed, I thought, to try to be more quantitative about the issue
Jim raised re noise from the mini-torus ps fluctuations. Maybe something
as mundane (yet fatal) as the mini-torus falling apart in the higher
radiation field upstream of the primary spells curtains for that
approach. I would really like to have a decision and move on but, ya, I
don't think we're there yet either, unfortunately.

Greg