Hi all,
Som minor comments on the paper. If some or all of these have been
mentioned before, I'm sorry.
* Paragraph 1, line reading
number of parton (mainly gluon, since $N_g \propto 1/ \alpha_s$)
Shouldn't $N_g$ be explained? And shouldn't it be "partons" and
"gluons"?
* Paragraph 4, lines reading
Four sides of the SiMA were fully populated with six Si detectors
each, one side had one detector, and one side was left
unpopulated. Each Si wafer is ...
I think we should be consistent, and call it either "detector" or
"wafer". I prefer "detector", since a wafer is something that
industry produces, and we make detectors out of those.
* Paragraph 4, line reading
... and the remaining two sides populated with two detectors and
one detector, respectively.
Drop the final "respectively".
* Paragraph 4, line reading
... collisions occurring at the nominal interaction vertex.
I think it should be "interaction point", since a vertex may be
confused with actual collision, or secondary vertex.
* Paragraph 4, line reading
... GEANT simulations ~\cite{Geant} ...
Put the cite after GEANT. Also, the reference should be the one
found at [1]. That is,
\bibitem{Brun:1978fy}
R.~Brun, R.~Hagelberg, M.~Hansroul and J.~C.~Lassalle,
%``Geant: Simulation Program For Particle Physics
% Experiments. User Guide And Reference Manual,''
CERN-DD-78-2-REV
Parapgraph 6, line beginning
The ZDCs provide the minimum bias trigger for the experiment ...
What about the requirement of a least one hit above thresshold in
the TMA and/or SMA? Isn't that part of the min. bias definition?
Paragraph 7, line reading
... assuming that a cut on total multiplicity translates to a cut
on collision centrality.
Isn't the "cut on total multiplicity" more a definition of the
experimental centrality, that we assume corresponds to some nuclear
overlap?
Paragraph 7, line reaing
... the MA and BBC distributions are based on the centrality
measurements of the corresponding array.
Is there a centrality determination from the BB? Then how come
that's not avaliable in BRAT?
Paragraph 8
Why do we quote the isotope numbers of Au?
Paragraph 9, line reading
... the increased projectile kinetic energy ...
Sounds like we're doing a fixed target experiment.
Paragraph 12, line reading
... we obtain: $\alpha=0.98 \pm 0.10 and , 1.04 \pm 0.08$ and
...
Missing $ pair. The above should be
... we obtain: $\alpha=0.98 \pm 0.10$ and, $1.04 \pm 0.08$ and
...
Table 1:
Instead of
$<N_{part}>$
Why don't we use
$\left\langle N_{part} \right\lange$
Looks much nicer, and saves space in the table as well!
Yours,
Christian Holm Christensen -------------------------------------------
Address: Sankt Hansgade 23, 1. th. Phone: (+45) 35 35 96 91
DK-2200 Copenhagen N Cell: (+45) 28 82 16 23
Denmark Office: (+45) 353 25 305
Email: cholm@nbi.dk Web: www.nbi.dk/~cholm
[1] http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?AUTHOR=Brun&TITLE=GEANT%3A+SIMULATION+PROGRAM+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Nov 22 2001 - 09:54:49 EST