From: Stephen J. Sanders (ssanders@ku.edu)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 12:03:45 EDT
Dear JJ and Ian, In the spirit of parallelism, I've gone through the latest draft looking for additional typos, grammar errors, etc. I think the physics story is now pretty stable, although I will be interested in seeing the final figures and figure captions. In any case, here is another list of (mostly) minor items: Institution list: The zip code for the University of Kansas is 66045. (I made this mistake a while back and keep forgetting to fix it on subsequent papers...) Para 1: e.g. (rather than eg.) change to: "... a high degree of nuclear transparency, as may be ... [1]." Otherwise the parenthesis are not matched. change to: " ...subsequently forms suggest that the system, ..." Otherwise the subject is separated from the verb. change to: "An analysis of particle ratios at midrapidity..." Remove unnecessary comma. Para 2: change to: "...from initial hard parton scatterings, have been ..." Para 4: change to: "BRAHMS consists of two magnetic spectrometers for measuring hadrons and antihadrons (the MidRapidity Spectrometer, MRS, and the Forward Spectrometer, FS) that for the present measurements were positioned at 90 degrees (eta = 0) and 12 degrees (eta = 2.2), respectively." There may be a better rephrasing, but there needs to be a "respectively" somewhere in the statement and we only report on measurements at two rapidity points, not a "range". "An additional trigger based selected..." Based on what? "...most central events (0- ..." Is 0- some special jargon symbol? The use of a special font? Something is strange... Why is the 6.6m location singled out in the list of inel vertex positions? The second "z = " should be removed. Para 5: change to: "The spectra are from..." Remove extra comma. change to: "...for the acceptance of the spectrometers and for the tracking efficiency." I would suggest removing the final "and normalized to the number of events." If the final clause is felt necessary, then the entire sentence should be reworked or broken into two. I would suggest adding in the HIJING reference the specific version that we used, particularly since this is an issue for the dAu analysis. Para 6: In defining R_AA, the superscript should also be AA, rather than AuAu. Presumably this definition is meant to be generic. However, the figures should then have R_AuAu, as is used in the text. Para 7: change to: "For the various centrality cuts shown in Fig. 1 we use ..." This corrects two problems: 1) Without an explicit reference back to Fig. 1 the reader will assume the Fig. 2 cuts, of which there are only two shown. 2) "use" is missing. Is is p_t, p_T, or pt? All three forms are used for the transverse momentum! change to: "We note, however, that because of the lack of an..." The "due to" form is not appropriate here. change to: "We estimate it to be 30%...." Need "be". Fix: ' before cent and per... I believe in LaTeX you use two single quotes '' to get the correctly slanted double quote. Para 8: Fix: dN/d_(gluon) Para 10: I don't think that "participant zone" is defined anywhere in the paper. This may be somewhat confusing jargon. "i.e." not "i.e" Para 11: Same "i.e." issue... change to: "...and absorption mechanisms and by carrying..." Remove unnecessary comma. References: I believe the convention on the arXiv archive is to use lowercase: i.e., "nucl-ex" rather than "Nucl-ex" ref 11 should be "Nucl. Phys." As a general comment on the figure, I would suggest changing all of the eta appox = 2 notations to eta = 2.2. This would make them more consistent with the text. On Sunday, June 29, 2003, at 03:00 PM, Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > As you are aware a major international interest is focussing on the > phenomenon called high-pt suppression at RHIC. By many - perhaps at > the moment mostly theorists- this effect is seen as evidence for QGP. > It thus constitutes a highly significant physics issue. > > The BRAHMs collaboration has data on this issue that constitute > interesting, and in part unique ,contributions to the ongoing > discussion. > > The data include high pt suppression at y=0 and 2.2 for Au+Au > collisions and lack of suppression in d+Au collisions. This > information was presented at the public colloquium at BNL on June 17th > by Ian Bearden, and shown at the NN2003 conference by Claus Ekman > Joergensen and JJG (it even made the 9 o'clock news in the Russian > channel 1). The other collaborations had manuscripts ready for > submission on June 17th and have submitted them. > > Starting with the discussions in Krakow, a very significant effort has > been going on to produce a manuscript for submission to PRL. A heavy > analysis and paper writing effort has been going on. The aim is to be > ready to submit a mansucript on Tuesday. We feel that it is absolutely > essential for the 'renommée' of the BRAHMS collaboration to publish > its results on the shortest possible time scale and thereby maintain > its competitiveness within the RHIC program and on the international > scene. > > I enclose a copy of the present state of the manuscript. Many > discussions regarding the analysis have been going on between (mainly) > BNL and NBI. Likewise many contributions to the manuscript draft have > been incorporated in the last week (DB, FV, SS, KH, MM, JBZ, IGB, HB > and others). Many have helped with input to the analysis (TST, HI > etc..). > > Monday will be a crucial day. The analysis will hopefully settle down > , and 'final' figures will be produced. You will already have seen > various drafts of the manuscript under development on hte Brahms list. > Nevertheless, we ask you to consider the present manuscript with its > physics information and give us tomorrow your opinion on it. > Naturally, any changes will be circulated immediately to the > collaboration for further approval. > > We apologise for the rush, which is, however, dictated by the need to > make public the BRAHMS results to the community as soon as possible > and by the fact that many of the central people are/will be away in > the coming weeks due to planned vacation and travel. Thus we propose > this parallellism of action. Otherwise we do not see a submission > before mid-August, with the consequences that this implies. > > with best regards > and hoping to hear from you > JJG > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Sc. > Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. > Tlf: (+45) 35 32 53 09, secr. (+45) 35 32 52 09, Fax: (+45) 35 32 50 > 16. > UNESCO Natl. Comm., secr. (+45) 33 92 52 16. > Email: gardhoje@nbi.dk. > ____________________________________________________________ > > > <high-pt36.pdf><high-pt36.ps>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 30 2003 - 12:05:04 EDT