People, Seeing as my name is back the author's list, I figure ought to be authorly and make some comments. Take 'em for what they're worth! ----- In general: 1. I thought the concensus was that we going to us SQRT(sNN) and not "AGeV" 2. Why is the pseudo-rapidity of the 130GeV measurement never specified? In the abstract: 1. "densities as a function" - either "densities" should be singular or "functions" should be singular 2. Is there a reference for the 130GeV numbers 3. Error types are specified for the 200GeV number but not the 130GeV number In paragraph 1 1. Is "central question" a pun? :-) 2. "Among these, a saturation of the number of parton (mainly gluon, since...) collisions" is awkward. Would we say, "Among these, a saturation of the number of gluon collisions"? This implies collisions between gluons, and I'm not sure that's what we want to imply. 3. "Recently, indications for a reduction..." should read "Recently, indications of a reduction..." In paragraph 2 1. We have specified that the maximum RHIC energy is 200GeV in paragraph 1, it is not necessary to repeat this here. 2. "...these highly energetic nuclear collisions can be due to hadronic..." should read "these highly energetic nuclear collisions can be due to both hadronic..." 3. "fragment excitations" is mentioned for the first time in the last sentence. Presumably this refers to something earlier in this paragraph? In paragraph 3 1. "In addition, an analysis of charged particle densities for Au+Au reactions at SQRT(sNN)=130GeV that is very similar in method to that presented here..." is somewhat awkward. Perhaps "In addition, a very similar method of analyzing of charged particle densities for Au+Au reactions at SQRT(sNN)=130GeV is presented here..."? I'm a big believer in consistent construction - if paragraph 1 reads "A then B", paragraph 2 ought to read "A' then B'". Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 describe detectors: their purpose and construction, but paragraph 4 specifies the MA's purpose first, and then its construction, while paragraphs 5 & 6 specify construction first and then purpose. Personally, the first question I ask is, "Why do I care?", and this is answered by purpose, so I'd prefer to see purpose first and then construction. In paragraph 4 1. "The MA determines charged particle densities..." - in paragraph 7 we say "The SiMA and TMA total multiplicities". Should "densities" be "multiplicities"? 2. In first sentence, "consist" should read "consists" 3. "mid-rapidity" is used in first sentence before it is defined. Later in this paragraph it is implied it is -4.2<=eta<=2.2, or maybe even -3.0<=eta<=3.0. 5. The word "dimensioned" is unnecessary. 6. Descriptions of SiMA and TMA should be the same. Perhaps: "Four sides of the hexagonal TMA barrel were fully populated with 8 plastic scintillator tiles each, while one had two tiles and the other had only one tile. The tiles were 12cm x 12cm x 0.5cm and were 13.9cm from the beam axis." In paragraph 5 1. I'd like to see the first sentence read something like: "The BBC extends BRAHMS' pseudo-rapidity coverage from the MA's from |eta|<=2.2 to |eta|<=4.7." or something like that. 2. In paragraph 3 "Beam-Beam counter arrays (BBC)" definition makes Arrays both inconsistent and redundant in "The BBC Arrays consist..." 3. "The time resolution of the BBC elements..." - what are the "elements"? Perhaps this word isn't necessary? 4. "...found by dividing the measured ADC signal by that corresponding to..." should read "...found by dividing the measured ADC signal by the ADC signal of..." In paragraph 6 1. I'd like the last sentence to be the first. 2. Does "Zero Degree Calorimeter detectors" make sense? If not, drop the "detectors" in "ZDC detectors". 3. Why are the ZDC footnoted but the MA and BBC are not? 4. A space is needed following the "[10]". In paragraph 7 1. In the first sentence, what we're saying is the reaction centrality is determined by a cut in the total multiplicity, and I don't think we want to say this. How this should be said I haven't a clue. 2. In the second sentence, (dN/deta) is a particle density, right? So "In analyzing particle densities in (dN/deta)..." is a little awkward. Maybe: "In analyzing particle densities as a function of pseudo-rapidity..." or just "In analyzing (dN/deta)..."? 3. "MA and BBC distributions" of what? Shouldn't "distributions" be "particle densities" or "multiplicities"? 4. "...using both centrality selections..." - what is a "selection"? In paragraph 8 1. "figure 1" should read "Figure 1" 2. It is unclear how "3.7+/-0.3 charged particles per pair" is calculated. If it is from (N(integrated)|(0%<=centrality5%)/2)/[(dN/deta)|(eta=0, 0%<=centrality5%), then "By integrating the most central distribution..." needs to precede "This corresponds, by division..." because the integrated total number density is used in the calculation of the charged particles per pair. In paragraph 9 1. "fragmentation" and "fragment baryons" are used, recalling paragraph 2, but no definition. 