Hi collaborators,
A few comments on the latest draft (2col version):
I agree with the choice of figures. The present figure 5 is
more easy to discuss in terms of physics interpretations, even though
there are unresolved issues connected with Npart - or maybe with the
correspondence between the centrality ranges selected by models
and by experiment.
About the title: Is it possible to find one which stresses the experimental
fact - that this is the first dN/dEta measurement over the full Eta range
for the RHIC top energy (since our interpretation is so inconclusive) -
and maybe one that fits on one line?
For some of the figures the caption is not consistent with what is
actually plotted (as far as I can see):
Fig. 1 - include syst. error bars for a few representative SiMA points
too?
Fig. 2 - where are the total uncertainties for the BRAHMS points?
What is the centrality range plotted for 130 GeV data - 0-5%?
Fig. 3 - also see no total uncertainties indicated.
Fig. 5 - Eta = 1.5 data set not plotted. Also, do the K&L data
actually extend to Eta = 4.5?
Some comments / questions regarding the text:
Page 2, column 1, paragraph 3: "(estimated to include 97% of the nuclear
reaction cross section)" Uncertainty in fraction of cross section?
Page 2, column 2, paragraph 1, on integrated dN/dEta: "This value is
20% higher than for 130 GeV reactions". Reference to ourselves / Phobos?
Same paragraph: "The similar number for proton-proton collisions at this
energy is 2.5, also a 14% increase as compared to the lower energy".
Possible reference for pp at 200 GeV: {alner86} commented out in present
draft. Where does the 130 GeV number come from - parametrization or data?
Page 3, column 1, first paragraph (discussion of Fig 4): The upturn
of the ratios at forward Eta is much more pronounced at central than
at peripheral collisions, a feature not shown by the models. Could a
physics point be made of this / should this be commented upon in any way?
Page 3, column 1, second paragraph (discussion of Fig 5): We use for
Ncoll values taken from the Ncoll(Npart) function estimated in [19], at our
Npart numbers, not K&N's Ncoll numbers directly.
I also checked the alpha, beta numbers for typos:
200 GeV, Eta=0: Alpha OK, Beta 0.25+-0.04
Eta=3 Alpha 1.05+-0.08, Beta 0.09+-0.03
130 GeV Eta=0 Alpha OK, Beta 0.18+-0.04
Eta=3 Alpha OK, Beta 0.02+-0.04
Depending on whether you calculate the hard component as:
Beta*Ncoll/(dN/dEta),
or: 1 - (Alpha*Npart/(2*dN/dEta)) (1 - soft component)
you get (43+-7)% and (36+-7)% as in present text, or
(46+-6)% and (37+-6)% (slightly closer to significant ;-))
(All parameters still fitted using point-to-point relative errors of 0.03.)
That's all for tonight .....
Best wishes,
Trine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Nov 20 2001 - 16:54:28 EST