Re: Draft 4.0

From: Borge Svane Nielsen (borge@alf.nbi.dk)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 06:10:19 EDT

  • Next message: Bjorn H Samset: "Congratulations to Elin and Mads"
    Hello,
    
    A few final comments to details:
    
    Reference 12,13,14 appear out of order. Put the NIM paper as ref 12.
    
    Page 2 col. 2.  around the IP.  -->  around the intersection point (IP).
    
    Page 3 col. 1, bottom. Nbin = 897 ...
        It is not clear which Nbin value goes where in Fig. 2. Needs
        re-writing.
    Next sentance:  "For the d+Au ... 0.3."  should, I think be moved to the
        d+Au discussion of Fig 3.
    
    Page 3 col 1-2. The Npart/Nbin is not very clear. How about:
        Take away "The R(AuAu) .. 2GeV/c."  (because  participant scaling is
        not yet described), then continue with:
    
        The R(AuAu) rise from values of 0.2-0.4 at low pT to a maximum at
        pT \approx 2 GeV/c. The low pT part of the spectrum is associated with
        soft collisions and should therefore scale with the number of
        participants, rather than Nbin. Thus the applied scaling with the
        (larger) Nbin value reduces R(AuAu) to a value below 1 at the lower
        pT.
    
    Same paragraph:  "... R(AuAu) at CERN-SPS .."
        Is this really R(AuAu), or rather R(AA)  ?
        In fact, why not drop it and write:
         "In fact measurements at CERN-SPS ..."  because R(AA) comes later.
    
    Page 3, col 2, middle.  " ... systematic error on our reference ... -->
                            " ... systematic error from our reference ..."
    Formula for Rcp:  change * to \times
    
    Page 3, col 2 last paragraph:  psuedorapidity --> pseudorapidities
    
    Page 4, first line: R(eta)=...  Add:  "shown in figure 3."
    
    Fig 3 caption. should probably be "Ratio .. at eta=2.2 and eta=0.0 .."
    
    Page 4, col 1.  reference [22] is out of order:  should be [20]
        I also find that this reference is badly placed as is. The sentence
        describes our data, ending with a reference to a theory paper (I
        think). If we want to reference theory here, it warrants a short
        sentence at the end of the paragraph, or at least a "as discussed in
        [20]"
    
    Page 4, col 2. reference [21] should go at the end of the sentence, or
        at the beginning: "It has been proposed [21] ..."
    
    Fill in reference [17] and [18]
    
    That's it
    Børge
    
    +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Børge Svane Nielsen                 E-mail:  borge@nbi.dk              |
    | Technical Coordinator               http://www.nbi.dk/~borge           |
    | Niels Bohr Institute                Phone:   (+45) 3532 5433           |
    | University of Copenhagen            Fax:     (+45) 3532 5465           |
    | Blegdamsvej 17,  DK-2100 Copenhagen O,  Denmark                        |
    +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 06:14:02 EDT