======================================================================
Michael Schmitt -- Remarks from LC2002 / Korea
                   ---------------------------

Michael made some extemporaneous remarks on the LC meeting in Korea,
which he and Jack Gunion both attended.

1. Overall
Overall, many people remarked that the gamma-gamma collider was an
important component of the LC program.  The most attractive feature is
its ability to find the heavier neutral Higgs bosons even in the
situation when no other collider can.

It is also worth noting that gamma-gamma contributions dominated the
Higgs session.  Little new work in e+e- was reported, while there were
roughly ten talks contributed by American and European study groups.
This gamma-gamma presence was very relevant to the discussions about
the gamma-gamma option.

2. The gamma-gamma discussion.
There was a scheduled discussion with the subject: Should the
gamma-gamma collider option be pursued?  Albert de Roeck made a brief
presentation reminding people of the main physics points, and heading
off some criticisms about backgrounds and the availability of laser
technologies. Telnov reminded people that great physics discoveries
turn up in unexpected places, and that often new accelerator
technologies are key.  He stated that a gamma-gamma collider would
cost only 15% more than the e+e- LC alone.

Michael announced the two planned workshops (at SLAC in November, and
at UC Davis in May).  He stated that it was too early to decide that a
gamma-gamma collider would not be needed.  Various members of the
audience replied that this was clear, and that no one was trying to
`kill' the gamma-gamma collider option. Michael pointed out that the
gamma-gamma community was serious and committed, as evidenced (at
least) by the laser research at LLNL and the plans to perform a
proof-of-principle experiment at SLAC.  He supported Telnov's emphasis
on pursuing aggressive R&D now, and that putting it on a low priority
would be a big mistake. There ensued a discussion on the number of
interaction regions, since no one would be willing to turn off e+e- in
order to run gamma-gamma. So the gamma-gamma option would require a
second IP.  Rick van Kooten and Eilam Gross advanced other arguments
why a second IP was needed. For example, one would surely like to run
at the highest possible energy for discovery purposes, while running
at a lower energy to optimize the study of the lightest neutral Higgs
boson.  If there is then a second detector, the main question was
whether it could be dual purpose: first running e+e- to measure Higgs
properties, then running in gamma-gamma mode.  The general opinion was
that this was possible.

Michael reported a strong statement from Klaus Desch that the
gamma-gamma community needed to select a `flagship' analysis and bring
it to the highest level of simulation quality.  That means, a full
Geant simulation with a detector specifically geared to a gamma-gamma
collider, with all physics and instrumental backgrounds taken into
account. He did not feel that the physics case needed to be expanded
any more -- the point is that the feasibility had to be better
established.

There was a discussion in this working group meeting, and everyone
agreed that Desch's proposal was appropriate and reasonable, even if
he was setting the standards a bit higher than had been achieved by
his own community.  It is clear that the high mass Higgs should be the
flagship topic, since, as remarked above, this is what has caught the
attention of the general LC community. There will be more discussion
of this in the next meeting.

3. Talks and Summary reports.
All three contributions reported by Michael were well received, and
all appeared in various summary talks on the last day.  Jack's talks
were excellent and also very influential.  The written contribution
was also effective and well placed.

Maria Krawczyk's summary talk was very balanced and fairly reported
the work our group did.  She was particularly interested in Heather
Logan's results, and in the charged Higgs.

======================================================================
Mayda Velasco -- Report from the Nanobeams Workshop (Lausanne)
                 ---------------------------------------------

Mayda reported that the focus of the discussions at this workshop is
on beam stability issues, and group motion.  There is R&D going on
around the world.

It was remarked that the auto-correction used for keeping e+e-
collisions stable might not work for e-e-.  This was discussed quite a
bit.  It would be nice if this could be tested at SLAC, but Jeff
explained that SLAC would not be running e-e-.

Mayda also reported that there were some doubts about using the bunch
charge method to ascertain what fraction of the incoming beam was
converted to high energy photons.  Jeff and David are confident that
this can be done, for example, by installing a small dedicated
calorimeter in measure the energy of the photon beam produced.

An important and recognized virtue of the SLAC testbed project is the
study of the stability of the laser + electron beam combination. That
is, we need to demonstrate that a photon beam can be produced in a
stable and reliable manner.

======================================================================
Jeff Gronberg -- Status of the Testbed Proposal
                 ------------------------------

Jeff reported that the proposal is coming together. Right now the
authors are finishing the technical details.  He will soon release the
current draft to the collaborators for review and comments.

The SLAC EPAC will take place in late October or early November. There
has been a suggestion that SLD may be too difficult to revive, and it
may be better to replace it with a small calorimeter. Jeff will sound
out people on this issue, and on the worthiness of the proposal for
this upcoming EPAC meeting.

======================================================================
Michal Szleper -- WHIZARD
                  -------

Michal Szleper is the newest addition to our working group.  He has
worked with Mayda on several other projects in the last couple of
years. His e-mail address is: michals@diablo.phys.northwestern.edu .

Michal has learned how to run WHIZARD for calculating the cross
section for four-fermion final states.  (This is needed for several of
the Higgs physics studies, as reported by Mayda in previous meetings.)
He outlined briefly how the package is run.  It is clumsy in some
ways, and it requires very many integration points, which translates
into much CPU time.  He has tested the package for the four specific
final states: eeee, mumumumu, eemumu, tautautautau.  One particular
problem is that is requires an F90 compiler, which is not generally
available. He and Mayda will look into purchasing this for the
Northwestern cluster. At the present time, Michal is using executables
compiled by Steve Mrenna.

The program can only be run for a fixed photon beam energy.  [Since
the meeting, David obtained some information from the authors about
running with a given beam energy spectrum.] The convergence of the
calculation is quite slow, taking on the order of 8 hours of CPU. Once
convergence is obtained, Michal's numbers agree fairly well with
theoretical calculations, and have small statistical uncertainties.
(Of course there remain parametric and theoretical uncertainties.) The
optimized phase space grid can be saved to disk to save time in the
next run of the program, or in generating events.  The program can
also be used to generate events, though it is quite slow in doing so.

======================================================================
AOB:
 The next meeting will be in  Oct. 4.

======================================================================
M.Schmitt / Northwestern