Dear Steve,
I am preparing our DOE proposal and would like to use
one of the plots you used in the multiplicity paper. Could you send
me the figures in gif format please.
Yours Michael
Quoting "Sanders, Stephen J" <ssanders@ku.edu>:
> 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
>
Michael Murray, Cyclotron TAMU, 979 845 1411 x 273, Fax 1899
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jul 21 2001 - 12:39:52 EDT