dN/deta draft

From: Sanders, Stephen J (ssanders@ku.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 16 2001 - 22:13:48 EDT

  • Next message: Flemming Videbaek: "Brahms publication"

    Dear Collaborator,
       The paper committee working on the dN/deta paper has what we believe is a
    near
    final version for which we would now like to get collaboration comments.
    The paper can be
    downloaded in .ps or .pdf format from
    
    http://www.phsx.ukans.edu/~sanders/dndeta/dndeta.ps
    http://www.phsx.ukans.edu/~sanders/dndeta/dndeta.pdf
    
    The LaTeX version can be accessed from the kansas account on the piis in the
    directory
    /home/kansas/dndeta
    This directory also contains the figures in photoshop (.psd) and eps
    formats.
    
    The intent is to submit to Physics Letters B by the end of July, assuming
    this round of
    collaboration comments goes smoothly.  To meet this deadline, we are asking
    that you
    submit your comments by next Tuesday, July 24.  
    
    The author list and acknowledgements have been copied from the ppbar paper.
    Still, please check these
    elements carefully so that we do not inadvertently miss someone or some
    funding agency.   
    
    The rationale for a Physics Letters submission, rather than Physical Review
    Letters, has several elements.
    The Physics Letters format allows us to more fully develop the details of
    our multi-component measurement
    while still being able to highlight the new physics results. We believe this
    will be one of the first RHIC
    papers submitted to Physics Letters, which may increase our visibility.
    Also, with the recent PHOBOS submissions to PRL, there would be considerable
    overlap between our
    results and those reported by PHOBOS, which could result in delays going
    through the refereeing process.
    
    Although we believe the numbers quoted in the draft are "final", the
    analysis crew will
    continue to look for refinements.  A particular focus is the approx. 10%
    difference that still exists between the 
    Si and Tile results.  Although this difference is within our systematic
    uncertainties, we would obviously like to
    understand why it exists.  Considerable effort has already be expended on
    this, however, so a
    "fix" within a reasonable period seems unlikely. 
    
    Please copy your comment to all members of the paper committee, as listed
    below:
    
    Jens Jorgen Gaardhoje (gardhoje@hehi03.nbi.dk)
    Hiro Ito (hito@students.phsx.ukans.edu)
    J.H. Lee (jhlee@sgs1.hirg.bnl.gov)
    Fouad Rami (Fouad.Rami@IReS.in2p3.fr)
    Steve Sanders (ssanders@falcon.cc.ukans.edu) <-- (My normal ssanders@ku.edu
    address will be down this weekend)
    Trine Tveter  ( trine@lynx.uio.no)
    
    Specific questions on details of the Si/Tile/BB analysis should be directed
    to Hiro, and on the TPM1 analysis to Trine,
    with copies to the full committee. A reasonably large number of analysis
    notes and presentations have been developed 
    on this material and can be accessed from the Brahms private web pages.
    
    
    Regards,  Steve
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jul 16 2001 - 22:15:46 EDT