Hi Jens Jørgen et al.,
On Fri, 15 Mar 2001, Bjørn H. Samset wrote:
> I'm a bit sceptical about including the TPM1 dNdEta-numbers, for a few
> reasons. One is of course that I get somewhat different numbers, and that
> seem to agree better with Hiro and Steve's Tile/Si analysis. Take a look at
> www.fys.uio.no/~bjornhs/dNdEtaPlot1.ps
> for a comparison figure showing my latest numbers. Here I have used the
> centrality made by Claus and Christian, and the <Npart> presented by Hiro
> in BAN26
I think the discrepancy between the two TPM1 (dN/dEta/0.5*<Npart>)
results is mainly due to the different <Npart> numbers determined for
the two lowest centrality bins (30 - 40% and 40 - 50%.) It looks as the
"raw" dN/dEta numbers actually agree within 5 - 6%, and the two sets of
TPM1 results would be consistent if the same <Npart> numbers were applied
(and very close to Hiro and Steve's Si numbers!) :-)
> The second reason is that the plot you have, as I
> read it, indicate that we have determined the systematic uncertainty (?)
> and that we uderpredict HIJING for peripheral events.
I agree with Bjørn, it would probably be more cautious to omit error bars
until the study of systematic errors has progressed a bit further.
A nice weekend to you all!
Cheers, Trine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 16 2001 - 12:36:50 EST