Hi, Thanks for the comments and observations. I just received these a few hours before leaving for vacation and so I can't claim to fully understand this fully, yet. In particular, I will not be able to look up the references before leaving. Having said this, my initial impression is that this discussion may be too involved for an experimental Letter, particularly since we are already well over the recommended length. However, I would ask the other members of the paper working group to consider whether we should delay submission to incorporate this material. The current plan is to submit as soon as the procedures set up by the experiment spokespersons have been satisfied. I will be posting the current version of the paper later this evening, with notice to this list. I certainly will change the acknowledgement as you request. Regards, Steve on 8/3/01 6:09 PM, Ion-Sorin Zgura at zis@rcf2.rhic.bnl.gov wrote: > > Dear Steve, > > We send you some comments on the paper "Charged particle .... ": > > Taking into account the idea on the possible > dependence of the total number of charged particles on the amount of > hadronic rescattering we believe that a comparison with HIJING predictions > and UrQMD predictions, respectively, because of their very different > assumptions. For example, the charged particle multiplicity predicted by > the HIJING Code is - for impact parameters in the range [0.0;17.0] Fm for > all rapidities - mch=1182+/-20.4 (mtot=2137), and the same quantity, > predicted by UrQMD Code, for the same conditions, is mch=1820 (mtot=3143). > This observation can be considered for the role of the subnucleonic > processes, too. The importance of the collision geometry can be treated in > two aspects, too. First of all, we can compare the multiplicities in the > full rapidity range and in the midrapidity range {[-2.2;+2.2]}. The > obtained values using UrQMD codes are: mch=1235.0+/-41.1, > mtot=2072.0+/-68.3, respectively. Using HIJING Code the following values > are obtained: mch =711.8+/-14.7, mtot=1230.0+/-25.4. > Therefore, a higher termalization can be supposed in the central region too. > The second way > can be related to a phenomenological geometric picture of the relativistic > nuclear collisions (C.Besliu, Al.Jipa - Rev.Roum.Phys.33(1988)409, > Rom.J.Phys.37(1992); Al.Jipa - J.Phys.G: Nucl.Part.Phys.22(1996)231), > adapted for colliders (C.Besliu et al - Rom.Rep.Phys.52(8,9)(2000)). The > calculation of the participant number can be performed at each impact > parameter and compared with the simulation code predictions (Analysis Note > 17). > There is a good agreement (including Table I from this paper). A comment > can be introduced on the limiting fragmentation, too. This assumption was > used to introduce > so-called "cumulative effect" (see, for example, A.M.Baldin - > Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys.IV(1980)95, C.Besliu et al - Nucl.Phys.A672(2000)446). > This effect can be related to the fluctuations and non-equilibrium > processes. Finally, a short unimportant request: after the last election > the Ministry of Research merged (jointed) with Romanian Ministry of > National Education; therefore, now we have Romanian Ministry of Education > and Research. If it is possible to complete this denomination will be > very nice for us. > > Thank you! > > Sincerely yours, > > Alexandru JIPA > Calin BESLIU > Sorin ZGURA > Catalin RISTEA >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Aug 03 2001 - 21:39:48 EDT