From: Ian Bearden (bearden@nbi.dk)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 07:35:31 EDT
Hej Børge, I think I got all of your comments. Thanks for taking the time to read this so carefully. Best regards, Ian On tirsdag, jul 1, 2003, at 12:10 Europe/Copenhagen, Borge Svane Nielsen wrote: > Hello, > > A few final comments to details: > > Reference 12,13,14 appear out of order. Put the NIM paper as ref 12. Good catch! DONE. > > Page 2 col. 2. around the IP. --> around the intersection point > (IP). > IP is defined earlier in the paragraph > Page 3 col. 1, bottom. Nbin = 897 ... > It is not clear which Nbin value goes where in Fig. 2. Needs > re-writing. How about: For the most central (0-10%) bin we use Nbin=897, and for the most peripheral(40-60%) bin Nbin=78. > 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. > OK > 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. OK > > Page 3, col 2, middle. " ... systematic error on our reference ... --> > " ... systematic error from our reference ..." > Formula for Rcp: change * to \times OK > > Page 3, col 2 last paragraph: psuedorapidity --> pseudorapidities > > Page 4, first line: R(eta)=... Add: "shown in figure 3." OK > > Fig 3 caption. should probably be "Ratio .. at eta=2.2 and eta=0.0 .." OK > > 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]" I agree. I'll add "...,as discussed in [ref]" > > Page 4, col 2. reference [21] should go at the end of the sentence, or > at the beginning: "It has been proposed [21] ..." OK > > Fill in reference [17] and [18] > done > 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 - 07:39:09 EDT