Present: Gollwitzer, Stancari (G), Stancari (M), Kasper, Graham, Seo,
          Rumerio, Rosen, Pordes

 General/immediate:

 Keith said that the time of the power outage scheduled for Friday morning has 
 been changed to some unspecified time. He was told he would be notified.

 Jason said that he had taken the GP tapes to the Feynman Center.

 Matt and Seon-Hee will be working on FCal Laser connections on Friday.
 (see later).

 Giulio said that the Ferrara work-station had not yet left Ferrara but
 would be doing so very shortly (in a day or so). He has written a guide
 for the shiftt crew to  monitor the accelerator parameters.

 Paolo said he had replaced the last FERA 4300 with a 4300B and done the
 1pe calibration for the Cerenkov counter.

 Keith asked about the Helium status: Stephen says Jay Theilacker says it
 should be available at the beginning of this coming week.

 Keith asked Stephen what arrangements have been made for the meeting.

 Stephen lost 2 1 quarter bets this week to younger people. 

 Presentations:

Matt showed a plot of the TDC turn on curve for an FCal 2000 block.
 It looked completely sensible with full turn-on at about 20 ADC counts.
 Stephen should have asked "what threshold have you set on the shaper
 boards?" - but he didn't. He asks it now.
 (Stephen lost his second quarter of the week when he claimed that Michelle
 has incorrect error bars on her plot of the CCAL TDC turn on in her thesis.
 She doesn't - see fig 3-12)
 Matt also showed a plot of ADC vs TDC for the same block. Using all the
 events there was a clear band of real data but a lot of noise, too.
 (Events with large ADC values and early times and events with small ADC
 values and late times). He will make sure the events correspond to data
 events (not random gates or laser flashes or whatever). 
 Selecting events where the block participated in a reconstructed pi-0 gave a 
 very nice plot of TDC time vs ADC pulse height showing the expected slewing.

 Seon-Hee showed plots of one FCal block's response to the laser calibration.
 The response to many pulses for this block has an average of 165 ADC counts
 and an rms/mean of 5.9%. Using the laser-monitor diode as reference,
 event-by-event, reduces the rms/mean to 5.5% and using the average 
 pulse-height in the FCaL as the event-by-event reference reduces the spread 
 to 5.3%. After losing his first quarter of the week, Stephen suggested that 
 this value of 5.3% means that at 160 ADC counts the counter is generating 
 about 370 photo-electrons (to give a resolution of 5.3%). At 4 MeV/ADC count, 
 this corresponds to 370 photo-electrons for 660 MeV which may be about right
 for these blocks.


 Michelle reported first on the two extra dead blocks. 1 has revived and she
 believes the original delay cable may be intermittend and she has changed it. 
 There was some suggestion that this cable had behaved badly previously. It 
 is now marked BAD. Stephen suggested she cut its end off. The other block was
 reading 500 ohms across the signal cable into the summers. She and Giulio
 tested the cable between the summers and the calorimeters and it seems fine -
 so the problem is in the calorimeter. This is a ring 1 block and very hard
 to get to the connector so we will probably leave it as is.

 Michelle then showed some data on the laser performance on the CCAL.
 The two laser monitor diodes seem to be performing fine. The laser spread
 (rms/mean) she sees (on a block with an average response of 720 ADC channels) 
 was 3.4%. Using any of: the monitor diodes, the wedge average, the ring 
 average and/or the whole CCaL average as an event-by event monitor gave a 
 spread (rms/mean) of 1.36% - which is just fine. 
 Michelle has installed the laser protection box (protection in the sense that 
 it will not pass high rate of triggers to the laser) and has redone the 
 timing. She had noted that a small fraction (1/15) of the events in the 
 laser sample - taken in real data-taking mode - show a strange time (10 ns 
 early).  She did not see any such events when she was redoing the timing to 
 compensate for the protection box. She ignores these events for the laser 
 analysis - but she doesn't understand how this arises and would like to. a (Stephen lost his second quarter of the week when he claimed that Michelle
 has incorrect error bars on her plot of the CCAL TDC turn on in her thesis.
 She doesn't - see fig 3-12). As Jerry sagely commented there may be some 
 minor malfunction somewhere.
 
 
 Stephen