Dear JJ and Steve, I have a few minor comments on the latest draft. - I think it might be nice to put errors on percentages of increases from 130 to 200 GeV instead of saying "about" since we measured both numbers and "know" errors on the values. page 1: "increases by about 14% for the most central..." page 5: multiplicities of about 14%.." page 5: This value is 20% higher than..." - The text still claims that dN/deta values at |eta|<2 were measured by Si+Tile, which is not correct. page 2: "Particle densities are deduced from the observed energy loss in the SiMA and TMA..." page 2: The SiMA and TMA total multiplicities are averaged after accounting for the different geometric acceptances...." - BB Multiplicity: page 2: "... as founded by dividing the measured ADC signal by that corresponding to a single primary particle hitting the detector" How do we know it's a PRIMARY particle? - Typos in Table 1: Ncoll numbers cannot be right! - page 2: The BRAHMS experiment consists of .... identified charged particles over a wide range of pseudorapidity and..." We identify particles. Why not saying rapidity instead of pesudorapidity? - Conclusion: page 9: "In conclusion, we find that the charged particle production scales smoothly from 130 GeV to 200 GeV in ..." To me, it sounds a little bit strange. How can we tell if something scales smoothly between ONLY two measurements? And scales to what? We might have to add a few more words in the sentence. page10: "...over a wide region of phase space and rapidity." Isn't it redundant since rapidity is a kinematic parameter. JH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje" <gardhoje@nbi.dk> To: <brahms-l@bnl.gov> Cc: <gardhoje@nbi.dk> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 8:38 AM Subject: mult. version 3.6 Dear friends Enclosed please find version 3.6 of the mult paper. The following has happened: 1) some words have been removed, some changed, mostly for ease of reading and shortening. The title has not been changed. I like it the way it is -even though it covers 2 lines. 2) I have assumed that we modify figure 3 and plot the p+p distributions in panels a) and d) multiplied by the relevant npart/2. HIRO this is probably the last mod. we ask of you! Well, actually, could you cahnge the p+p triangle in fig 5 to a star? 3) The width increase is noted and compared to the p+p width. The ref. is added. We might (not done yet) add a sentence about a possible cause - is there a plausible explanation? MM suggests that this might be due to more hard scatterings for the central. I would have made it closer to p+p. A QGP on the other hand ..... 4) A few words have been added to the discussion of figure 4. cheers JJ ________________________________ Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje Assoc. prof. Dr. Scient. Chair Ph.D: school of Physics NBI.f.AFG. (secretariat. 35 32 04 41) Chair science committee. UNESCO Natl. Commission. (secretariat. 33 92 52 16) Office: Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. Tlf: (+45) 35 32 53 09 Fax: (+45) 35 32 50 16 ________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Nov 27 2001 - 11:48:20 EST