Hi Christian, I can respond to some of these: Christian Holm Christensen wrote: >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"? > I agree, and I think it is out of the latest version. > >* 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. > This is a usage that developed early on in our discussion of the si array. I initially used to refer to the 7strip device as a "detector". However, people complained that this was confusing because each individual strip should be considered a "detector", i.e., each "wafer" has seven "detectors". At least with the "wafer" terminology it is not possible to make this mistake. > >* Paragraph 4, line reading > > ... and the remaining two sides populated with two detectors and > one detector, respectively. > > Drop the final "respectively". > I believe the respectively is needed with the way the sentence is structured. > >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? > The ZDC is our hardware trigger. In the analysis, we only use events with multTile>=4 and use the shape of the HIJING multiplicity distribution for the tiles to extrapolate the missing yield with multTile<4. This is explained in the 130 GeV paper and is very similar to the way STAR handles the very low multiplicity events. > >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? > Yes, this is all empirical. However, we do show theory curves with our data where we assume the empirical centrality is related to the theoretical overlap. I think this is what you are saying... > >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? > Well, some things take time to implement.... Although, I don't know who would be working on this -- Hiro picked up where Yuri left off for the analysis in the paper, but he has not worked on the brat code. Djamel has done some really nice things to get a good BB vertex, but I don't think Djamel has been looking at the multiplicity issues? ...steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Nov 22 2001 - 12:42:53 EST