Dear Jens Jorgen Thanks for your comments, it always help to get fresh eays to look at tings that has been gone over so many times. I will comment to a few Q's for which I know the answer. > Hello Kris and other NIM paper committe members. > > Below please find my comments on the NIM paper in sequential order. > There are no page numbers on my manuscript. I define page 1 as the cover > page . > > > General: Can we have COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS?? And color plots? > No, not unless we want to pay the costs?!~ The plots despite made in color mostly make good B/W copies, but if any plots are to be redone, this should be rethought i.e people should think in B/W. I know Ole was concerned but quite pleased when plotting on a/W printer. > A table up front with rapidity coverages of the various detectors would be > useful. Doesn't fig 1 do this - possibly added with a few definitions. It is not so easy to put in tabular form. > > There are many inconsistent spellings. E.g. Mid Rapidty spectrometer, mid > rapidity, midrapidity etc... agree- should be as in other papers. > Figure2. label for left ZDC is missing on figure. TOIFW label should be > moved closer to detector, separate T2 and H1 labels to show sequence. add > arrows. easily enough done. Others stuff that would help is to extend the beam-pipe to the DX, but since this involves my coding more stuff for BRAG it is not so obvious this will happen. T3 label should be moved. ZDC orientation looks strange. > Perpsective? Somehow Rene Brun did not get it right in his Fortran days wiuth the perspective cuts; When you do cuts in proper directional planes is is ok > p7 top. Window frame design. What is this? C-type? I trust this is common nomencleature , Not C-Clamp type. > Perhaps also mention data for D2 at RHIC location. > > Also interesting are the fringe field plots of D2 at the location of T1 and > T2. these were made a copuple of years ago. Could you send Kris/Committee a copy of your 'old' note on D2 design? > last para: no, the TPC electronics is determined by COST and not by fancy > thinking. Everyone would like to have more channels! At least the FS > analysts. =>Idea for RHIC upgrade? Yes and no, it was determined early that the layout used was sufficient, even though real life has shown there is more weird background than envisioned. Idea for upgrade - not so likely in practice, The STAR si-wafer runs from the electronics has gone its course, and is prohibitively ewxpensive to do for a small #.. > > p9 para1: is this right is x always in the dispersive direction. Is this > also the way Geant , Brag etc handles this? Future BRAHMS students will > sweat over this if it is not right. EDITOR: HELP US. In fact it happens to be. The local coordinate system, has Y up and Z away from the IP so X is pointing toward the beam for FS detectors;Thus both the plot and Maps are correct. The slatnumbering on the other hands do go from 1..n as pos x to low x, as do pad numbering. > > para 3 middle : ..that (degrades) => linearly reduces ? > > What about a figure showing the correlation between drift velocity and drift > voltage for different gas mictures?This will be useful for BRAHMS people in > the future. Or Voltage (V/cm) I think a reference might do here - what do you think Ramiro? > Would be good in this section to have some actual number for the > efficiency and the average number of partciles. A quick table? I do not think we have this, > ADD a photograph of H1 Do you have one ? or is the suggestion one from the installation phase. > p14. > Show a plot of C1 vs m2 In the performance section maybe, if there is a plot where the <m**2> > 0 and not < 0. Other wise it is to early. I see you actual want this later also. Fine. > Figure 14 is too small. No. > > p15 Cherenkovs column 2, para 1. Rotated 8 (OR IS IT 9 )degrees???? > > last para in this section. REMOVE. USE DATA FROM 200 GEV instead. GET FROM > CLAUS: The paragraph should also be re-phrased. > > para 1 line 4. For the 11b cross section for 1n+1n coinc. we must give a > reference. This is model dependent. 10.7b -- Balz, Chasman, White. > ADD PHOTOGRAPH of a TPC TOP with FEE and RECEIVER CARD. > This is a good idea. In fact the Board has some unique design features, thus the extensive descriuption. > p29 > Get a better figure 30 from Claus Ekman. I belive from what Kris told me yesterday, this is a very recent figure; the earlier figs had clear momentum scale problems, and it is my guess this fig. might well be the T1-D2-T2 momenta, which apparently is ~ 5-10% larger than the t4-D4-T5 momenta. It is fine for the NIM, but hopefully we all can learn more about this soon. > In closing, thanks for the comments, and let this be an encouragement for others to deliver comment to the comittee. Flemming
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Oct 03 2001 - 21:04:44 EDT