[mmaimcal] Error in ALG minutes for 28 June

[Al Wootten]

Hi, Carolyn

Yesterday, there appeared on the ALG WWW site, minutes of the 28-29 June
meeting.  These need to be corrected (page 3).

ALMA LIASON GROUP
Minutes of 28-29 June 2000
...snip
* The ASAC also recommends implementation of the following frequency bands in all front-end - 3, 6, 7, 9, 4, 8, 1, 10 (in order of priority) plus water vapor radiometer.  
...snip
This is incorrect.  The order is incorrect, and two bands are missing.
I suggest adding a statement:
CORRECTION:  The ASAC report 
(http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~awootten/mmaimcal/asacreport/node3.html)
says:
       First Priority: Bands 3, 6, 7, and 9 
       Second Priority: Bands 1, 4, and 2 (see below) 
       Third Priority: Bands 5, 8, and 10 

On 10 June, the ASAC reaffirmed this by stating:

b) Receivers. Japan proposed that it provide bands 8 and 10. However, in the 
ASAC a strong interest in the 2 mm band (number 4) was expressed, especially
for high-redshift objects. The importance of band 1 was also reiterated. A 
concern was expressed as to whether band 10 was technologically feasible yet.

On 28 June, in response to the JRDG receiver specifications document
the ASAC clarified its earlier statement:
    Issue: lower frequency range of Band 3 (now 86 GHz)  

    ASAC:  The ASAC actually wrote
           (http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~awootten/mmaimcal/asacreport/node3.html):
           "We strongly urge that the JRDG study the possibility of extending 
            the lower frequency range of Band 3 to include the SiO maser 
            transition near 86 GHz. If this is possible, Band 2 would drop to 
            third priority."
           Since the VLBA 3 mm receivers will go down to 84 GHz, perhaps
           some attention should be paid to the actual number of the lower 
           limit. We recommend that 84 GHz is adopted.
---