Dear Friends and Collegues,
I also had just a few minor
comments on the multiplicity paper which I communicated
to Steve by phone. I think it is very important
that we submit the paper to the Los Alamos server
before the Phobos sends there 200GeV result
there. I realise that we have to wait a week for
BNL to check the paper before sending it to PLB.
Could that not be done today?
Yours Michael
Quoting Jens Jorgen Gaardhoje <gardhoje@nbi.dk>:
> Dear friends
>
> I am back from my vacation absence.
>
> I have read the latest version of the mult. paper.
>
> I like what I see and would urge submittal ASAP to PLB. I suppose that
> the length requirements have been checked.
>
> A.
> A few comments of small importance:
> p. 4, para 2: The quoted pseudo... -> THis pseudorapidity coverage
> reflects the geometrical coverage of the array and the extended range
> ...
>
> p 6 para 3 l-6 from bottom: remove; also ,before 'be located'.
>
> p 7 l 1. two background-> summed background
>
> p8 l7: is necessary to eliminate -> eliminates
>
> p8 l9: Based on HIJING simulations it is estimated that this
> corresponds
> to 95% of the total nuclear cross section.
>
> p 9 para 2 l2 : within ... acceptance -> in the range
>
> p 11 last para: In summary, the BRAHMS...
> last para l 4 remove 'apparent'
>
> l 8 : ... behavior is seen for nucleus-nucleus
> collisions and is in fact already reached at the lower energy.
>
> B.
> A more substantial comment:
>
> We are all still bothered by the difference between tiles and Si for
> the
> most peripheral collisions. This difference looks like a TMA additive
> offset of 10-15 particles. Thus it only reveals itself for low total
> number of particles.
> Does this difference subsist if the centrality selection is made with a
> 3rd party detector?
> (e.g. the BB?).
> In any case if we have no clue as to the reason for this discrepancy
> and
> to a remedy I still propose to show fig. 16 as is, and accept the
> difference as a measure of our syst,. error.
>
> C.
> I thought we ' pluralis communalis' did not like references to
> preprints etc, but only favored fully published papers. I have no
> personal problem with such references, but we should not zigzag in our
> policy. Leave it now and in the future.
>
> Steve suggest to submit the paper by Friday: You certainly have my
> blessing!
> And congratulation collectively for a godd job!
>
> cheers
> JJ
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> JENS JORGEN GAARDHOJE
> Assoc. Prof. of Physics, Dr. Scient.
>
> Niels Bohr Institute,
> University of Copenhagen
> Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen
> Denmark.
>
> Tlf: (+45) 35 32 53 09 (dir)
> (+45) 35 32 52 09 (secr)
> Fax: (+45) 35 32 50 16
> Email: gardhoje @ nbi.dk
> Home page: http://alf.nbi.dk/~gardhoje
>
> -Chair Ph. D. School of Physics at NBI.F.AFG.
> (secr. Frank Kristensen 35 32 04 41, Ørsted Lab.)
> -Member Danish National Commission for UNESCO
> (secr. Ulla Holm 35 32 52 72, NBI)
> ___________________________________________________
>
Michael Murray, Cyclotron TAMU, 979 845 1411 x 273, Fax 1899
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Aug 02 2001 - 10:55:32 EDT