From: Bjorn H Samset (bjornhs@rcf2.rhic.bnl.gov)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 08:26:20 EDT
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Ian Bearden wrote: > Dear Collaborators: > Please find the latest draft attached as .ps and .pdf. Hi all - a few comments to the (overall very good) high-pt draft from me (maybe overlapping with those from SS, ZY etc. from this morning or earlier comments that I just didn't read well enough...). Before I start, though, just a brief report. I've been trying quite hard to produce a reference spectrum from p+p at eta=0, just so we could say that we're consistent with ourselves as well as STAR. I'm _almost_ there, but there's an issue with the higher pt region (above 1.5) where we seen to pick up a lot of particles. This may be related to Dieters comments about the vertex resolution, since pt is not all that well determined when theta is uncertain (yes, I read Ians reply...) Anyway, have a look here to see the current status: http://www.fys.uio.no/~bjornhs/brahms/pp/HpHm_eta=0.gif This is just one of the 4 settings I have (350B) - they all show the same trend (within errors), but I have a problem combining them so I'm only showing one. (It's just a coding bug, but time just ran out on me...) Let me know if anyone is interested in the details. So for the comments: * In the absract: "The restulting ratios (nuclear modification factors)..." This sounds a bit strange in a concise abstract - why not just "The nuclear modification factors for central..." since everything is explained clearly in the text. Also, I find the last sentence very strogly worded, especially since what we say in the paper is that "such an explanation appears improbable." (But I believe this has been discussed before...) * 2nd paragraph: "original medium" -> "produced medium"? original is a bit unclear * 3rd paragraph: Is the formula for eta necesseary? There are lots of other variables that we don't define. * 3rd paragraph: "We have also measured similar spectra (for minimum bias collisions) for the reaction d+Au" -> "We have also measured similar spectra for minimum bias d+Au reactions at..." (I think parantheses look odd in such sentences...) * 4th paragraph: "in the range" -> "in the ranges" * 4th paragraph: \approx 25\% -> \sim 25\% ? * 4th paragraph: Should we ref. the value we use for the d+Au cross section? * 4th paragraph: "The IP position is det." -> "The IP position was det" (keep same tense in whole paragraph). Same thing below: "vertex measurement by the INEL counters _had_ a resolution" * Also here, I really agree with Dieter that we should say more about the d+Au vertex resolution. We will get questions about how we can calc. pt if we don't know the vertex better than this - see also my pp spectrum above. I've done all the "normal" cuts like y-position etc., so it seems to me that we still get a significant contribution from secondaries or particles pushed to higher pt. Maybe just say that the effect of this uncertainty is abs. in the syst. unc.? * 5th paragraph: degrees -> $^{o}$ or something - just as clear, saves space. Also, "displayed" can be removed and the two lines then beginning with "the spectra" can be contracted. * ...agree with Steve on the "and normalized..."-comment... * 6th paragraph: The first sentence is a monster, but I'm not sure how to shorten it... The main problem is that the important part, i.e. "and construct the ratio.", comes way at the end and so is easily missed. * 7th paragraph: Say where we get the Nbin values from? E.g. ", respectively, as calculated from HIJING/Glauber/...") * Some unneeded spaces around refs. 16-18. * 8th paragraph, end: 'wherefore' is a slightly strange word. Use the shorter (but more boring) 'so'? * 9th paragraph: (nearly) -> close-to? 91%? Or just nearly with no paranthesis? * Ref 11: Use nucl-ex/ for both refs * Fig. 1 is very small, while figs 3 and 4 could be reduced. * Ref. the p+p reference data in the caption of fig. 1? * Just a thought - could fig. 3 be made into a row 4 of fig. 2? That would save space and make for easier comparison of the figures? (Maybe this was already discussed...) ...and just for the record: Producing this paper has been a very good effort by those involved, esp. Claus. Thanks for doing all that work :-) -- Bjorn H. Samset Phone: 22856465/92051998 PhD student, heavy ion physics Adr: Schouterrassen 6 Inst. of Physics, University of Oslo 0573 Oslo \|/ ----------------------------> -*- <----------------------------- /|\
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 08:27:18 EDT
