From: Ian Bearden (bearden@nbi.dk)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 16:09:41 EDT
Dear Dieter, Now that the kids and wife are in bed, I can get back to work...oh, lucky me! I respond to your comments below. I also note (not to you, specifically, but many of you) that many of the comments could have been made quite some time ago. On tirsdag, jul 1, 2003, at 17:24 Europe/Copenhagen, Dieter Rohrich wrote: > > Hei Ian, > > here are the comments from the Bergen group: > > > 1) We have to change the title because it is misleading; it reads as > if there is a suppression in d+Au. Agree > > Proposal: > "High pt suppression at different pseudorapidities in Au+Au collisions > and > its absence in d+Au at ...." I am still trying to come up with a good title, but this ain't it (and neither are 10 or 15 alternatives I can come up with) Keep trying...we can do better. > > 2) Abstract: > Remove the last two sentences "These measurements .... collisions. The > lack .......collisions." NO > > We should stick to our data and should note make statements we cannot > substantiate. I think that our data substantiate these statements, at least at midrapidity. > > 3) Page 1, Introduction: > > First sentence: replace "i.e." with "e.g.". NO. i.e. is correct here. i.e. is the abbreviation of the Latin id est, meaning that is. e.g. is the abbreviation of examplia gratia, i.e. for example. > > Remove the rest of the paragraph (from "The first ..." until "... > indeed > formed in Au+Au collisions at RHIC."). Continue with "In order to ...." > > We don't need this discussion, and it cannot stay like it is - e.g. > who says e > 5 GeV/fm**3? reference? As has been mentioned several times, and as you well know, this is just the Bjorken estimate (and it is in fact a conservative estimate, Miklos "QGP" Gyulassy says 30 GeV.) I think it is reasonable to have this in, since it somehow makes it reasonable to even talk about the possibility of QGP. I mean there are some who talk about QGP in systems where epsilon< 1GeV/fm3... > > Second paragraph: > First sentence: remove "scattered" Done in the version you should be (v. 4.1) responding to, though I will agree that it is going a bit fast! > Second+third sentences: Rephrase to > "Such particles are associated with jet production from initial > hard parton scatterings. These partons are predicted to suffer > energy loss..... > Last sentence: remove "process is referred to as" and "and" > Last sentence...done > 4) page 2 > Fig. 1: > Figure: replace "N+N" with "p+pbar" > > 5) page 3 > Fig. 3: > Add "Au+Au" to the figure and mention the collision system in the > caption. > > Mention in the next that N_bin is the average number of bin. coll. > > last paragraph: > typo "pseudorapidity" I do not understand what the typo is...what am I missing? > > > 6) page 4 > > 3. paragraph: > remove "directly" appears to be correlated is not much of a statement. > > 4. paragraph /summary: > remove "In fact, the oberservation of a Cronin .... nuclei." > We cannot make such a statement based on our data. Why not? > > > With best wishes, > UiB > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Dieter Roehrich | > Fysisk institutt | Email: Dieter.Rohrich@fi.uib.no > Universitetet i Bergen | Tel: +47-555-82722 > Allegt. 55 | Fax: +47-555-89440 > N-5007 Bergen, Norway | WWW: http://www.fi.uib.no/php/drhrich.html > > On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Ian Bearden wrote: > >> Dear collaborators, >> >> Here is a new version of the High Pt draft. >> I have tried to accommodate most suggestions, as you will perhaps have >> seen in the flurry of emails in the past few hours. >> Please read this draft very carefully (but quickly!). I hope you find >> it acceptable. >> Best regards, >> Ian > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 16:13:48 EDT