Re: [Brahms-l] Re: paper draft mult d+Au

Hi Ian, JJ, Trine, et al.
It looks like they left us a lot of room.  I think it is doubtful that 
they will be able
to  do a 10% binning, as Trine suggest--Certainly their "analog" 
counting is subject
to the same constraints as ours.   I'm not so sure about the digital, 
but I'd still think
they would be statistics limited.  We probably need to change the title 
of our
paper to include "centrality dependence of".

...steve

On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 08:42 AM, Ian Bearden wrote:

> Hi Steve, JJ,
> I printed it out again, and managed to get to the printer first, this 
> time.
> Phobos only has min. bias results, and they compare to AMPT, HIJING, 
> and parton sat. models.
> The latter, not surprisingly, fails miserably over the entire +-5 
> units of eta, while AMPT and HIJING are over roughly
> eta +-4
> So maybe a PRL after all?
> -Ian
> On 12/11-2003, at 15.13, Stephen J. Sanders wrote:
>
>> Hi JJ,
>> Thanks for the feedback.  I'm open to a Phys. Lett. B submission:  As 
>> a
>> told Ian earlier, my only concern is that from our experience with 
>> the 130 mult
>> paper, its not clear anyone from our community (at least our 
>> competitors...) read
>> the journal!
>>
>> I have not seen anything on the Phobos paper.  Hiro went to the 
>> presentation at
>> the DNP and there they only showed min-bias results (Hiro, correct me 
>> if I am
>> wrong on this).  The paper had not shown up on their web site as of 
>> last
>> evening.
>>
>> I've stated this publicly and privately in the past:  Either we push 
>> this paper through in
>> the next few weeks, or it is going to lose much of its interest.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Steve
>> On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 02:42 PM, Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Steve
>>> I have read the draft for the d+Au. I think it is a nice piece of 
>>> work which is practically finished.
>>> I would suggest to proceed with submission as soon as possible and 
>>> to announce right away our intention to submit in a week.
>>> Where to send it?
>>> I would suggest Physics Letters B.
>>> Perhaps it could even bear a PRL if the discussion section regarding 
>>> the comparison to saturation models is beefed up a bit -although I 
>>> have not had the time to study the PHOBOS paper (is there much 
>>> overlap?).
>>> regards
>>> JJ
>>>  
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Sc.
>>> Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
>>> Tlf: (+45) 35 32 53 09, secr. (+45) 35 32 52 09, Fax: (+45) 35 32 50 
>>> 16.
>>> UNESCO Natl. Comm., secr. (+45) 33 92 52 16.
>>> Email: gardhoje@nbi.dk.
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>  
>>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Brahms-l mailing list
>> Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov
>> http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-l




_______________________________________________
Brahms-l mailing list
Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov
http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-l