Hi Dieter, Thanks for the comments! Let me give you some of our thinking on this. Point 1. In an earlier draft circulated around the paper committee we did have a figure parallel to that of Phobos and Phenix. However, after some discussion we decided that it was important that we did NOT look like a clone of those papers. (I know, Phobos has a paper that is an almost exact clone of Phenix's, but both of those groups got there before us...) We therefore attempted to highlight a different discussion and, as much as possible, we tried to develop figures that look somewhat different from what is found in those papers. I think (at least I hope) we were able to do this. As a secondary, but important, issue, I am already concerned about the length of the paper. Although Physics Letters does not appear to have a strict page limit, they do give length guidelines which we already far exceed. By expanding our discussion of what is already well covered in the previous publication, we would need to curtail some of the new discussion. Keep in mind, our experimental numbers are VERY similar to those submitted by Phobos in their most recent paper. Point 2. Again, I don't think we have space for an expanded discussion, and I think the Pb+Pb SPS data comparison makes the case here. However, I agree that if there is an AGS A+A reference, we should include it. I've not come across such a reference and the recent (year 2000) Deines-Jones SPS paper that we reference does not point to any AA work at AGS energies. Are you (or anyone else on this list) aware of such a reference? Point 3. The basis for this statement are Figure 4.1 and 4.2 of the Bass reference. The UrQMD net protons (4.1) and negatively charged hadrons (4.2) are compared to preliminary NA49 Pb+Pb (158 GeV/nucleon) data. The comparison is, for my eye, remarkably good. However, based on your comment we are probably safest to remove the characterization. Regards, Steve Dieter Rohrich wrote: > 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 - 15:30:44 EDT