From: Peter H. L. Christiansen (pchristi@nbi.dk)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 05:43:40 EDT
Hi I went over the paper with the others here in C last evening, so I just have very few comments : * Do we quote an estimate of the initial energy density in any of our mult paper. If we do so we should cite it with the e>5GeV. I looked but could not find it. * 97% of total Au+Au cross section should be 95% as in our 200 GeV mult paper just to be consistent. I guess like FV said that nobody has really done this estimate or .... * It would good with a sentence like this before we mention the 30% systematic error : The systematic error on the \eta=0 data is estimated to be XX %. and a sentence like this after we talk about that most systematic errors cancel : The systematic error on Rcp was estimated to be XX % at both pseudorapidities. And if we know : This systemnatic error primarily comes from .... But I think we should at least quote the values we use. I guess we should also mention the momentum resolution since that is somehow interesting to know. Maybe a sentence like : At each pseudorapidity many different mangnetic field settings were combined to give a broad p_T coverage. The momentum resolution in the settings used to measure the highest p_T values was dp/p~0.020 (MRS at \eta=0) and dp/p~0.0015 (FS at \eta=2.2). The effect on the spectra was estimated to be small (<3%) at all p_T and no correction has been applied. (The last statement is justified by the analysis done by Trine.) Cheers Peter -- :-) --------------------------- )-: Peter H L Christiansen @ NBI EMAIL : pchristi@nbi.dk OFFICE : Tb1@NBI (353 25269) HOME : Frimestervej 22, 1. tv PHONE : 35824930/40840492 :-D --------------------------- \-:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 05:47:24 EDT