[mmaimcal] Meeting

[Al Wootten]

An agenda is at
http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~awootten/mmaimcal/3oct00.html

Please read the  ASAC Draft Report in postscript:
http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~awootten/mmaimcal/asac/asacberkeleyreport.ps 
or visit it in  HTML
http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~awootten/mmaimcal/asac/asacsep00/asacsep00.html
for today's meeting.

The summary report of the 4th JRDG meeting is also available:
http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~awootten/mmaimcal/jrdg_sep00.htm

Crystal proposed some interesting polarized lines; her note is linked to
the agenda.
Also consider Peter's questions of last week.  
The optics solutions settled upon
in Tucson last week reportedly have as much as 4% squint in some bands.
Peter noted that if we have beam squint owing to e.g. 
asymmetric optics for ALMA, this will 
affect the Ipol data differently especially as 
we move off the center of the beam.  This could pose problems for any attempt
at mosaiced polarization maps, where the science is in polarization of
extended (compared to the beam) regions.  What are thoughts on how this
should be dealt with?

Configurations:  
 The plans for the layout
of the pads must be finalized by the beginning of construction.  We hope
that the first construction funds will arrive on 2001 Oct 1 when the FY2002
begins here.  The project WBS has this date as 2002 1 Jan.  Realistically, 
I think we need to inspect the pad sites before finalizing their location.
We have begun this, but it is a huge task.  I'd like to have some decision
on the pad locations before the next austral summer, but that doesn't seem
entirely practical.  Min Yun has taken up a position at U. Mass. now, and
will continue to lead our efforts through the point at which the first sets
of simulations are finished.  In my opinion, all these things suggest that
we should have the next meeting PDR early in 2001.  The ASAC will meet in early
March, so this should give us a chance to respond to the PDR in time to
present that response to the ASAC.
ll

Clear skies,
Al