Hi JH and Steve.
Thanks for the comments,
please see below.
JJ
> 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 question is what errors to quote?
1) I would think that the 14.3% increase in central mult. should not have
the syst. errors on. If only the stat. count that would give us 14% pm 1%.
2) For the increase of the p+p at midrapidity (also 14%) I don't recall that
we have exact number at the lower energy. This is an extrapolation right? If
we cannit find a better number lets leave the rounded value. TRINE????
3) For the increase of the central over p+p (IS THIS p+p or p+PBAR ????, I
guess the latter) we have 632 +- 55 and 2.48 +- 0.07
After rescaling by 345/2 and adding errors in quadrature I get an
increase of 48 % +- 9%.
I have modified the text accordingly. Please check, someone.
> - 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...."
>
I agree.
I have - I think - solved the Gordic knot, solely by using the carving
knife. Steve, let me hear if you can live with this.
> - 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?
We have X-ray vision, or is it gamma-ray ? It's gone.
>
> - Typos in Table 1: Ncoll numbers cannot be right!
Fixed. But Ncoll may still change - if soemone figures out what HIJING does.
>
> - 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?
>
OK -done.
> - 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?
Note the end of the sentence ... in a wide region around midrapidity ....
So, there are several points that contribute
to the smoothness.
> We might have to add a few more words in the sentence.
Oh- no!
> page10: "...over a wide region of phase space and rapidity."
> Isn't it redundant since rapidity is a kinematic parameter.
>
And old nucl. physicsist like me is used to thinking that phase space is
momentum.
> 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 - 13:16:45 EST