Dear Jens Jorgen and Steve,
this paper gets better all the
time. I like very much the
comparison to pp and the discussion of Eta_rms. I have a few comments
on version 3.7
Physics:
=======
a) FWHM v RMS
I think it is better to use Eta_RMS rather than FWHM since it (and its error)
are better defined. For FWHM do you use the maximum of the multiplicity
or the value at eta=0? We show that the dNch/dEta has a larger width for
200GeV than at 130GeV, yet we say that the FWHM are equal within errors.
Trine has done a good job of showing that eta_RMS is significantly different
for 130 and 200GeV.
Note that both the RMS and FWHM don't change if you move all the dNch/dEta
points up or down by some percentage.
In the discussion of Figure 4 there is a confusing latex error.
I presume that
"14\% for the most central collisions and \12% for the most peripheral."
should read
"14\% for the most central collisions and 12\% for the most peripheral. "
However do you really mean 12% for the most peripheral? This seems
inconsistent with panel (d) of Fig. 4 where I would guess a 5% increase.
Also you say nothing about the models. It seems to me that both
overestimate the increase from 130-200GeV for |eta|<2.0.
For the discussion of hard/soft collision via alpha and beta why do you
contrast eta=0 with eta=3? Why not compare eta=0 with eta=4.5 since this
emphasises our wide acceptance. Are the values of alpha and beta listed really
for eta=4.5?
Also it is very nice to compare to pp but why not do it for all 3 etas. Figure
3 shows
that we have the data. Figure 5 could be redrawn using open symbols for AuAu
and closed symbols for pp.
Figures:
Fig 2. horizontally align the AuAu (PbPb) sqrt(s) symbols to make the leged
pretier.
Fig 3. Add a legend to panel (c) showing open circles for AuAu and closed
boxes
for pp.
Make Figs 3, 4 and 5 consistent by using open symbols for our data and closed
symbols for pp. Make sure that our data is "on top" of the theory lines by
plotting
the theory first and then the data twice.
Plot solid white circles first and then open circles on top of them.
Do not use "distributions of" since this seems redundent.
Fig 4.
Reduce the amount of white space by setting the top scale to be 2.15.
Use 1.0 and 2.0 for the y axis.
Fig 5.
Show pp data for each eta. Label the curves and data sets
with eta=0.0, eta=3.0 and eta=4.5. This can be done on the right had side if
you
extend the x asix to 450. Why not show horizontal errors?
Citations:
If possible they should go at the end of a sentance.
Notation:
We should be consistent and use dNch/dEta throughout the text.
Sometimes we use <n_part> and sometime n_part. For Table 1 we
have to use n_part so why not use n_part everywhere.
After Figure 2 we are always talking about |eta| not eta so why not use
that in the figures. Also when describing the detectors they always have
symetric eta ranges so why not use |eta|<4.7 etc to emphasize this symetry
save space.
Save 2 lines!
==========
The ZDCs also locate the interaction point with an accuracy of $\approx$~3.6~cm.
and at the end
We thank the RHIC collider team for their %support to the experiment. This work
excellent work. This study
was supported by the Division of Nuclear Physics
Typos:
decreasing to about 10% for the most peripheral collisions. We note that
decreasing to about 10\% for the most peripheral collisions. We note that
7.1 b should be 7.1b
Periods.
and the Romanian Ministry of Research. % No space
We are grateful to Drs D. Kharzeev % No period after Drs
Dear Jens Jorgen and Steve,
this paper gets better all the time. I like very much the
comparison to pp and the discussion of Eta_rms. I have a few comments
on version 3.7
Physics:
=======
a) FWHM v RMS
I think it is better to use Eta_RMS rather than FWHM since it (and its error)
are better defined. For FWHM do you use the maximum of the multiplicity
or the value at eta=0? We show that the dNch/dEta has a larger width for
200GeV than at 130GeV, yet we say that the FWHM are equal within errors.
Trine has done a good job of showing that eta_RMS is significantly different
for 130 and 200GeV.
Note that both the RMS and FWHM don't change if you move all the dNch/dEta
points up or down by some percentage.
In the discussion of Figure 4 there is a confusing latex error.
I presume that
"14\% for the most central collisions and \12% for the most peripheral."
should read
"14\% for the most central collisions and 12\% for the most peripheral. "
However do you really mean 12% for the most peripheral? This seems
inconsistent with panel (d) of Fig. 4 where I would guess a 5% increase.
Also you say nothing about the models. It seems to me that both
overestimate the increase from 130-200GeV for |eta|<2.0.
For the discussion of hard/soft collision via alpha and beta why do you
contrast eta=0 with eta=3? Why not compare eta=0 with eta=4.5 since this
emphasises our wide acceptance. Are the values of alpha and beta listed really
for eta=4.5?
Also it is very nice to compare to pp but why not do it for all 3 etas. Figure 3 shows
that we have the data. Figure 5 could be redrawn using open symbols for AuAu
and closed symbols for pp.
Figures:
Fig 2. horizontally align the AuAu (PbPb) sqrt(s) symbols to make the leged pretier.
Fig 3. Add a legend to panel (c) showing open circles for AuAu and closed boxes
for pp.
Make Figs 3, 4 and 5 consistent by using open symbols for our data and closed
symbols for pp. Make sure that our data is "on top" of the theory lines by plotting
the theory first and then the data twice.
Plot solid white circles first and then open circles on top of them.
Do not use "distributions of" since this seems redundent.
Fig 4.
Reduce the amount of white space by setting the top scale to be 2.15.
Use 1.0 and 2.0 for the y axis.
Fig 5.
Show pp data for each eta. Label the curves and data sets
with eta=0.0, eta=3.0 and eta=4.5. This can be done on the right had side if you
extend the x asix to 450. Why not show horizontal errors?
Citations:
If possible they should go at the end of a sentance.
Notation:
We should be consistent and use dNch/dEta throughout the text.
Sometimes we use <n_part> and sometime n_part. For Table 1 we
have to use n_part so why not use n_part everywhere.
After Figure 2 we are always talking about |eta| not eta so why not use
that in the figures. Also when describing the detectors they always have
symetric eta ranges so why not use |eta|<4.7 etc to emphasize this symetry
save space.
Save 2 lines!
==========
The ZDCs also locate the interaction point with an accuracy of $\approx$~3.6~cm.
and at the end
We thank the RHIC collider team for their %support to the experiment. This work
excellent work. This study
was supported by the Division of Nuclear Physics
Typos:
decreasing to about 10% for the most peripheral collisions. We note that
decreasing to about 10\% for the most peripheral collisions. We note that
7.1 b should be 7.1b
Periods.
and the Romanian Ministry of Research. % No space
We are grateful to Drs D. Kharzeev % No period after Drs
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Nov 27 2001 - 16:21:54 EST