2. "...as evidenced by the observed increase of the multiplicities per participant pair around the center of mass rapidity." - how do I see this in Figure 2? What I see is a monotonically decreasing function. What is the "center of mass rapidity"? In paragraph 10 1. "full drawn" should everywhere be "solid" 2. "Also shown in Figure 3 (dotted lines)..." should read "The dashed lines" 3. "...but including final..." should read either "...but includes final..." or "...includes final..." In paragraph 11 1. "...for a central plateau..." - what plateau? I don't see a plateau, certainly not over the range specified. In paragraph 12 1. "table 1" should read "Table 1" 2. We need a comma after [19]. 3. the functional should read (dN/deta)/(Npart/2) where all of "part" is subscripted 4. We're calculating an alpha and a beta for each eta, so I think this ought to read "alpha= #, beta=# and alpha=#, beta=#, respectively." In any case, we need to lose the italics on the "and" and we need a comma before the "respectively". 5. "What do I get from the comparison of the various alphas? If it's nothing more than they're consistent with one another, then we should say they're consistent. The word "comparison" makes me want to compare them: alpha(200GeV, 0.0) < alpha(130GeV)<alpha(200GeV, 3.0), and I'm not sure there's anything noteworthy in this. 6. Is it an "interpretation" that is model dependent, or a "calculation"? We calculate alpha and beta, and this calculation is model dependent because we get the Ncoll and Npart from model calculations. An "interpretation" is supposed to tell me what 'it' means, and the 'what it means' here is that some fraction of (dN/deta)/(Npart/2) is due to Ncoll and the rest is due to Npart. 7. "...for the more peripheral collisions the curves become..." should read "...for the more peripheral collisions, the curves become..." In paragraph 13 1. Are the data really that "well reproduced by calculations..." IMHO, no one figure, taken in its entirety shows a well done reproduction by either model. 2. Examples of "other models not requiring saturation effects"? If we aren't going to show this is true with a figure or two, we shouldn't say it. In paragraph 14 1. nada About Figures in general 1. What is the meaning of the "ch" in (dNch/deta) - this notation has not been defined in the paper. 2. A consistent font size is needed for axis labels. 3. IMHO, all scales in a given figure should be the same. I know this won't work for Figure 3, but I still felt obligated to say this. 4. No two ways around it, plots on the same row within given figure must have consistent y-axes, and this is not the case for Figures 3 & 4. In Figure 1. 1. Drop the "Top Panel:" 2. "smaller" should be "they are larger" In Table 1 1. In the paper it is referred to as "Table 1" not "Table I". 2. Reference for <Ncoll> should be here as well as in paper. 3. In the two column .ps file I printed out, the table got lopped off midway through the N(integrated) column In Figure 2 1. I have a notation that reads "centrality?!?" next to the 130GeV BRAHMS data, but I don't remember now what bothered me about this. In Figure 3 1. "Distribution" should be plural 2. "full drawn line" should be "solid line" In Figure 4 1. The y-axis label is unclear. The division line needs to be much bigger and/or the quantities should be parantheses 2. Drop the plot labels "(a)", etc, unless we're actually going to use them in the Figure text. 2. "...and 130GeV compared to the models." Should read "... and 130GeV. The curves show predictions by the Kharzeev and Levin model (solid line) and the AMPT model (dashed line.) 3. A period is needed at the end of the last sentence. In Figure 5 1. The bottom set of data/lines make it difficult to tell which lines, if any, are increasing, and which are decreasing - tick marks on both sides would help, lines across the plot would be even better. 2. A legend for the data points vs. rapidity is needed. ----- Have a care, James Norris PS Please note my NEW home address & phone and email address below: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ University of Kansas email: jnorris@ku.edu Dept of Physics & Astronomy Phone: 785-864-4889 Malott Hall Rm#B008 Lawrence KS 66045 FAX: 785-864-5262 Home Address: 810 Ash St Wamego KS 66547 Home Phone: 785-456-7059 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | WWW Homepage: www.people.ku.edu/~jnorris/ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Perhaps we are the first to talk and think and build and aspire, but | | we may not be the last. Others may follow us in this adventure... | | We owe it to that possible future to let their potential survive. | ---------------------------| David Brin |----------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Nov 21 2001 - 09:20:58 EST