Hello, A few comments on the paper. Michael tells me that the dotted line in figure 3 should k-/k+ = (pbar/p)**1/3 (not 1/4) Which is correct? That shows up in the fig4 caption and in text discussing it. Should there also be a reference? For your comment regarding Becattini, I agree that it is too easy to pull two points off a curve and plot a straight line. If it is coming off a curve, one should make it a curve and not a straight line. And it is a slight curve. For your AMPT comment, I would support keeping it in, but at least put the results on the figures and discuss that. Do we have the space for that? Regards Kris Claus O. E. Jorgensen wrote: >Hi, > >You can find the next (and almost final) draft of the ratios paper here: > >http://www.nbi.dk/~ekman/RatioDraft2.04.ps >http://www.nbi.dk/~ekman/RatioDraft2.04.pdf > >There's a few things I don't understand completely (marked with ????). >I would like to change a few things before we submit. > >- The pid plot will be nicer with the new data, I'll try to look at this > tomorrow. > >- The two first sentences in the summary are not good, but I can't come up > with something better at the moment. > >- In my opinion we should either skip the AMPT comparison or conclude more > from it. > >- I don't like the idea of reading two points of a curve, plot a straight > line between and quote a paper (Becattini). It's a bit too easy. > >- We should (once more) check up on the NA49 data. The data is taken > from some plot (Trine?) and the errors are just added ad hoc. > >Cheers, > >Claus > >+-------------------------------------------------------------+ >| Claus Jørgensen | >| Cand. Scient. Phone : (+45) 33 32 49 49 | >| Cell : (+45) 27 28 49 49 | >| Niels Bohr Institute, Ta-2, Office : (+45) 35 32 53 07 | >| Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2100, E-mail : ekman@nbi.dk | >| University of Copenhagen Home : www.nbi.dk/~ekman/ | >+-------------------------------------------------------------+ >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jun 28 2002 - 16:34:25 EDT