From: Ian Bearden (bearden@nbi.dk)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 07:54:07 EDT
Hej Zhongbao, Thanks for the comments, I have taken most of them and put them in. There is still some discussion about whether we should use Rapidity or Pseudorapidity in the title (and a few other places). Your vote is important and has been counted! Thanks again, Ian On tirsdag, jul 1, 2003, at 12:09 Europe/Copenhagen, yin.zhongbao@fi.uib.no wrote: > Dear Ian. > > The latest draft looks great. Just a few minor comments. > > 1) Can we change rapidity to pseudorapidity in the whole draft? > > 2) Can we drop the dot at the end of the title? Yes. (and we have!) > > 3) The last sentence of paragraph 2: > "This process is referred to as high p_T suppression..." > The process you described above actually is called "jet quenching". > And high p_T suppression as far as we know is only an experimental > observation or phenomenon. You are correct. Still, we need not be so pedantic, I think. > > 4) In paragraph 4: > "...using multiplicity detectors positioned around the IP. The IP > position..." > Since the meaning of the two IPs is slightly different, I would use > "... around the nominal IP" for the first one. I think this is too fine a hair to split in a Letter. > > 5) FIG. 2 caption: > "Bottom row: ratio of the ... for the most central and most > peripheral > collisions..." > I would use "...for the most central (0-10%) and peripheral (40-60%) > collisions" since 40-60% central is not the most peripheral. > I do not agree. 40-60 is in fact the most peripheral data in our sample. > 6) Can we use <Nbin> instead of Nbin in order to be consistent with our > multiplicity paper? No > > 7) In paragraph 7: > "Beyond p_T \approx 2Gev/c, R_AuAu is expected to be close to 1." > It sounds like something is missing. I would suggest to write it along > the > lines of > "Beyond p_T \approx 2Gev/c, R_AuAu is expected to be close to 1 if > ... > (for example no coherent effects.)" > Isn't this obvious? If things scale as expected (with Nbin) then this should be near 1. Or have I just been looking at this for too long? > 8) FIG. 4: > > For the title I would use "Nuclear Modification Factor". OK > > In the caption, change "colliisons" to "collisions". > but these are a special class of colliisons...nice catch, it is fixed! > 9) In the summary: > > "The suppression is seen to diminish with decreasing collision > centrality > and is absent in collisions between a two-nucleon system and a gold > nucleus." > > I would suggest to write it as simple as: > "The suppression is seen to diminish with decreasing collision > centrality > and is absent in d+Au collisions." OK > > Cheers. > Zhongbao > -------- > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Ian Bearden wrote: > >> Dear Collaborators: >> Please find the latest draft attached as .ps and .pdf. >> This draft has the final figures, as we see them. >> This should be considered a 'final draft' The idea is to submit to >> PRL >> before midnight tomorrow, >> so please make your comments quickly. We would appreciate very much >> if, where possible, you provide a suggestion as to how to change >> things >> you don't like while keeping in mind that we are very close to the >> allowable length for PRL. >> Enjoy reading the draft, and please comment as quickly as possible. >> Best regards, >> Claus and Ian >> > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------- > Zhongbao YIN Phone: +47-55-582792 (O) > Address: +47-55-276803 (H) > Fantoftveien 14G 466 E-mail: > 5075 Bergen Yin.Zhongbao@fi.uib.no > ------------------------------------------------------ > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 07:55:05 EDT