Dear Stephen, very nice letter. I only have three comments: multiplicity dependence of (dn/deta)/Npart at midrap.: Since PHOSOS and PHENIX make a big point out of it, shouldn't we address it more quantitatively, e.g. a figure, or a detailled discussion at the bootom of page 9? limiting fragmentation (page 10): what about AGS? I am sure there is data (e.g. emulsion) at AGS energies. UrQMD: UrQMD is NOT successful in describing SPS results. Either be more specific about what observable you mean or remove this sentence (page 11, top) With best wishes, Dieter ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dieter Roehrich | Fysisk institutt | Email: Dieter.Rohrich@fi.uib.no Universitetet i Bergen | Tel: +47-555-82722 Allegt. 55 | Fax: +47-555-89440 N-5007 Bergen, Norway | WWW: http://www.fi.uib.no/php/drhrich.html On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Stephen J. Sanders wrote: > Hi JJ, > Welcome back! > > I will make the wording changes and post a draft with all of the > changes that I've received (mostly very minor wording) later today. > > Unfortunately, the "procedural issue" that I alluded to in my earlier > message > is real. Notification of our intent to publish was not sent to the other > experiments before Flemming left for vacation. I will be gone until > next Sunday, so the present "plan" is to have Flemming send > notification on Monday when he gets back, and I'll submit the following > Monday (I'll try to post to arXiv next Sunday). > > The size issue is an interesting one. We are well over the recommended > size for > Physics Letters. However, the journal seems to be willing to bend on > this rule--Looking > at several recent issues, I found a number of papers that were > comparably overlength. > The Information for Authors discussion presents the size recommendations as > a recomendation and not as a hard limit. > I think we are reasonably concise in our presentation and so I am hoping > that > this will count in our favor. However, I don't have any experience here. > > Hiro has looked at different mulitiplicity cuts: Si alone, Tile alone, > BB alone, > Si+Tile, and does not see any significant difference in the dN/deta > distributions. In > particular, this does not resolve the Si/Tile "problem". I think we are > need to live > with this... > > I'm not sure about the reference question. For political reasons if > nothing else, I think > we need to keep the latest Phobos preprint references. The only > reference that > people can not look up is the one to our NIM contribution. My own > feeling is that > this is weak and should probably not be there. My impression, however, > is that most > of the working group wants to keep it. I don't feel strongly one way or > the other. > > Regards, Steve > > Jens Jorgen Gaardhoje wrote: > > > 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) > > ___________________________________________________ > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Aug 03 2001 - 13:04:28 EDT