[mmaimcal] Munich

[Al Wootten]

Bryan Butler writes:
 > >It is clear we had better come up with some compelling examples of
 > >subarray modes with more than 4 subarrays.  I would guess that right off
 > >the top, there will likely be 4 subarrays in use:
 > 
 > between michael, al, and myself, i thought we *did* come up with
 > some pretty compelling examples needing more than 4 subarrays
 > when we argued this out before.  this is why al's announcement
 > that 4 subarrays as the maximum had be *agreed upon* at the munich
 > meeting comes as such a surprise to me.
 > 
 > also, if i recall correctly, this restriction is tied to the particular
 > LO design currently favored by larry.  if we go to fully photonic,
 > then it becomes almost trivial (again, if i recall correctly) to
 > do as many subarrays as you wish.  since they are still arguing about
 > photonic LO's (aren't they having a presentation on this at the
 > munich meeting?), it seems premature to even make the final decision
 > on this...
Actually, Larry presented a design which could have 64 subarrays.
I believe that we need a master laser per subarray, a matter mostly of
cost.  I had thought we had agreed to at least 4 subarrays but others
recall exactly four.  I will put Steve's summary on the reading list for
the Leiden agenda, and submit arguments for more that four in my written
report to the PDR.  

Al