Hi, I put this reply on the dev list since it is not so paper relevant. > http://www4.rcf.bnl.gov/RepliesToReferees.htm should be: > http://www4.rcf.bnl.gov/~debbe/RepliesToReferees.htm I think that it is not surprising that Claus acceptance method does a better job since it should have the exact geometry as opposed to the brag stuff I implemented which at best looks like Au-Au 2001. Lately stuff (as I have read it) that has been changed that could affect this is the new possibility to setup in brag the real geometry and the changing of the swim code. However, that we both are off at low p_T suggests that something is wrong somewhere. (These results actually goes against earlier tests by Djamel). This points at the fact that for a long time we have had many different codes for spectra. I think it would be good if it was possible for someone to put these codes together in a stronger way (a strong class with some macros perhaps?) than now and test them. Spectra is what BRAHMS should be super at and therefore maybe it is time to settle for a super code;) Just a small suggestion for someone to make a lot of work (from a guy sitting safely at CERN;), Peter -- :-) --------------------------- )-: Peter H L Christiansen pchristi@nbi.dk / (+41)764870425 :-D --------------------------- \-: _______________________________________________ Brahms-dev-l mailing list Brahms-dev-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-dev-lReceived on Wed Aug 25 04:39:06 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 25 2004 - 04:39:27 EDT