From: Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje (gardhoje@nbi.dk)
Date: Fri Jun 27 2003 - 14:00:12 EDT
Hi Dana Many thanks for your comments. they will find their way in the manuscript over the weekend. cheers JJ ____________________________________________________________ Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Sc. Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. Tlf: (+45) 35 32 53 09, secr. (+45) 35 32 52 09, Fax: (+45) 35 32 50 16. UNESCO Natl. Comm., secr. (+45) 33 92 52 16. Email: gardhoje@nbi.dk. ____________________________________________________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: Dana Beavis To: brahms-l@bnl.gov Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 3:35 PM Subject: Re: high pt paper HI, A few comments to consider: I would change the order of the last two sentences of the abstract. In a couple places sqrt(snn)= 200AGeV, this should be 200GeV. Happens in fig. 1 caption and 1st apargraph of page 2. I thought some inital vs final state effects could be in the introduction thus motivating the use of light on heavy. This could be at the expense of removing some of the chem/them discussion in first paragraph which does not seem as relevant. I am suprized the sigmaZ from beam-beam counters is 1.8 cm. I think it is samller than this. The beam counters are at 2.2 m. Is the resolution of 9 cm from inel used? I have seen presentation that it is 5cm with the adc response giving a positional correction. What is the vertex determination for d+Au from BB + INEL? The STAR PP data -is it published or should we refer to it as preliminary star data. Maybe we want to check with star. Figure 2 Rcp has some low Pt wiggles in it, both eta=0 and 2. Are we sure these are okay? The middle eta=2 panel is missing the Pt=4 point so I do not understand how you get a pt=4 point in the bottom panel. On fig. 3 I note that it appears that the low Pt points are missing. Why? I do not think we invented Rcp so maybe the wording We call this ratio Rcp can be changed and referenced. On figure 3 I would guess that the referee would like more discussion. I do not think partonic energy loss can explain it if high Pt suppression is larger at eta=2. I think this goes as dNgluons/dy times (Rmed)**2 if I understand correctly. I doubt hadronic absorption can give this either. It might be a change in flow (collective motion) or a result of initial state effects such as gluon saturation. Will there be any systematic error bands on this plot? It appears that this is beyond statisctics so the remark similar or even superior seems a bit weak unless the sytematic error bands rule this out. Has anyone estimated the chisq/df this is from flat. D+Au should be d+Au in fig. 4 caption. A reference is need on gluon sat. effects and inital state. effectscontribution needs a space in summary Not sure I like the use of entrance channel, I would prefer initial state. One may want to stress the need for high y data is to examine collisions where the conditions are different from eta=0 and may have sensitivity to initials state effects and changes in the hydrodymanical eveloution which may be different from y=0. A need to high statistics and reduced systematics. dana
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 14:06:45 EDT