From: Ian Bearden (bearden@nbi.dk)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 12:38:36 EDT
Hi Steve, I will try to accommodate you. On mandag, jun 30, 2003, at 18:03 Europe/Copenhagen, Stephen J. Sanders wrote: > 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. OK > change to: " ...subsequently forms suggest that the system, ..." > Otherwise the subject > is separated from the verb. OK > change to: "An analysis of particle ratios at midrapidity..." > Remove unnecessary comma. O,K (conservation of commas...) > > Para 2: change to: "...from initial hard parton scatterings, have been > ..." I say "are predicted" gives us one more word of space... > > 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". I added respectively...look at the draft which you should recieve in less than one hour... > > "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... I have now: An addition hardware trigger selected the ~25% most central events for parts of the... > 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. OK. > 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. removed "and normalized..." > I would suggest adding in the HIJING reference the specific version > that we used, > particularly since this is an issue for the dAu analysis. OK...Hiro, Claus...what version? > > 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. There are no superscripts. If you insist, I'll change the subscripts, but for now I'd rather work on more substantive comments. > > 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. Now reads: For the centrality cuts used, Nbin=.... > Is is p_t, p_T, or pt? All three forms are used for the transverse > momentum! I changed them all to p_T . > change to: "We note, however, that because of the lack of an..." > The "due to" form is > not appropriate here. We note, however, that because we lack an ... > change to: "We estimate it to be 30%...." Need "be". fixed > Fix: ' before cent and per... I believe in LaTeX you use two single > quotes '' to get > the correctly slanted double quote. I'll check... > Para 8: Fix: dN/d_(gluon) done > Para 10: I don't think that "participant zone" is defined anywhere in > the paper. This may be > somewhat confusing jargon. I agree with you. Give me an idea that is better. > "i.e." not "i.e" > Para 11: Same "i.e." issue... > change to: "...and absorption mechanisms and by carrying..." Remove > unnecessary comma. > done > 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." Nucl. Phys. what? > 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. This is being done...I hope.... Thanks Steve. Look forward to a new draft in an hour or so... Cheers, Ian > > > > 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. @nbi.dk. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> >> <high-pt36.pdf><high-pt36.ps>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 30 2003 - 12:41:36 EDT